8.4.2. Off-Road Equipment
Phase Name Equipment Type Model Parameter Default Value New Value Grading Scrapers Number per Day 1.000000 2.00000
447
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 49 / 52
8.5. Operations
8.5.1. Mobile Sources
8.5.1.1. Vehicle Data
Land Use Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Condo/Townhouse Weekday Trip Rate size/day 7.32000 7.20000 Condo/Townhouse Saturday Trip Rate size/day 8.14000 8.76000 Condo/Townhouse Sunday Trip Rate size/day 6.28000 7.17000
8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix
Land Use Season Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value Condo/Townhouse A Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 1% < 0.5%
Condo/Townhouse A Passenger Cars % 49% 50%
Condo/Townhouse A Light-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% 4%
Condo/Townhouse A Light-Duty Trucks 2 % 24% 24%
Condo/Townhouse A Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1 % 3% 3%
Condo/Townhouse A Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2 % 1% < 0.5% Condo/Townhouse A Motorcycles % 2% 2%
Condo/Townhouse A Medium-Duty Trucks % 15% 15%
Condo/Townhouse A Motor Homes % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/Townhouse A Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 2% 1%
Condo/Townhouse A Other Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/Townhouse A School Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/Townhouse A Urban Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/Townhouse S Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 1% < 0.5%
Condo/Townhouse S Passenger Cars % 49% 50%
Condo/Townhouse S Light-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% 4%
448
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 50 / 52
Condo/TownhouseS Light-Duty Trucks 2% 24% 24%
Condo/TownhouseS Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1% 3% 3%
Condo/TownhouseS Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 1% < 0.5%
Condo/TownhouseS Motorcycles% 2% 2%
Condo/TownhouseS Medium-Duty Trucks% 15% 15%
Condo/TownhouseS Motor Homes% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/TownhouseS Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 2% 1%
Condo/TownhouseS Other Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/TownhouseS School Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/TownhouseS Urban Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/TownhouseW Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 1% < 0.5%
Condo/TownhouseW Passenger Cars% 49% 50%
Condo/TownhouseW Light-Duty Trucks 1% 4% 4%
Condo/TownhouseW Light-Duty Trucks 2% 24% 24%
Condo/TownhouseW Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1% 3% 3%
Condo/TownhouseW Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 1% < 0.5%
Condo/TownhouseW Motorcycles% 2% 2%
Condo/TownhouseW Medium-Duty Trucks% 15% 15%
Condo/TownhouseW Motor Homes% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/TownhouseW Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 2% 1%
Condo/TownhouseW Other Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/TownhouseW School Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Condo/TownhouseW Urban Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking LotA Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 1% < 0.5%
Parking LotA Passenger Cars% 49% 50%
Parking LotA Light-Duty Trucks 1% 4% 4%
Parking LotA Light-Duty Trucks 2% 24% 24%
Parking LotA Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1% 3% 3%
449
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 51 / 52
Parking LotA Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 1% < 0.5%
Parking LotA Motorcycles% 2% 2%
Parking LotA Medium-Duty Trucks% 15% 15%
Parking LotA Motor Homes% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking LotA Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 2% 1%
Parking LotA Other Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking LotA School Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking LotA Urban Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking LotS Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 1% < 0.5%
Parking LotS Passenger Cars% 49% 50%
Parking LotS Light-Duty Trucks 1% 4% 4%
Parking LotS Light-Duty Trucks 2% 24% 24%
Parking LotS Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1% 3% 3%
Parking LotS Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 1% < 0.5%
Parking LotS Motorcycles% 2% 2%
Parking LotS Medium-Duty Trucks% 15% 15%
Parking LotS Motor Homes% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking LotS Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 2% 1%
Parking LotS Other Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking LotS School Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking LotS Urban Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking LotW Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 1% < 0.5%
Parking LotW Passenger Cars% 49% 50%
Parking LotW Light-Duty Trucks 1% 4% 4%
Parking LotW Light-Duty Trucks 2% 24% 24%
Parking LotW Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1% 3% 3%
Parking LotW Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 1% < 0.5%
Parking LotW Motorcycles% 2% 2%
450
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 52 / 52
Parking Lot W Medium-Duty Trucks % 15% 15%
Parking Lot W Motor Homes % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking Lot W Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 2% 1%
Parking Lot W Other Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking Lot W School Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Parking Lot W Urban Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
8.5.2. Area Sources
8.5.2.1. Hearths
Land Use Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Condo/Townhouse Wood Fireplaces — 7 0
Condo/Townhouse Gas Fireplaces — 116 137
Condo/Townhouse No Fireplaces — 14 0
Condo/Townhouse Wood Mass lb/year 1,019 0
Condo/Townhouse Catalytic Wood Stoves — 7 0
Condo/Townhouse Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves — 7 0
Condo/Townhouse Days/Year — 25 0
Condo/Townhouse Wood Mass lb/year 1,000 0
451
Appendix B
EMFAC Vehicle Fuel Consumption Data
452
Source: EMFAC2025 (v2.0.0) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Air District
Region: South Coast AQMD
Calendar Year: 2027
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for Combustion VMT and Electric VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, kg/day for Hydrogen Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population Total VMT Fuel Consumption Fuel Split
(Gas:Diesel)
MPG,
by Fuel Type
MPG,
Average
South Coast AQMD 2027 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 119.9786149 5039.865379 1.292650238 0.000563395 3.898862377 6.389554723 South Coast AQMD 2027 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 104694.0021 14655111.19 2293.100573 0.999436605 6.390958758 South Coast AQMD 2027 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4365511.132 122279941.4 4660.5255 0.998717608 26.23737203 26.24952527 South Coast AQMD 2027 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9374.916105 213725.4271 5.984296501 0.001282392 35.71437797 South Coast AQMD 2027 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 459882.6443 13188498.87 592.399392 0.999836848 22.26285011 22.26280131 South Coast AQMD 2027 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 100.2449672 2123.159791 0.096666669 0.000163152 21.96372145 South Coast AQMD 2027 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2600590.744 87049580.58 3892.623714 0.998710425 22.36270109 22.37298592 South Coast AQMD 2027 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4676.709905 152488.5502 5.026311659 0.001289575 30.3380611 South Coast AQMD 2027 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 191914.015 6082376.492 432.8421995 0.751295699 14.05217998 15.68707413 South Coast AQMD 2027 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 90403.37187 2955380.11 143.2854155 0.248704301 20.62582643 South Coast AQMD 2027 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 39728.80291 1417530.56 108.3207185 0.374131726 13.08642132 16.2498921 South Coast AQMD 2027 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 78414.06531 3287229.466 181.2048979 0.625868274 18.14095261 South Coast AQMD 2027 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 254728.5887 1430122.847 36.57939924 1 39.09640062 39.09640062 South Coast AQMD 2027 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1618820.697 53179824.35 2922.694912 0.974882352 18.19547573 18.34514026 South Coast AQMD 2027 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 47020.27838 1818861.373 75.30264779 0.025117648 24.15401618 South Coast AQMD 2027 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 33466.17076 288683.0254 59.46696905 0.834461628 4.854510496 5.719692219 South Coast AQMD 2027 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13701.47309 118924.4054 11.79690586 0.165538372 10.08098283 South Coast AQMD 2027 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 32148.25779 1407853.777 264.8952811 0.356230844 5.314755971 7.618466481 South Coast AQMD 2027 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 116061.9004 4257281.212 478.7104043 0.643769156 8.89322892 South Coast AQMD 2027 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 5068.871427 139612.4062 27.61773216 0.570608264 5.05517272 6.138127489 South Coast AQMD 2027 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2755.436213 157476.1075 20.78277992 0.429391736 7.577239816 South Coast AQMD 2027 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2717.237286 100365.3766 10.92072148 0.622377463 9.19036135 8.495522144 South Coast AQMD 2027 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2489.694284 48703.69586 6.626060217 0.377622537 7.350324969 South Coast AQMD 2027 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 822.035363 51797.79747 10.18350243 0.984652985 5.086442295 5.106599399 South Coast AQMD 2027 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13.70031546 1015.80099 0.158722274 0.015347015 6.399864143 453
Appendix B:
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological
Resource Assessment in the City of Aliso Viejo
454
CARLSON STRATEGIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC.
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Memorandum
Date: December 5, 2025
To: Emilie Simard, Shea Homes
From: Brianna Bernard
Subject: The Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Resource Assessment in the City of Aliso Viejo
Shea Homes (Applicant) requested Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (CSLS) prepare a Biological Resource Assessment memorandum and graphics documenting the finding of a field review for potential sensitive plants and wildlife for Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project (Project) located in the City of Aliso Viejo, California. In support of Project efforts CSLS biologist, Brianna Bernard, conducted an analysis of the biological resources onsite on December 5, 2025. This memorandum provides the results of the site visit.
1.0 Project Location and Description
The Project site is currently developed with three, two story office buildings and associated parking lot located southwest of the intersection of Aliso Creek Road and Pacific Park Drive in the City of Aliso Viejo (Figures 1 and 2). The approximately 8.44- acre Project site is bounded by a fire station to the northwest, a gas station to the north east and an office complex.
The proposed Project scope will include the demolition of the existing office buildings, along with surface parking lots, and proposes to construct of 137 three-story, for-sale residential units. A tentative tract map is provided on Figure 3. 455
Approximate Project Location
I Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project
1 inch = 5,000 feet
0 1,250 2,500 5,000 7,500
Feet Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: November 25, 2025 Regional Location Map
FIGURE 1
^_
133
Laguna Beach
" -0
.....
Cf-~
Laguna Woods
Aliso Viejo
Al100 i, ,.._'ood
Canyon11
WIid rne 5 Pk
Laguna Nigu
Mission Viejo
0 ..
.. <l ..
456
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community I Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project
1 inch = 250 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
300-Foot Buffer
Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: November 25, 2025 Project Location Map
FIGURE 2
457
8''DW
8''DW
8''DW 8''DW
8''S
8''S
8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S
8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW
8''DW
8''DW
8''S
8''S
8''S
8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S
8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW
8''S
8''DW
8''S 8''S
8''DW 8''DW
8''S 8''S
8''DW 8''DW 8''DW
SD
SD
SD SD
SD
SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD SD SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD SD SD SD
S
W
X X
SD
PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY:
”
”
09/23/2025
ALISO CREE~
I RD )
VICINTYMAP
NOT TO SCALE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
0 390.3
389.6
.388.5
I\ I')
1111
"
OWNER CONSENT:
JAKKI FARR, CFO
DEVELOPER:
SHEA HOMES
LINE/CURVE DATA TABLE
BEARING/DELTA
NOO'OO'OO"W
19'53'33"
N19°53'33"E
19°53 1 33"
NOO'OO'OO"E
N90'QQ'OO"E
90•00·00"
Noo·oo·oo"w
N90'0Q'QO"E
N03'27'51"W
N90 00 00 E
N9o'oo·oo"E
Nso·oo'oo"E
NOO'OO'OO"E
RADIUS
120.00'
120.00'
32.50'
LENGTH
108.33'
41 .66'
65.27'
41 .66'
78.46'
541.15'
51.05'
116.79'
734.94'
276.00'
265.44
272.80'
133.90'
40.17'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
TANGENT
21.04'
21.04'
32.50'
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93-196, IN THE CITY OF
ALISO VIEJO, IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 280
PAGES 26 TO 28 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
, ' \ 364.6 < (
\ \ \" \
I \---1-----\
\
1 I \ I \
'
+391.6
PROPOSED EASEMENTS
@ EASEMENT TO MNWD FOR SEWER AND WATER PURPOSES
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19442
d /
\
1 \
0 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
APN: 632-124-08
,
'
_/ I
'
PREPARED BY:
\
\
3465
1-
® EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
PROACTIVE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
27051 TOWNE CENTRE DRIVE, SUITE 270
FOOTHILL RANCH, CA 92610
@ EASEMENT FOR RECIPROCAL INGRESS/EGRESS FOR ALL UNITS
® EASEMENT TO MNWD FOR WATER ONLY
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
THIS MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AS
DIRECTED BY THE RECORD OWNER AND DEVELOPER OF THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON. NO. 94608
CONC
344.6
0 n
I J,#4.4
I
APN \
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SITE AREA: 8.44 ACRES
2 . EX I ST! NG LAND USE:
3 . PROPOSED LAND USE:
4 . ADJACENT LANO USES:
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
137 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNITS
-----
NORTH - TOWN CENTER COMMERCIAL
SOUTH - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
\
I
I
\
I.
j
EAST - RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD)
WEST - BUSINESS PARK
5 . EX I ST! NG GENERAL PLAN USE:
6 . PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN USE:
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO)
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (9-18 DU/AC)
7. EXISTING ZONING:
8 . PROPOSED ZDN I NG:
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO)
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (9-18 OU/AC)
9. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE "X" SHOWN ON FEMA PANEL 06059C0428J, EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/03/2009.
10. THE DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS FOR THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.
11. MAINTENANCE OF ALL LETTERED LOTS AND PARKWAYS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, PUBLIC AGENCY, OR PRIVATE ENTITY. SEE STATISTICAL SUMMARY AND OWNERSHIP/MAINTENANCE SUMMARY THIS SHEET FOR DETAILED BREAKDOWN.
12. A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEM WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THIS PROJECT WILL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
13. DRAINAGE OF THIS PROJECT WILL BE CONVEYED BE MEANS OF A STORM DRAIN SYSTEM CONSISTING OF VARYING SIZES OF STORM DRAIN PIPES, BROW DITCHES ANO AREA DRAINS.
14. EXISTING IRRIGATION LINES WILL BE REMOVED, RELOCATED OR PROTECTED IN PLACE.
15. ALL EXISTING EASEMENTS ARE TO REMAIN IN THEIR CURRENT DESIGNATED LOCATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
16. PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF A SUBDIVISION MAP THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A "BACKBONE" FIRE MASTER PLAN TO THE FIRE CHIEF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THIS PLAN SHALL INCLUDE THE STREETS AS SHOWN ON THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (VTTM). THIS
PLAN SHALL INCLUDE ALL STREETS (WITH SECTIONS), FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS, BLUE
PAVEMENT MARKERS, WATER AVAILABILITY FOR FIRE FLOW REPORT, AND ANY GATES PROPOSED ACROSS FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS.
17. ALL PROPOSED UTILITIES WILL BE UNDERGROUND.
18. SCHOOL DISTRICT IS CAPISTRANO UNIFIED.
19. ALL SIDEWALKS, CURB RETURNS, AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS MUST MEET THE TITLE 24 AND AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT REQUIREMENTS.
20. AN EASEMENT FDR EMERGENCY ACCESS AND PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES WILL BE PROVIDED OVER PRIVATE COURTS.
21. 137 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS ARE PROPOSED.
22. PROJECT IS NOT LOCATED IN A FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE.
UTILITIES:
WATER le SEWER:
ELECTRIC:
CABLE TV:
TELEPHONE:
MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT
(949) 831-2500
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
(800) 655-4555
AT!cT
(800)
AT!cT
(800)
310-2355
310-2355
3-3/4 OCS ALUMINUM DISK STAMPED 3X-21-69, SET IN THE NE'LY COR. OF A 4'X5' CONCRETE , CATCH BASIN. LOCATED AT THE SW'LY COR. OF THE INT. OF ALISO CREEK RD. & LA PAZ RD., 241' W'LY OF THE CL OF LA PAZ RD. & 62' S'LY OF THE CL OF ALISO CREEK RD.
ELEVATION (FEET): 156. 965 (NAVD88) (LEVELED 1991)
BASIS OF BEARING:
THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE GRID BEARING OF NORTH 00"47'05 EAST BETWEEN O.C.S. HORIZONTAL CONTROL STATION GPS NO. 7689 AND GPS NO. 7690 PER RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR. (2017.50 EPOCH) ALL DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCES MULTIPLY GROUND DISTANCES BY 0.99995217 .
I I If ~I
LEGEND:
10 PROPOSED LOT NUMBER
I I'= 42421 PROPOSED PAD ELEVA TI ON
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
0 \ ----
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED WATER MAIN
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED BIO TREATMENT
WATER QUALITY
EXISTING SEWER MAIN
EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
EX BUSH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
EX FENCE
LOT LINE (LL)/PL/ROW
EASEMENT
30 15 a 30 60 90
I
~-~f----1 I I
SCALE: 1 "=30 '
E
o_
I{)
C'J
---.....
IV)
3:
I-
>
--,
~ 0
~
0 I
~ I
r---
0)
/
:;,.
1-
/
1-
z
w
/
Vl
z
<{
_J
_I;;,
>
_J
0 ~------------------~--------------------------------------~--------1/ Sf£A t-lJMES
2 ADA, SUITE 200
IRVII\E, CA 92618
(949) 526-8800
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
PROACTIVE
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
0 0
0 PLAN PREPARATION: r---
AUGUST 2025
C-1
Ol
0 C'J
2 ADA, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CA 92618
(949) 526-8800 --------------DATE----- Z7051TowaeC<mt~D,;,e,s,;,ez,o 27181 ALISO CREEK RD / ------------------------------------------------------------------------------A-MY_L_._J_A_RA_M_I_LL_o_,_R_._c_.E_._NO_._e4_6__B ______________________________________ ''_"_hil_lR_.,_,h_,,_,,_,_"_o_"_'·_"_'·'_"_' _______ ~-------------------~-S-HE_E_T ___ 1=--0-F __ 3~z 458
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Assessment December 5, 2025
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Biological Survey
Prior to the field survey, available literature, historical aerials, and databases were reviewed regarding sensitive habitats, special status plants, and wildlife species within the vicinity. CSLS reviewed and consulted literature and databases focused on Orange County, California, including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat database. The CNDDB is a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) species account database that inventories status and locations of rare plants and wildlife in California. The CNDDB was used to identify any sensitive plant communities and special status plants and wildlife that have potential to occur within the Project site.
The USFWS’s online service for information regarding Final Critical Habitat designation within California was reviewed to determine if the Study Area is within any species’ designated Critical Habitat. The USFWS regulatory mapping process for the designation of critical habitat is an imprecise, broad-based, mapping exercise of areas that may or may not include constituent elements of the critical habitat designation.
Due to this approach in mapping, large areas are designated as critical habitat regardless of the existing habitat, and as a result may include developed areas, such as buildings, roads, hardscape, and other such facilities, as well as natural habitats.
2.1.1 Plant Community Mapping
Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 200-scale (1” = 200’) focusing on dominant plant species. Plant species were identified using plant field and taxonomical guides, such as The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). Vegetation communities were characterized utilizing vegetation alliances in accordance with The Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCVII) (Sawyer et al. 2009). Where necessary, deviations were made on best professional judgment when areas did not fit into a specific habitat description provided by MCVII. After completing the fieldwork, the plant community polygons were digitized using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to calculate acreages.
2.2 Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP)
The Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) was prepared in cooperation with CDFW and USFWS. The NCCP/HCP focus’ on creating a multiple-species, multiple-habitat subregional Reserve 459
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Assessment December 5, 2025
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 System and implementing a long-term adaptive management program that will protect coastal sage scrub and other habitats and species located within the CSS habitat mosaic, while providing for economic uses that will meet the social and economic needs of the people of the subregion.
The primary goal of the NCCP/HCP is to protect and manage habitat supporting a broad range of plant and animal populations. To accomplish this goal, the NCCP/HCP creates a subregional habitat Reserve System and implements a coordinated program to manage biological resources within the habitat reserve.
2.3 Jurisdictional Waters
The Project site was assessed for jurisdictional Waters of the United States (U.S.) and Waters of the State. To determine the presence of a wetland, three indicators are required: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. The methodology published in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement sets the standards for meeting each of the three indicators, which normally require that 50 percent or more dominant plant species typical of a wetland, soils exhibiting characteristics of saturation, and hydrological indicators be present.
Additionally, jurisdiction over non-wetland Waters of the U.S. is typically determined through the observation of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), which is defined as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” Projects with impacts to Waters of the U.S. are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Waters of the State are regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) through Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. The limits of Waters of the State are defined as the “body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." Therefore, the limits extend from the channel bed to the top of the bank, with the addition of the canopy of any riparian habitat associated with the watercourse.
460
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Assessment December 5, 2025
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
3.0 Results
3.1 Biological Results
CSLS Biologist conducted a general biological survey within the Project site and surrounding 300-foot buffer, collectively referred to as the Study Area, on December 5, 2025. The survey was performed between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. The temperature was 67° F during the field survey, with clear skies. Any inaccessible or restricted areas were surveyed using binoculars. The vegetation, trees, jurisdictional waters, and wildlife observed were documented. Representative photographs of the Study Area are included in Attachment A.
3.1.1 Vegetation Communities
The Project site is a developed lot and composed entirely of developed community (office/commercial buildings and parking lot) with scattered ornamental species in the parking lot and frontage of the building (Figure 4). A description of the vegetation community is found below.
Developed
The entire Project site is developed with three existing office buildings and associated parking lots. Vegetation within this community include glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), southern magnolia tree (Magnolia grandiflora), carrotwood tree (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), century plant (Agave americana), crimson fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle), bottlebrush tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia), and Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia). This community includes the ornamental landscape slopes located along the western portion of the Project site.
3.1.2 Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species
The Project site contains no special-status vegetation type listed by the CNDDB and CDFW. Due to the developed environment of the Project site, it does not contain any suitable habitat for special status plants or wildlife. Several sensitive wildlife species were reported in the vicinity of the Project site based on the CNDDB and within the quadrangle search. No special status wildlife was identified or observed within the Project site during the field survey.
3.1.3 Critical Habitat
The Study Area is not located within any designated critical habitat. The closest mapped critical habitat occurs approximately 1.57 miles to the south for the thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) (Figure 5). The Project site does not contain any suitable habitat for these species.
461
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community I Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project
1 inch = 250 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
300-Foot Buffer
Vegetation Community
Developed
Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: December 5, 2025 Vegetation Map
FIGURE 4
462
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Legend
Project site
Critical Habitat
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Arroyo Toad
Thread-leaved brodiaea
I Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project
1 inch = 6,500 feet
0 1,625 3,250 6,500 9,750 13,000
Feet CNDDB (11/2025)
CH (03/2015)
Data Source:
FIGURE 5
Critical Habitat
Approximate Project Site
^_
^_
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: November 2025
g
[SSI
-
ry .,
Cow, 6ble
Par>
Laguna Beach
Ii
It
i !1
Laguna Woods
l
0 -S> ·~ ~
Aliso Viejo
Afi104Wood.
Canyon
Wo,;,rnonn
g;:;
El Toro
Mission Viejo
Cl
~
~
.?
(
"?
i
~
463
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Assessment December 5, 2025
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
3.1.4 Wildlife Species
The Project site is located along a busy corridor along Pacific Park Drive and Aliso Creek Road. Due to this wildlife species observed onsite was low during the survey and consisted primarily of species accustomed to urban settings. Observed species include American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).
3.2 NCCP/HCP
Portions of the City lie within the Coastal subregion of the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP); however, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to designated Non-Reserve Open Space or NCCP Habitat Reserve within the NCCP/HCP. The Project site is currently developed and located within an urbanized area, and is not located within the boundaries of the NCCP/HCP reserve system.
3.3 Jurisdictional Waters
Based on the literature review and USGS quadrangle topographic map, no blue line drainages were mapped on the Project site. During the field survey, the biologists paid special attention for any drainages meeting the regulatory definitions of waters.
The Project site is a developed condition with three, two story office/commercial buildings, associated parking lot, and scattered ornamental vegetation. Based on the field survey, there are no features identified on the Project site that meet the definition and are considered jurisdictional Waters of the United States or Waters of the State, pursuant to Section 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code and Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, respectively.
4.0 Impacts
With the implementation of the Project 7.27 acres would be impacted. The western ornamental slope is not anticipated to be impacted (Figure 3).
4.1 Biological Results
4.1.1 Vegetation Communities
Development of the Project site would result in the direct removal of non-native species and hardscape, including buildings and parking lot. No special status or sensitive plant species were identified to occur onsite, nor were they observed onsite. The Project site 464
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Assessment December 5, 2025
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 is developed with some ornamental species. The Project would include the removal of non-native ornamental species, which are abundant in the area; therefore, impacts would not be considered a significant impact and no mitigation is required.
4.1.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species
Development of the Project site would result in the disruption and removal of potential nesting habitat in the form of buildings, ornamental trees, and shrubs. Due to the built nature of the site, the busy intersection, and development within the vicinity (e.g., nearby commercial buildings), these impacts would not be expected to reduce the general wildlife populations below self-sustaining levels within the region and impacts to non-sensitive wildlife species do not meet the significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts to common wildlife species would not be considered a significant impact and no mitigation is required.
The Project site consists of developed habitat and lacks suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife species. The Project site provides limited suitable habitat for some common avian species in the form of ornamental species and existing building eaves. While none of the common species carry a Federal or State listing as threatened or endangered, they are all protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Therefore, a preconstruction survey is required in compliance with the MBTA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to the avian species to a less than significant level, if nesting individuals are present.
MM BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that would impact potentially suitable nesting habitat for avian species, the project applicant shall adhere to the following:
1. Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to the extent feasible to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds and/or ground nesters.
2. Any construction activities that occur during typical nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) will require that all suitable habitat, on-site and within 300-feet surrounding the site (as feasible), be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement ground disturbances. If active nests are identified, the biologist would establish buffers around the vegetation (500 feet for 465
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Assessment December 5, 2025
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 raptors and sensitive species, 200 feet for non-raptors/non-sensitive species). All work within these buffers would be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e. the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The onsite biologist would review and verify compliance with these nesting boundaries and would verify the nesting effort has finished.
Work can resume within these areas when no other active nests are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that construction can be permitted within the buffer areas and would develop a monitoring plan to prevent any impacts while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up construction avoidance management, a report shall be prepared and submitted to City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.
4.1.3 Wildlife Corridor
The Project site is surrounded by commercial buildings and does not function as a wildlife corridor. Furthermore, the Project site located on a busy intersection with consistent traffic and noise further deterring the use of the site as corridor. As such, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
4.2 Local Ordinances or Policies
The City does not have any local policies, such as a tree preservation ordinance, which protects biological resources. In addition, the Project site consists primarily of the disturbed/developed habitat community, with the western site boundary consisting of a landscaped slope with groundcover, shrubs, and trees. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
4.3 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
Portions of the City lie within the Coastal subregion of the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP); however, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to designated Non-Reserve Open Space or NCCP Habitat Reserve within the NCCP/HCP. The Project site is currently developed and located within an urbanized area and is not located within the boundaries of the NCCP/HCP reserve system. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
466
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Assessment December 5, 2025
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
4.4 Jurisdictional Features
No jurisdictional features occur on the Project site that meet the definition and are considered jurisdictional Waters of the United States or Waters of the State, pursuant to Section 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code and Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, respectively. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
5.0 Summary
The Project site consists of three, two story office buildings on a developed lot with scattered ornamental trees and shrubs. The Project site does not contain sensitive habitat or suitable habitat for sensitive species.
While the site is developed, the building and scattered ornamental species could provide suitable nesting habitat for avian species. Due to the suitable habitat, direct impacts could occur to nesting birds should construction activities and ground disturbances begin during the typical nesting season. However, adherence and implementation of MM BIO - 1 will ensure impacts to avian species or their habitats are minimized thus reducing the Project’s impact to less than significant.
The Project site does not fall within the Orange County NCCP/HCP boundary. While the City does have an ordinance for trees, the Project does not meet the purpose or intent of the ordinance. However, the Project does propose landscaping as part of the final design.
No jurisdictional features are present onsite.
Please contact me at [email protected] or 949.542.7042, should you have any questions or comments.
Brianna Bernard
Project Manager
Enclosures:
• Attachment A: Representative Photographs
467
Attachment A
Representative Photographs
468
Photos Taken December 5, 2025
Attachment A Page 1
The Project site consists of existing buildings and associated parking lot.
The parking lot is asphalt with ornamental species.
469
Photos Taken December 5, 2025
Attachment A Page 2
Western slope would not be impacted and consists of
ornamental vegetation.
The Project site includes existing buildings.
470
Photos Taken December 5, 2025
Attachment A Page 3
Ornamental species were observed in the parking lot islands.
Looking southeast across the Project site.
471
Photos Taken December 5, 2025
Attachment A Page 4
Looking southwest at the western landscaped slope.
Looking southwest at the western landscaped slope.
472
Appendix C:
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and
Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project
473
CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR
THE JOURNEY AND PACIFIC PARK DRIVE
(SHEA ALISO VIEJO) PROJECT
CITY OF ALISO VIEJO,
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APN 632-124-08
Lead Agency:
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Preparer:
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
Project Proponent:
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
July 30, 2025
BFSA Environmental Services
A Perennial Company
474
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i
Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Kathleen A. Krogh, B.A. and Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA Consulting Firm: BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 484-0915
Client/Project Proponent: Carlson Strategic Land Solutions 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Report Date: July 30, 2025
Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California (APN 632-124-08)
Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Study
New Site(s): None
Updated Site(s): None
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 632-124-08
USGS Quadrangle: Township 7 South, Range 8 West of the San Bernadino Baseline and Meridian on the USGS San Juan Capistrano, California (7.5-minute) topographic quadrangle
Acreage: 8.44 acres
Key Words: Survey; negative; no further archaeological study recommended. 475
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT........................................................................ iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1.0–1
1.1 Project Description............................................................................................1.0–1
1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................1.0–1
1.3 Cultural Setting .................................................................................................1.0–5
1.3.1 Prehistoric Period....................................................................................1.0–5
1.3.2 Historic Period.........................................................................................1.0–8
1.4 Results of the Archaeological Records Search .................................................1.0–9
1.5 Applicable Regulations.....................................................................................1.0–11
1.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act.....................................................1.0–11
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN.............................................................................................2.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ....................................................................3.0–1
3.1 Survey Methods................................................................................................3.0–1
3.2 Results of the Field Survey...............................................................................3.0–1
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................4.0–1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED.......................5.0–1
6.0 CERTIFICATION ...................................................................................................6.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................7.0–1 List of Appendices
Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search *
*Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix List of Figures
Figure Description Page
Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map...................................................................................1.0–2 Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map (USGS) ......................................................................1.0–3 Figure 1.1–3 Project Development Map.............................................................................1.0–4 476
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii
List of Plates
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project from the southern entrance into the Pacific Corporate Plaza, facing north ..........................................................................3.0–2 Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the 27071 Aliso Creek Road building from the northern entrance into the Pacific Corporate Plaza, facing south ..................................3.0–2 Plate 3.2–3 Overview of the 27081 Aliso Creek Road building from the western portion of the project, facing southeast............................................................3.0–3 Plate 3.2–4 Overview of the 27061 Aliso Creek Road building from the eastern portion of the project, facing southwest...........................................................3.0–3 List of Tables
Table Description Page
Table 1.4–1 Cultural Resources Recorded Within One-Half Mile of the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project................................................1.0–10 477
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
In response to a request from the project applicant, a cultural resources study was conducted by BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA), for the proposed
8.44-acre Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project, located at 27061, 27071, 27081 Aliso Creek Road, southwest of the intersection of Aliso Creek Road and Pacific Park Drive, in the city of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California. The project includes Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 632-124-08 and is situated within Township 7 South, Range 8 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000-scale San Juan Capistrano, California (7.5-minute) topographic quadrangle map. The subject property is currently developed as the Pacific Corporate Plaza, a commercial business park that includes three commercial buildings and a parking lot with associated landscape, hardscape, and infrastructure.
As proposed, the project applicant plans to demolish the existing buildings for the construction of a multi-family residential development, along with associated hardscape, landscape, and infrastructure.
The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record cultural resources present within the project and evaluate any resources that may be impacted by the development as part of the City of Aliso Viejo’s environmental review process, conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria. The cultural resources investigation included a review of an archaeological records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton), in order to assess previous archaeological studies and identify any previously recorded cultural resources within the project vicinity. The records search identified six resources within one mile of the project, none of which are located on the property. The records search also identified 18 previous studies conducted within one mile of the project, three of which overlap the subject property (Public Antiquities Salvage Team 1972; Archaeological Research, Inc. 1973; Archaeological Resource Management Corp. 1979). A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was also requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The SLF search results for the presence of recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the project vicinity was received with positive results.
BFSA field archaeologist Mary Chitjian conducted a pedestrian survey of the property on July 10, 2025. The survey did not locate any cultural resources within the project. Further, based upon a review of historic aerial photographs, the entire subject property was cleared, graded, and developed between 1988 and 2000. Due to the previous ground-disturbing activities and the absence of identified cultural resources within the project boundaries, the potential for significant cultural resources to be present or impacted by the proposed development is minimal. As such, no further archaeological study or mitigation measures are recommended. A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated at the BFSA archaeological laboratory in Poway, California.
478
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The cultural resources study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project was conducted in order to comply with CEQA and the City of Aliso Viejo environmental requirements. The project is located southwest of the intersection of Aliso Creek Road and Pacific Park Drive in the city of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California (Figure 1.1–1). On the USGS 1:24,000-scale San Juan Capistrano, California (7.5-minute) topographic quadrangle map, the project is situated within Township 7 South, Range 8 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figure 1.1–2). The 8.44-acre project includes APN 632-124-08. The subject property is currently developed with the Pacific Corporate Plaza, a commercial business park that includes three commercial buildings and a parking lot with associated landscape, hardscape, and infrastructure. The three buildings are associated with addresses 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road. As proposed, the project applicant plans to demolish the existing buildings for the construction of a new multi-family residential development, along with associated hardscape, landscape, and infrastructure (Figure 1.1–3).
The decision to request a cultural resources study was based upon the cultural resource sensitivity of the locality, as suggested by known site density and predictive modeling. Sensitivity for cultural resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns which, in the Aliso Viejo region, were focused on freshwater resources and food supply.
1.2 Environmental Setting
The project is located in Aliso Viejo, which is situated east of the San Joaquin Hills. The San Joaquin Hills divide San Aliso from the city of Laguna Beach and the Pacific Coast, the latter of which is located approximately four miles southeast of the property. The project consists of the Pacific Corporate Plaza, a commercial business park comprising three commercial buildings and an extensive parking lot. The general area slopes eastward from the San Joaquin Hills towards Aliso Creek located to the east of the property. However, as the project is already completely developed, the majority of the property is relatively flat, with an average elevation of approximately 356 feet above mean sea level. The only exception to this is the periphery of the project, which primarily consists of commercial landscaping that slopes upwards towards Journey and Pacific Park Drive in the western half of the project and downwards towards Aliso Creek Road in the eastern half of the project. Since the project is completely developed, vegetation within the property consists entirely of maintained commercial landscaping.
Geologically, the subject property has been mapped within the Pleistocene to Plioceneaged (approximately two to three million years old) Niguel Formation, which is described as marine deposits of interbedded, poorly sorted, coarse-grained sandstones and conglomerates by Morton and Miller (2006) and gray, fine-grained sandstones and siltstones by Tan (1999). 479
Figure 1.1–1
General Location Map
The Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project ESRI Street Map
1.0–2
Av
Newport
Beach
BFSA Environmental Services
A Perennial Company
Laguna Beach
Foothill Ranch 1/
Lake Forest / J
l
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Coto de Caza
Laguna Niguel
I
San Clemente/
/
I
Figure 1.1-1
General Location Map
,---✓-
L-,
r J
I - - -
I
I .._
I 'o<:::-
1 'o C,
\e~
\ 'o,,... -- /
/
1663
The Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project ESRI Street Map
1.0-2
480
Figure 1.1–2
Project Location Map
The Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project USGS San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle (7.5-minute series)
1.0–3
BFSA Environmental Services
A Perennial Company
Figure 1.1-2
Project Location Map
The Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project USGS San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle (7.5-minute series)
1.0-3 481
Legend
Project boundary
Figure 1.1–3
Project Development Map
The Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project
1.0 –4 ......
0 1.
Project boundary
BFSA Environmental Services
A Perennial Company
I +- -1-- I t ,- • I f
d':i L_ = a
~· .
u
+' I
Figure 1.1-3
Project Development Map
SITE DATA
GARDEN COURTS
PLAN 1 ( AFFORDABLE)
PLAN 2
PLAN 3
F'LA LI
ROWTOWNS
PLAN 1
P[A 2
67 14
14 14
11 70
15 27i
TOTAL UNITS 137
PARKING
GARAGE SPACES
STREET SPACES
TOTAL SPACES
SPACES PER UNIT
OPEN SPACE
TOTAL SITE AREA
260
85 345 (343 REQ'D)
2.52 (2.5 REQ'D)
8.44 AC (367,646 SQ.FT.)
PASEOS/GREEN COURTS 51,400 SQ.FT.
OPEN SPACE SUBTOTAL 58,000 SQ.FT. (15.8%)
LOP AR A
OPEN SPACE TOTAL 127,400 SQ.FT. (34.7%)
I I I I I
0 140 ft
El ::::::3:~E~~I
0 40m
The Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project 482
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–5
Also mapped at the project is the Miocene-aged (approximately five- to 15-million-year-old) Monterey Formation, composed of siliceous and diatomaceous marine siltstones and sandstones (Wirths 2025). The specific soil types found within the property are characterized as Myford sandy loam (15 to 30 percent slopes), Rock Outcrop-Cieneba complex (30 to 175 percent slopes), and Cieneba sandy loam (30 to 75 percent slopes, eroded) (NRCS 2019). Aliso Creek is located approximately 0.3 miles east of the subject property. The creek would have provided freshwater resources for both prehistoric and historic peoples as well as an environment conducive for hunting and foraging. Common animal species found within the project vicinity include mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, gophers, mice, rats, deer, and coyotes, in addition to a variety of reptiles and amphibians.
1.3 Cultural Setting
1.3.1 Prehistoric Period
Archaeological investigations in southern California have documented a diverse and rich record of human occupation spanning the past 10,000 years. In northern San Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties, most researchers organize prehistory into the Paleo Indian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric Periods and history into the Mission, Rancho, and American Settlement Periods. The San Dieguito Complex, Milling Stone Horizon, La Jolla Complex, Pauma Complex, and San Luis Rey Complex are archaeological manifestations that have been used to describe the Archaic and Late Prehistoric periods in the region.
Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) The San Dieguito Complex/Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (11,500 to 9,000 years before the present [YBP]). The term “San Dieguito Complex” is a cultural distinction used to describe a group of people that occupied sites in the region between 11,500 and 7,000 YBP. Initially believed to have been big game hunters, the San Dieguito are better typified as wide-ranging hunter-gatherers. The earliest evidence of the San Dieguito Complex sites is known from San Diego County, the Colorado Desert, and further north along the California coast. These people abandoned the drying inland lakes of the present California desert and arrived in San Diego County circa 9,000 YBP, as documented at the Harris Site SDI-149 (Warren 1966); Rancho Park North Site SDI-4392 (Kaldenberg 1982); and Agua Hedionda Sites SDI-210/UCLJ-M-15 and SDI-10,965/SDM-W-131 (Moriarty 1967; Gallegos and Carrico 1984; Gallegos 1991). A San Dieguito component appears to have been present in the lower strata, “Malaga Cove I,” at the Malaga Cove site, LAN-138, within the city of Palos Verdes Estates, Los Angeles County (Walker 1951). Other Paleo-Indian Period sites containing San Dieguito components in the coastal region of southern California have been identified at the Irvine Site (ORA-64) (Drover et al. 1983; Macko 1988), Ballona Creek, Angeles Mesa, and the Rancho La Brea sites (Wallace 1955: 215-218).
483
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–6
Diagnostic San Dieguito artifacts include finely crafted scraper planes, choppers, scrapers, crescentics, elongated bifacial knives, and intricate leaf-shaped points (Rogers 1939; Warren 1967). This tool assemblage resembles those of the Western Lithic Co-Tradition (Davis et al. 1969) and the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (Bedwell 1970; Moratto 1984). Typical San Dieguito sites lack ground stone tools. The San Dieguito Complex is the least understood of the cultures that occupied the southern California region. Debate continues as to whether the San Dieguito sites are actually different activity areas of the early Encinitas Tradition peoples (Bull 1987; Gallegos 1987), or whether the San Dieguito Complex peoples had a separate origin and culture from the Encinitas Tradition (Hayden 1987; Moriarty 1987; Smith 1987). According to this second scenario, the San Dieguito Complex peoples may have been assimilated into the dominant Encinitas Tradition culture (Kaldenberg 1982; Moriarty 1967). A third possibility is that the San Dieguito Complex gave rise to the Encinitas Tradition (Koerper et al. 1991).
Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP) The Archaic Period begins with the onset of the Holocene circa 9,000 YBP. The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). In southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene is marked by cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and rising sea levels. The warming trend and rising sea levels generally continued until the late Holocene. Archaeological research indicates that southern California was occupied between 9,000 YBP and 1,300 YBP by population(s) that utilized a wide range of both marine and terrestrial resources. A number of different archaeological manifestations based on geographical setting, tool kit, and/or chronology, are recognized during the Archaic Period, including the San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling Stone, and Pauma Complexes. Archaic sites generally contain milling tools, especially manos and metates, cobble and flake tools, dart projectile points and the concomitant use of the atlatl, crescents, shell, fish bone, and animal bone representing large and small game. Additionally, Archaic groups buried their dead as flexed inhumations, a religious and cultural practice distinct from the succeeding Late Prehistoric groups.
The La Jolla Complex is regionally associated with the Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968) and shared cultural components with the widespread Milling Stone Horizon (Wallace 1955). The coastal expression of this complex, with a focus on coastal resources and development of deeply stratified shell middens primarily located around bays and lagoons, appeared in the southern California coastal areas. Some of the older sites associated with this expression are located at Topanga Canyon, Newport Bay, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and several of the Channel Islands.
Radiocarbon dates from sites attributed to this complex span a period of more than 7,000 years in this region, beginning more than 9,000 YBP.
The Encinitas Tradition is best recognized for its pattern of large coastal sites characterized by shell middens, grinding tools closely associated with the marine resources of the area, cobble484 Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–7
based tools, and flexed human burials (Shumway et al. 1961; Smith and Moriarty 1985). While ground stone tools and scrapers are the most recognized tool types, coastal Encinitas Tradition sites also contain numerous utilized flakes, which may have been used to pry open shellfish.
Artifact assemblages at coastal sites indicate a subsistence pattern focused on shellfish collection and nearshore fishing, suggesting an incipient maritime adaptation with regional similarities to more northern sites of the same period (Koerper et al. 1986). Other artifacts associated with Encinitas Tradition sites include stone bowls, doughnut stones, discoidals, stone balls, and stone, bone, and shell beads.
By 5,000 YBP, an inland expression of the La Jolla Complex, which exhibits influences from the Campbell Tradition from the north, is evident in the archaeological record. These inland Milling Stone Horizon sites have been termed “Pauma Complex” (True 1958; Warren et al. 1961; Meighan 1954). By definition, Pauma Complex sites share a predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates), lack mollusk remains, have a greater tool variety (including atlatl dart points, quarry-based tools, and crescentics), and seem to express a more sedentary lifestyle with a subsistence economy based on the use of a broad variety of terrestrial resources.
Although originally viewed as a separate culture from the coastal La Jolla Complex (True 1980), it appears that these inland sites may be part of a subsistence and settlement system utilized by the coastal peoples.
Late Prehistoric Period/San Luis Rey Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) The Late Prehistoric period, sometimes referred to as San Luis Rey I and II, begins approximately 1,300 YBP. Cremation, ceramics, bow and arrow, small triangular points, use of Obsidian Butte obsidian, and reliance on the acorn as a main food staple are the defining characteristics of the Late Prehistoric period (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Gallegos 2002; Moratto 1984). These characteristics are thought to represent the movement of Shoshoneanspeaking groups into northern San Diego, Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties.
Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the cremation of the dead, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, but effective, milling technologies such as the bedrock mortar for use in acorn processing.
Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present)
The ethnographic period begins with the Hispanic intrusion into southern California and the founding of the Mission San Juan Capistrano, south of Aliso Viejo, in 1776. Ethnohistorical and ethnographic evidence indicates that three Shoshonean-speaking groups that occupied the southern and eastern portions of Orange County were the Luiseño, Gabrielino, and the Acjachemen (Juaneño), each culturally similar but possessing slight dialectic differences. Along the coast, the groups made use of the marine resources available by fishing and collecting mollusks for food.
Seasonally available terrestrial resources, including acorns and game, were also sources of 485
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–8
nourishment for these groups. The elaborate kinship and clan systems between these groups facilitated a wide-reaching trade network that included trade of Obsidian Butte obsidian, resources from the eastern deserts, and steatite from the Channel Islands. All three groups also shared a distinct world view that stemmed from use of the hallucinogen datura, and an elaborate religion that included ritualized sand paintings of the sacred being, “Chingichngish” (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Some notable differences, however, can be seen in the material culture between the three groups. For example, the Gabrielino used containers made from steatite, which is a soapstone material from the Santa Catalina Islands, instead of pottery, which was the preferred material for the Juaneño and the Luiseño (Kroeber 1976).
The Luiseño, Gabrielino, and Juaneño occupied sedentary villages most often located in sheltered areas in valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near mountain ranges.
Villages were located near water sources to facilitate acorn leaching and in areas that offered thermal and defensive protection. Villages were composed of areas that were both publicly and privately, or family, owned. Publicly owned areas included trails, temporary campsites, hunting areas, and quarry sites. Inland groups had fishing and gathering sites along the coast, which were particularly utilized from January to March, when inland food resources were scarce. During October and November, most of the village would relocate to mountain oak groves to harvest acorns. For the remainder of the year, most would remain at the village sites, where food resources were within a day’s travel (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The Aliso Creek watershed has been reported to be the ethnohistoric boundary between the Luiseño, Gabrielino, and Juaneño. The Gabrielino occupied territory northwest of Aliso Creek, the Juaneño occupied territory to the south, and the Luiseño occupied territory to the southeast and east. However, there is evidence indicating that the Juaneño territory extended farther north, possibly past the Santa Ana River into modern-day Huntington Beach (Boscana 1978 [1933]).
1.3.2 Historic Period
Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, commanding two Spanish exploring vessels traveling north from Mexico, arrived in the area known then as Alta (or “Upper”) California on September 28, 1542.
Upon arrival, Cabrillo named the harbor to the south of San Clemente (now known as San Diego) “San Miguel” (Bolton 1959). The next European arrival to the southern California area was not for another 60 years, when an expedition commanded by Sebastian Vizcaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific coast, arriving in San Clemente in 1602 (Engstrand 1980; San Clemente Historical Society 2019). During this visit, Vizcaíno named San Clemente Island for St. Clement, the third pope (San Clemente Historical Society 2019), and renamed San Miguel as San Diego.
For the next 167 years following Vizcaíno’s voyage, the Spanish made no other expeditions to Alta California. The Spanish eventually developed a plan for the occupation of the claimed territory of Alta California during the reign of King Carlos III of Spain. In 1769, a joint sea and land expedition set out from Mexico to meet up at San Diego Bay. Captain Vicente Vila led three 486
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–9
ships, and Gaspar de Portolá and Father Junípero Serra commanded the land expedition (Rolle 1969). Portolá left the San Diego area on July 14 and arrived at what would later become San Clemente on July 22. It was on this date that the first recorded baptism took place in California (Historic Resources Group 2006). However, the area remained virtually uninhabited until 1776, when Father Junipero Serra established Mission San Juan Capistrano less than six miles south of present-day Aliso Viejo (San Clemente Historical Society 2019; Rolle 1969).
Mission San Juan Capistrano was the seventh California mission and is located in what is now the city of San Juan Capistrano (City of San Juan Capistrano n.d.). The native Juaneño people were conscripted to work for the mission, which resulted in an increase in nearby settlements for both Native Americans and Spaniards. The rise in population would soon prove fatal, however, as the new mission church at San Juan Capistrano was destroyed by an earthquake in 1812. As a result of the earthquake, 40 Native Americans attending mass were killed by the collapsing bell tower (Engelhardt 1922).
As settlers arrived in the area over time, land grants were deeded to those who filed an application, but many tracts reverted back to the government due to lack of use. By 1821, Mexico had gained independence from Spain, and in the ensuing 25 years, 700 land grants were formalized throughout southern California. Don Juan (John) Forster, an English sea captain who became a Mexican citizen in 1837, obtained a land grant of over 100,000 acres from California Governor Pio Pico in 1845, which included Mission San Juan Capistrano (San Clemente Historical Society 2019). The region of Aliso Viejo was granted to Juan Avila in 1842, and the area was primarily used for sheep herding during the Rancho period (Aliso Viejo General Plan).
The signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 resulted in the incorporation of California as a United States territory (City of San Juan Capistrano n.d.). In 1874, American settler Lewis Fenno Moulton arrived in southern California, and by 1890, Moulton had purchased 21,723 acres of land north of San Juan Capistrano, including present-day Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, and Aliso Viejo (City of San Juan Capistrano n.d.; Moulton Museum n.d.). This purchase established the Moulton Ranch, which operated a sheep and cattle herding business.
Over time, portions of the ranch were sold, leading to the development of new cities within southern Orange County. In 1976, the last remaining portion of the Moulton Ranch was sold to the Mission Viejo Company, and plans were prepared for the development of the Aliso Viejo community (City of San Juan Capistrano n.d.). The master-planned community was approved by the county in 1979 (City of San Juan Capistrano n.d.).
1.4 Results of the Archaeological Records Search
BFSA conducted an archaeological records search at the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton on June 24, 2025 (Appendix B). The SCCIC records search identified six resources within a half-mile radius of the project, none of which are located on the subject property (Table 1.4–1). Of the six recorded resources, all were prehistoric. The prehistoric resources included five lithic scatters and one site with a lithic and artifact scatter.
487
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–10
Table 1.4–1
Cultural Resources Recorded Within One-Half Mile
of the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project Site Number(s) Resource Type
ORA-390 Prehistoric lithic and artifact scatter
ORA-408, ORA-409, ORA-416, ORA-425, and
ORA-1211 Prehistoric lithic scatters
The records search also identified 18 previous studies conducted within one mile of the project, three of which overlap the subject property (Public Antiquities Salvage Team 1972; Archaeological Research, Inc. 1973; Archaeological Resource Management Corp. 1979). The Archaeological Research, Inc. (1973) and Archaeological Resource Management Corp. (1979) studies are large overviews conducted during the initial development planning for the City of Aliso Viejo that did not directly address the subject property. Likewise, the Public Antiquities Salvage Team (1972) study was a large overview for the assessment of the Hansom Ranch and did not directly address the subject property.
In addition, BFSA reviewed the following historic sources:
• The National Register of Historic Places Index
• The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility
• The OHP, Built Environment Resource Directory
• The Bureau of Land Management General Land Office records • 1942 Santiago Peak, California (15-minute) USGS map
• 1948, 1949, 1968, and 1974 San Juan Capistrano, California (7.5-minute) USGS maps • Historic aerial photographs (1938 to 2025)
These sources did not identify any potential resources within the property. Based upon historic maps and aerial photographs, the entire property was vacant until the development of the surrounding community in 1988. Prior to 1976, the community of Aliso Viejo was part of the Moulton Ranch, which operated as a large-scale sheep and cattle ranch. The 1938 historic aerial photograph demonstrates that agricultural activities were taking place within the surrounding area, and the majority of the subject property was left undisturbed. The property continued to remain vacant until the 1980s. In the 1987 historic aerial photograph, dirt pathways are visible within the northern half of the project. By 1988, the entire subject property, in addition to the neighboring parcels, had been cleared and graded. Between 1988 and 1922, the area was further developed, and the roads surrounding the project, which include Journey, Aliso Creek Road, and Pacific Park Drive, were built. Additionally, by 1992, a commercial building directly northwest of the project 488
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–11
had been constructed. Subsequent aerial photographs demonstrate that vegetation was permitted to grow until 1998, when the property was cleared again. The 1999 historic aerial photograph demonstrates that the development of the project had begun during this time, and by 2000, the existing Pacific Corporate Plaza, which includes the three commercial buildings and an associated parking lot at 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road, had been constructed on the subject property. Since the development of the Pacific Corporate Plaza, historic aerial photographs show that little to no change has occurred within the property since its initial development.
BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC. The SLF search results for the presence of recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the project vicinity were received with positive results. The NAHC suggested contacting local Native American groups, specifically the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, for further information. This request is not part of any Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American consultation. All correspondence is provided in Appendix C.
1.5 Applicable Regulations
Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of Orange County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, the criteria outlined in CEQA provide guidance for making such a determination. The following sections detail the criteria that a resource must meet in order to be determined important.
1.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act
According to CEQA (§15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code [PRC] SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR [California Code of Regulations]. Section 4850 et seq.).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided 489
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–12
the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in or eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR; or b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically 490
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–13
or culturally significant; or,
c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects upon archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).
2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply.
3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a) but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources.
4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project upon those resources shall not be considered a significant effect upon the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect upon it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address impacts upon other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.
Sections 15064.5 (d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains.
Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
491
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–14
1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5).
2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
492
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–1
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which humans have used the land and resources within the project through time, as well as to aid in the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under investigation is in western Orange County. The scope of work for the cultural resources study conducted for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project included a survey of the 8.44-acre property. Given the area involved, the research design for this project was focused upon realistic study options. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of identified resources. Nevertheless, the assessment of the significance of a resource must take into consideration a variety of factors, as well as the ability of a resource to address regional research topics and issues.
Although elementary resource evaluation programs are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources. The following research questions consider the size and location of the project discussed above.
Research Questions:
• Can located cultural resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or individual?
• Do the types of any located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site function? What resources were exploited?
• How do located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted in the area?
• How do located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for valley environments of the region?
Data Needs
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area.
The overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project occupants. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research were undertaken with the following primary research goals in mind:
493
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–2
1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project; 2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the resource(s), and chronological placement of each cultural resource identified; 3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and 4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each cultural resource identified. 494
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS
The cultural resources study of the project consisted of an institutional records search, an intensive cultural resources survey of the entire 8.44-acre project, and the preparation of this technical report. This study was conducted in conformance with the City of Aliso Viejo environmental requirements, Section 21083.2 of the California PRC, and the CEQA. Statutory requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (1995).
3.1 Survey Methods
The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the project. BFSA field archaeologist Mary Chitjian conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the property on July 10, 2025. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey transects set 15 meters apart, when not obstructed by existing development.
Aerial photographs and maps permitted orientation and location of the project boundaries. The entire 8.44-acre project was covered by the survey process, and a survey form, field notes, and photographs documented the survey work undertaken.
3.2 Results of the Field Survey
The survey confirmed that the entire subject property has been graded and developed for commercial use (Plates 3.2–1 to 3.2–4). At present, the property contains three commercial buildings, a large parking lot, associated hardscape, and maintained commercial landscaping. The three commercial buildings are associated with the addresses 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road and comprise the Pacific Corporate Plaza commercial business park. Given the current commercial development within the project, almost no exposed ground was visible.
However, landscaped planters within the property and landscaped areas along the perimeter of the project were inspected for any archaeological materials. Vegetation within the project entirely consists of maintained commercial landscaping. The survey did not identify any archaeological resources within the project.
495
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–2
Plate 3.2–1: Overview of the project from the southern
entrance into the Pacific Corporate Plaza, facing north.
Plate 3.2–2: Overview of the 27071 Aliso Creek Road building from the northern entrance into the Pacific Corporate Plaza, facing south. 496
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–3
Plate 3.2–3: Overview of the 27081 Aliso Creek Road
building from the western portion of the project, facing southeast.
Plate 3.2–4: Overview of the 27061 Aliso Creek Road
building from the eastern portion of the project, facing southwest. 497
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–1
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The cultural resources study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project was completed in accordance with City of Aliso Viejo environmental policies and CEQA regulatory requirements. No cultural resources were identified within the project during the survey. Further, based upon a review of historic aerial photographs, the entire subject property was cleared, graded, and developed between 1988 and 2000. Due to the previous grounddisturbing activities and the absence of identified cultural resources within the project boundaries, the potential for any significant cultural resources to be present or impacted by the proposed project is minimal. Given that no archaeological sites, features, or artifacts have been identified within or directly adjacent to the project, no potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the proposed development are anticipated. Based upon the results of this study, no further archaeological study or mitigation measures are recommended. A copy of this report will be submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton.
498
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The archaeological survey program for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project was directed by Principal Investigator Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by BFSA field archaeologist Mary Chitjian. The report text was prepared by Kathleen Krogh and Tracy Stropes. Emily Soong conducted the records search at the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton, and Kathleen Krogh created the report graphics.
Technical editing and report production was conducted by Danielle Del Castillo. 499
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–1
6.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
July 30, 2025
Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA Date
Director/Principal Archaeologist
500
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Antevs, Ernst
1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 22:9-23.
Archaeological Research, Inc.
1973 Aliso Viejo Cultural/Scientific Resources Management Plan. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.
Archaeological Resource Management Corp.
1979 A Final Report on the Scientific Resources Survey for Moulton Ranch. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.
Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, edited by R.
F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
Bedwell, S. F.
1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fork Rock Lake Area of South Central Oregon. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Bolton, Herbert Eugene (editor)
1959 Spanish Explorations in the Southwest, 1542–1776, edited by Herbert Eugene Bolton.
Barnes and Noble, Inc., New York.
Boscana, Geronimo
1978 Chinigchinich: A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson’s Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana’s Historical Account of the Beliefs, Usages, Customs, and Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe (1846). Edited by P.T. Hanna. Originally published in 1933, Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana, California. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.
Bull, Charles S.
1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper (No. 1), edited by Dennis R. Gallegos.
Chartkoff, Joseph L. and Kerry Kona Chartkoff
1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 501
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–2
City of San Juan Capistrano
n.d. History. San Juan Capistrano. Accessed March 19, 2025. https://sanjuancapistrano.org/356/History.
Davis, E. L., C. W. Brott, and D. L. Weide
1969 The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers (No. 6). San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego.
Drover, Christopher E., Henry C. Koerper, and Paul E. Langenwalter II 1983 Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-ORA-64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(3&4):1-84.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1922 San Juan Capistrano Mission. Standard Printing Company, Los Angeles, California.
Engstrand, Iris Wilson
1980 San Diego: California’s Cornerstone. Continental Heritage Press, Inc. Oklahoma.
Gallegos, Dennis R.
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Editor. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1. 1991 Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In HunterGatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, Edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry Jones. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Gallegos, Dennis R. and Richard Carrico
1984 Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program for Site W-131, Carlsbad, California.
Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Hayden, Julian D.
1987 Notes on the Apparent Course of San Dieguito Development. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Susan M. Hector. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper (No. 1).
502
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–3
Historic Resources Group
2006 Historic Resources Survey Update, City of San Clemente, California. On file at the City of San Clemente, California.
Kaldenberg, Russell L.
1982 Rancho Park North: A San Dieguito-La Jolla Shellfish Processing Site in Coastal Southern California. In Occasional Paper (No. 6). Imperial Valley College Museum Society, El Centro, California.
Koerper, Henry C., Paul E. Langenwalter II, and Adella B. Schroth 1991 Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Phase Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 43-62.
Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Koerper, Henry, C., Jonathan E. Ericson, Christopher E. Drover, and Paul E. Langenwalter, II 1986 Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22 (1):33-69.
Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Macko, Michael E.
1988 Neolithic Newport: Executive Summary – Results of Implementing Mitigation Measures Specified in the Operation Plan and Research Design for the Proposed Newporter North Residential Development at ORA-64. Macko, Inc. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
Meighan, Clement W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2).
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Moriarty, James R., III
1967 Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego County. Science (Vol. 155). 1987 A Separate Origins Theory for Two Early Man Cultures in California. Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In: San Dieguito-La Jolla:
Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos. San Diego County 503
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–4
Archaeological Society Research Paper 1:49-60.
Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K.
2006 Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1217, scale 1:100,000.
Moulton Museum
n.d. Aliso Viejo Ranch. Moulton Museum. Accessed March 19, 2025. https://moultonmuseum.org/exhibits/aliso-viejo-ranch/.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2019 Web soil survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed June 2024.
Public Antiquities Salvage Team
1972 Hansom Ranch. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.
Rogers, Malcolm
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. In San Diego Museum Papers (No. 3 – 1989 printing). San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, California.
Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
San Clemente Historical Society
2019 Timeline of San Clemente Prior to Founding. Electronic document, https://sanclementehistoricalsociety.org/history-timeline/, accessed October 14, 2019.
Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty, III 1961 Scripps Estate Site, San Diego, California: A La Jollan Site Dated 5,460-7,370 Years Before the Present. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 93(3).
Smith, Brian F.
1987 The Excavations at Site CA-SDI-9956/W-3376. On file, San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use.
Smith, Brian F. and James R. Moriarty, III
1985 The Archaeological Excavations at Batiquitos Pointe and Batiquitos Bluffs.
Unpublished report on file at the City of Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
504
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–5
Tan, S.S.
1999 Geologic map of the Dana Point Quadrangle, Orange County, California: A digital database. California Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Mines and Geology, v. 1.0, scale 1:24,000.
True, Delbert L.
1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3). 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County. The Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1-39
Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science 204:701-710.
Walker, Edwin F.
1951 Five Prehistoric Sites in Los Angeles County, California. Publications of the Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 6:1-116.
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.
Warren, Claude N.
1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: Malcolm J. Rogers’ 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Papers (No. 6).
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. In: American Antiquity, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 168-185.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Coast, In: Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C. I. Williams ed. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3): 1-14.
Warren, Claude N., D. L. True and Ardith A. Eudey
1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961.
University of California, Los Angeles.
Wirths, Todd
2025 Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California (APN 632-124-08). BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA). Report on file at BFSA, Poway, California.
505
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A
Resumes of Key Personnel
506
Tracy A. Stropes, MA, RPA
Vice President of Cultural Resources/ Principal Archaeologist BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 484-0915 Fax: (858) 679-9896 Email: [email protected] Education
Master of Arts, Anthropology, San Diego State University, California 2007 Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2000 Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Archaeological Institute of America
Association of Oregon Archaeologists
Experience
Vice President of Cultural Resources/Principal Archaeologist March 2009–Present BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
Poway, California
Tracy A. Stropes has over 33 years of experience in cultural resource management, with experience in project management, report authorship, lithic analysis, laboratory management, Native American consultation, and technical report editing for numerous projects throughout the western United States.
Mr. Stropes has conducted cultural resource surveys, archaeological site testing and evaluations for National Register eligibility and CEQA compliance, mitigation of resources through data recovery for archaeological sites, budget and report preparation, and direction of crews of all sizes for projects ranging in duration from a single-day site visit to multiple years. Mr. Stropes is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) and is on the list of archaeological consultants qualified to conduct archaeological investigations in the city and county of San Diego, county of Riverside, State of Oregon, State of Arizona, and on Arizona and California BLM lands. He has served as project archaeologist for hundreds of projects and composed data recovery and preservation programs for sites throughout the western United States for both CEQA- and NEPA-level compliance.
Archaeological Principal Investigator June 2008–February 2009 TRC Solutions Irvine, California
Cultural resource segment of Natural Sciences and Permitting Division; management of archaeological investigations for private companies and local, state, and federal agencies, personnel management, field and laboratory supervision, lithic analysis, Native American consultation and reporting, NRHP and CEQA site evaluations, and authoring/coauthoring cultural resource management reports.
BFSA Environmental Services
A Perennial Company
507
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 2
Principal Investigator and Project Archaeologist June 2006–May 2008 Archaeological Resource Analysts Oceanside, California
As a sub consultant, served as Principal Investigator and Project Archaeologist for several projects for SRS Inc., including field direction, project and personnel management, lab analysis, and authorship of company reports.
Project Archaeologist September 1996–June 2006
Gallegos & Associates Carlsbad, California
Project management, laboratory management, lithic analysis, field direction, Native American consultation, report authorship/technical editing, and composition of several data recovery/preservation programs for both CEQA and NEPA level compliance.
Project Archaeologist September 1993–September 1996
Macko Inc. Santa Ana, California
Project management, laboratory management, lithic analysis, field supervision, and report authorship/technical editing.
Archaeological Field Technician January 1993–September 1993 Chambers Group Inc. Irvine, California
Archaeological excavation, surveying, monitoring, wet screen facilities management, and project logistics.
Archaeological Field Technician May 1992–September 1992 John Minch and Associates San Juan Capistrano, California Archaeological excavation, surveying, monitoring, wet screen facilities management, and project logistics.
Selected Reports/Papers
Principal Author
2023 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for the Oak Creek Canyon Project, City of Wildomar, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Ambient Pacific OCC, LLC. 2023 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for The Questhaven 76 Project, San Diego County, California (APNs 223-070-007, 223-070-008, and 223-080-046). Prepared for ColRich. 2023 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Bermuda Dunes Self Storage Project, PAR220053, Riverside County, California. Prepared for FAMA Dairy.
2023 A Cultural Resources Study for 4846 Pacifica Drive, City of San Diego. Prepared for Colliers International.
2023 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historical Resources Study for the Maison’s Sierra Project, City of Lancaster, California (Tract No. 27099). Prepared for Ravello Holdings, Inc. 508
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 3
2023 Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation Program for the Omni Hotel Driving Range/Parking Lot Project, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for TRT Holdings, Inc. 2022 A Class III Historic Resources Study for the Anna Avenue Project for Section 106 Compliance, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for John Smith Earthworks, Inc. 2022 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for the Grand Avenue Project, Riverside County, California (APN 379-060-005). Prepared for TriPointe Homes 2022 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Boulder Springs North Project, Riverside County, California (TTMs 31243, 31244, and 31245; APNs 321-020-027, -028, -029, and -030 and 321- 130-047 and -048). Prepared for KB Home.
2022 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historical Resources Study for the Alpine Rancho Palo Verde Project, San Diego County, California (SPL-219-00698-CJA). Prepared for Schindler Real Estate Services, Inc. 2022 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for the Cumming Ranch Project, San Diego County, California (APNs 282-010-08, -30, -34, and -43; 283-011-06; 283-021-01 and -02; 283-022-02; 283-041- 25 and -26; and 283-051-01). Prepared for 805 Properties. 2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Gatchell Road Project, San Diego County, California (Project No. 100203). Prepared for the National Park Service. 2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for Site CA-SDI-11,934/H, San Diego County, California (APN 532-520-15). Prepared for the National Park Service. 2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historical Resources Study for the Renaissance Ranch Project, Riverside County, California (SPL-2004-01431-JPL). Prepared for Richland Developers, Inc. 2021 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Coppel Remodel & Addition Project, La Jolla, California.
Prepared for Marengo Morton Architects, Inc.
2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for CAB-20-1, San Diego County, California (APN 532-520-15). Prepared for the National Park Service.
2021 Cultural Resources Study for 7951 Paseo Del Ocaso, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Aidlin Darling Design.
2021 Cultural Resources Study for the Secret Hills Ranch Project, San Diego County, California (PDS2020- LDGRMJ-30253, APN 520-060-18)
2021 Cultural Resources Study for the UCLA Cedar Suites and Willow Creek Staff Housing Project, Lake Arrowhead, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. 2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for CA-SDI-13,884, San Diego County, California (APN 532-520-13). Prepared for the National Park Service. 2021 A Cultural Resources Study for the UCLA Glamping Facility Project, Lake Arrowhead, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for UCLA Capital Programs. 2021 Archaeological Test Results for 2596 Chalcedony Street, San Diego, California. Prepared for Colliers International.
509
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 4
2021 Cultural Resources Study for the 12247 Elliott Avenue Project, Los Angeles County, California.
Prepared for EPD Solutions.
2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Roquet Ranch Project, City of Colton, San Bernardino County, California (Tentative Tract Map No. 19983; APNs 116-701-101, -102, 116-702-101, -105, -121, -122, -123, and 116-703-118). Prepared for Sunmeadows, LLC. 2020 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historical Resources Study for the Ocean Breeze Ranch Project, Bonsall, San Diego County, California (SPL-2020-00176). Prepared for Ocean Breeze Ranch, LLC. 2020 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Encinitas Beach Hotel Project, Encinitas, California.
Prepared for JMI Realty, LLC
2020 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Pacifica Estates Project, Fallbrook, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Jose Islas.
2020 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Hidden Valley Ranch Project, SPL-2004- 01124, City of Poway, California. Prepared for Barbara Malone. 2020 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for The Farms in Poway Project, Poway, San Diego County, California (APNs 273-110-070, -080, and -180). Prepared for Kevin McNamara. 2020 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Hansen Lot Split Project, TPM 37655, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Forest Hansen.
2020 Cultural Resources Study for the West Coast Cold Storage Project, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside (APNs 178-140-010 and -018). Prepared for
2020 Cultural Resources Study for the 340 East Bradley Avenue Project, San Diego County, California (PDS2021-LDGRMJ-30346). Prepared for A N1-Mart, LLC.
2019 Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Atwell Phase 1A Project (formerly Butterfield Specific Plan), City of Banning, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Pardee Homes. 2019 A Cultural Resource Assessment for the Glen Circle Project, Poway, California. Prepared for MDD Homes.
2019 Cultural Resources Survey for the Highlands at Warner Springs and Off-Site Fire Access Road Project, Warner Springs, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Warner Springs Estates, LLC. 2019 A Cultural Resources Assessment for the 8801 East Marginal Way Project, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. Prepared for CenterPoint Properties Trust. 2019 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the 7980 Park Village Road Emergency Repair Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Orion Construction Corporation. 2019 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Harmony Grove Village, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Lennar – San Diego Division.
2019 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Price-Cohen Residence Project, 2045 Lowry Place, La Jolla, California 92037. Prepared for Lena Price and Thomas Cohen. 2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Melrose Drive Widening Project, City of Oceanside, California. Prepared for California West Communities. 510
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 5
2019 A Cultural Resources Study for the Majestic Chino Heritage Project, City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the Ocean Breeze Ranch Project, Bonsall, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Ocean Breeze Ranch, LLC.
2019 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Arthofer Residence Project, 1890 Viking Way, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Frank and Sharon Arthofer. 2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Greentree Ranch Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc.
2018 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Escondido Country Club Project, SPL-2018- 00135-CJA, City of Escondido, California. Prepared for New Urban West, Inc. 2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the North County Plaza Project, Carlsbad, California.
Prepared for Planning Systems, Inc.
2018 Cultural Resources Addendum Report for the Ivey Palms Project, Thousand Palms, Riverside, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc.
2017 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Altman Residence Project, 9696 La Jolla Farms Road, La Jolla, California 92037. Prepared for Steve and Lisa Altman. 2017 Cultural Resources Study for the Escondido Country Club Project, City of Escondido, California.
Prepared for New Urban West, Inc.
2017 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tract 28859 Project for Section 106 Compliance. Prepared for Menifee 28859, LLC.
2016 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Lake Ranch Project, TR 36730, Riverside County, California.
2016 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Imperial Beach Bikeway Village Project, 536 13th Street and 535 Florence Street, Imperial Beach, California. Prepared for Bikeway Village, LLC. 2015 Cultural Resource Data Recovery and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Site SDI-10,237 Locus F, Everly Subdivision Project, El Cajon, California. Prepared for Shea Homes. 2015 A Class III Historic Resource Study for the Miramar Clearwell Improvements Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Global Environmental Permitting, Inc. 2015 A Class III Historic Resource Study for the College Boulevard Project, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Bent West, LLC.
2015 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Parkside Project for Section 106 Compliance, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Lennar Corporation.
2015 A Cultural Resource Assessment for the Zhao Residence Project, Poway, California (275-240-66).
Prepared for Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty.
2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Utah Trail Project, County of San Bernardino, California (APNs 621-281-22 through 621-281-25). Prepared for Ecos Energy, LLC. 511
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 6
2014 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Sky Canyon Project (PP25309), Riverside County, California. Prepared for Rocky Snider California Project Management Office. 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Shoshone Valley Road Project, County of San Bernardino, California (APNs 613-233-01, -02, -03, -04, -27, -28, -29, and -30). Prepared for Ecos Energy, LLC. 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Nuevo 055 Project, Community of Nuevo, County of Riverside. Prepared for Ecos Energy, LLC.
2014 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Bourgeoios Project, Poway, California. Prepared for Bill Yen & Associates, Inc.
2014 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Aliso Canyon Major Subdivision Project, Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Zephyr Partners. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 723 Project, San Diego, California.
Prepared for
Ortiz Corporation.
2013 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Rogers Tierra Bonita Project, Poway, California. Prepared for John D. Fitch & Associates.
2013 A Cultural Resource Assessment Update for the Girard Townhome Project, TR 35477, Riverside County, California. Prepared for G8 Development, Inc.
2013 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Ridge Park Project, City of Temecula, California.
Prepared for Ambient Communities.
2013 A Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the Citrus Heights/Fairway Drive Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for CV Communities. 2013 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Bixby Highgrove Project (TTM 36437), Riverside County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc.
2013 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for the Ramona Ranch Affordable Housing Project for Section 106 Compliance, San Diego County, California. Prepared for AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. 2013 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Yates Road Project (TTM 36437), Riverside County, California. Prepared for CV Communities, LLC.
2013 A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation Program for the Warner Ranch Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for HP Warner Ranch, LP.
2013 A Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for TPM 36585, Riverside County, California. Prepared for GF Real Estate Services.
2013 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for TR 31597 and TR 32627, Riverside County, California.
Prepared for Standard Pacific Homes.
2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Sunny Cal Project, City of Beaumont, County of Riverside.
Prepared for CV Communities, LLC.
512
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 7
2013 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for The Sierra Bella Project for Section 106 Compliance, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Forestar Corona, LLC. 2013 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for the Moosa Creek Mitigation Bank Project. Prepared for a Creek LLC.
2013 Archaeological Survey of the Rohmiller Residence for a Bulletin 560 Permit Application, 2350 Calle De La Garza, La Jolla, California 92037 (APN 346-180-22). Prepared for Architect Mark D. Lyon, Inc.
2013 Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation Program for the Oak Creek Project, City of Escondido, California. Prepared for New Urban West, Inc.
2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Hope Harbor Project, Riverside County, California.
Prepared for Medhat Rofael.
2013 Archaeological Survey of the Liske Residence, La Jolla, California. Prepared for ECEGC Inc. 2013 An Updated Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 36484 and 36485, Audie Murphy Ranch. Prepared for Brookfield Residential. 2013 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study For the 401 West Ash Street Project San Diego, California.
Prepared for PierPoint Legacy Holdings, LLC.
2013 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Ten on Columbia Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for InDev, Inc.
2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Washington Avenue Project, City of Murrieta, California.
Prepared for Coastal Land Solutions.
2012 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Wildomar 23 Project, Riverside County, California.
Prepared for Lennar.
2012 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for the USGS Creepmeter Project. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, El Centro Office.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the for the Johnston Residence Project, La Jolla, California.
Prepared for Heather Johnston.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Howell Residence Project, Poway, California. Prepared for Cal Howell.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 799 Project. Prepared for Burtech Pipeline.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study For the Villa Hermosa Project San Diego, California. Prepared for David Chow.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Payan Property Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Landmark Engineering.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the El Camino Real Widening Project, Carlsbad, California.
Prepared for Planning Systems.
513
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 8
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Encore Trust Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Metcalf Development and Consulting.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Andres Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Engineering Design Group.
2012 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Diamond Springs Project, Riverside County, California.
Prepared for Benjamin J. Stables III, B 3 Consulting.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the ActivCare at Mission Bay Project, San Diego, California.
Prepared for ActivCare Living, Inc.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Water Group 790 Project, City of San Diego, California.
Prepared for Orion Construction Corporation.
2012 Results of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Mission Brewery Villas Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Eilar Associates, Inc.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Gatto Residence Project, La Jolla, California.
Prepared for Marengo Morton Architects Inc.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sunset Cliffs Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for KTA Construction.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 682M Project, City of San Diego, California.
Prepared for BRH Garver.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Pelberg Residence Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Linda and Art Pelberg.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Rose Creek Bikeway Bridge Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Flatiron West, Inc.
2011 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the South Mission Valley Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for HPS Mechanical, Inc.
2011 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for the La Dama de Oro Project, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Mohave Gold Mining & Exploration, Inc. 2011 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Jacobs Health Care Facility Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Jacobs Health Care, LLC.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study For the Rowland Auto Dismantling Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for David Rowland.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Dye Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Eric Dye.
2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Rosa Academy Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Santa Rosa Academy Charter School c/o Bradley Burke Competitive Edge Development, LLC.
2011 Cultural Resource Data Recovery Study for SDI-4606 Locus B for Saint Gabriel’s Catholic Church, Poway, California. Prepared for Saint Gabriel’s Catholic Church. 514
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 9
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Nooren Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Jack Nooren.
2011 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 768 Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation.
2011 Cultural Resource Test for the 10th Avenue Parking Lot Project, City of San Diego, California.
Prepared for 11th and B Investment Associates, LLC.
2011 A Cultural Resources Study for the Ampudia Lot Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Venture Pacific Commercial Services, Inc.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Hyde Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Paul and Denise Hyde.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Fialko Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Thomas Armstrong Construction, Inc.
2011 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 682M Project, City of San Diego, California.
Prepared for HTA Engineering & Construction Inc.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Butterfield Residence Project, La Jolla, California.
Prepared for Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
2011 A Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Eichen Residence Project, San Diego, California.
Prepared for Steigerwald-Dougherty, Inc.
2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Galway Downs Project, Riverside County, California.
Prepared for Trip Hord.
2011 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for Rancho Bella Vista Phase IV (TR 31871), Riverside County, California. Prepared for Lennar Inland Division.
2011 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Salvation Army Vehicle Storage Area Demolition Project. Prepared for The Salvation Army General Counsel. 2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Kates Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Brad and Shannon Kates.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Kralik Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for John Kralik.
2010 An Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Cricket Cell Tower Project (Permit # 3399 06-032), San Diego County, California. Prepared for Ken Hayes.
2010 A Cultural Resources Study for the 47th Street Warehouse Project City of San Diego, California, Project No. 190957. Prepared for 47th Street Properties. 2010 A Cultural Resource Study for the Dickenson Ranch Project, San Bernardino County, California.
Prepared for Dickenson and Son Property Management and Investments. 2010 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Young Family Trust Lot Split Project City of Escondido, California. Prepared for Young Family Trust.
515
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 10
2010 An Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Jamul Rural Fire Station Auxiliary Access Road Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for TCB. 2010 Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation Program for the Citracado Parkway Extension Project, City of Escondido, California. Prepared for AECOM.
2010 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Sycamore Creek Specific Plan No. 256 Amendment No. 2, Riverside County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning. 2010 A Phase III Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for CA-SDI-16,986, Hidden Meadows, San Diego County, California (TPM 20794). Tuscan Ridge, LLC. 2010 Historic Properties Treatment Plan for the Talega (64 Area) 12kV Conversion Project Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton San Diego County California. Prepared for Synergy Electric Company, Inc. 2010 A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation Program for the Highlands at Warner Springs Project, Warner Springs, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Warner Springs Estates, LLC. 2010 A Cultural Resources Literature Review for the 11099 North Torrey Pines Road Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Touchstone Investments.
2010 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the San Jacinto Poultry Ranch Storage Building Project, San Jacinto, California. Prepared for Moark, LLC.
2010 A Phase III Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for SDI-16986, Hidden Meadows, San Diego, California (TPM 20794). Prepared for Tuscan Ridge, LLC. 2010 Cultural Resources Study for the Dos Colinas Project, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Dos Colinas, LLC.
2010 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Greater Alpine Fire Safe Council Horsethief Vegetation Management Project. Prepared for the Greater Alpine Fire Safe Council. 2010 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Moses Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Brian Moses.
2010 Pottery Canyon Site Archaeological Evaluation Project City of San Diego, California. Prepared for the City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department.
2010 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Shabaz Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Negar Shabaz.
2009 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Kramer 453 Project, San Bernardino County, California.
Prepared for LightSource Renewables LLC.
2009 A Cultural Resources Study for the Hronopoulus Residence Project, City of San Diego, California.
Prepared for Andreas Hronopoulus.
2009 A Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the East Point Loma Trunk Sewer Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Southern California Soil and Testing. 2009 A Cultural Resources Study for the McKean SDP Project. San Diego, California. 2009 An Archaeological Assessment for the Rivera-Placentia Project, City of Riverside, California. 516
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 11
Prepared for Riverside Construction Company.
2009 Cultural Resource Data Recovery Plan for the North Ocean Beach Gateway Project. Prepared for the City of San Diego and KTU+A.
2009 Cultural Resource Letter Report for the Borrego Substation Feasibility Study, Borrego Springs, California. Prepared for RBF Consulting.
2009 A Cultural Resource Study for the Gatto Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Marengo Martin Architects Inc.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the Central Feeder Connection Project, San Bernardino, California.
Prepared for Albert A. Webb and Associates.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the Clay Street Connection Project, Riverside, California. Prepared for Albert A. Webb and Associates.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the Green Hills Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Atlas Investments, LLC.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the La Sierra Pipeline Project, Riverside, California. Prepared for Albert A. Webb and Associates.
2009 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the East Point Loma Trunk Sewer Project. Prepared for Southern California Soil & Testing.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the Mockingbird Connection Project, Riverside, California.
Prepared for Albert A. Webb and Associates.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the Mesquite Lake Treatment Plan Project, Imperial County, California. Prepared for Albert A. Webb and Associates. 2008 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the 28220 Highridge Road Development Project, Rancho Palos Verdes, California. Prepared for REC Development. 2008 Wild Goose Expansion 3 Project Butte County, California Colusa County, California. Prepared for Niska Gas Storage LLC.
2008 Class III Cultural Resource Survey for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Four Railway Bridge Renewal Project, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for BNSF Railway Company. 2008 I-80 Colfax Site Cultural Resource Records Search Report, Placer County, California. Prepared for Granite Construction Company.
2008 I-80 Gold Run Site Cultural Resource Records Search Report, Placer County, California. Prepared for Granite Construction Company.
2008 Cultural Resource Monitoring at 31431 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, California.
Prepared for Herman Weissker, Inc.
2008 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Snow White Pumice Mine, Hinkley, California. Prepared for U.S.
Mining and Minerals Corporation.
2007 Nodule Industries of North Coastal San Diego: Change and Stasis in 10,000 Years of Lithic 517
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 12
Technology. Masters thesis on file, San Diego State University. 2007 Cultural Resource Inventory for Empire Homes (APN 104-180-04), Lake Forest, California. Prepared for Empire Homes.
2007 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for APN 104-200-09, Beaumont, California. Prepared for Mary Chan.
2007 Cultural Resource Inventory for Empire Homes (APN 104-180-04), Lake Forest, California. Prepared for Empire Homes.
2006 Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Data Recovery Program for CA-SDI-8694, and Indexing and Preservation Program Study for CA-SDI-8303 and CA-SDI-8797 Locus C, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for City of Carlsbad.
2005 Grand Pacific Resorts Data Recovery and Index Sample Program for CA-SDI-8797, Area A, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Grand Pacific Resorts Inc. 2004 "Near the Harris Site Quarry" Cultural Resource Data Recovery and Preservation Program for CASDI-13028, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Harbrecht Development, L.P. 2004 Cultural Resource Survey and Boundary Test Report for the Lilac Ranch Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Empire Companies.
2003 Cultural Resource Data Recovery and Preservation Program for CA-SDI-12027, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Harbrecht Development Inc. 2002 Data Recovery Program for the Pacbell Site CA-SDI-5633, San Marcos, California. Prepared for Joseph Wong Design Associates.
2001 McCrink Ranch Cultural Resource Test Program Additional Information for Selected Sites, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Shapouri & Associates. 2001 The Quail Ridge Project Cultural Resource Test Program, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Helix Environmental Planning, Inc.
2000 Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the North Sand Sheet Full Buildout Program, Owens Lake, California. Prepared for CH2MHill.
1995 Final Report: Archaeological Investigations Conducted for the Abalone Cove Dewatering Wells, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Environmental Services.
1995 Final Report: A Class III Intensive Survey of a 100-Acre Sand and Gravel Mining Area, Imperial County, California. Prepared for the Lilburn Corporation. 1994 Final Report: Data Recovery Excavations at Five Late Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Along the Los Trancos Access Road, Newport Coast Planned Community, Orange County, California.
Prepared for the Coastal Community Builders, a division of The Irvine Company.
Contributing Author
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the 3868-3900 Sepulveda Boulevard Project, City of Culver City, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Sepulveda Suites, Inc. 518
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 13
2019 Final Archaeological Data Recovery and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Westin Hotel and Timeshare Project, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. 2019 Cultural Resources Study for the Commerce Logistics Center Project, 5200 Sheila Street, Commerce, California 90040. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. 2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for the McElwain Project (SPL-2019-00565), Murrieta, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Murrieta Development II, LLC. 2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California. Prepared for Murrieta Development II, LLC.
2018 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Emerald Acres Project, Winchester, Riverside County. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc.
2018 A Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Golden City Project, Tracts 28532-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5 and Tract 34445, City of Murrieta, California. Prepared for North Murrieta Community, LLC. 2018 An Archaeological/Historical Study for the Citracado Business Park West Project, City of Escondido. Prepared for Pacific Harmony Grove Development. 2015 Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation Program for the Westin Hotel and Timeshare Project, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. 2015 A Class III Cultural Resource Study for the Habitat for Humanity Project, Perris, California. Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley.
2015 A Phase II Cultural Resource Assessment for the Munro Valley Solar Project, Inyo County, California.
Prepared for Prepared for Ecos Energy, LLC.
2014 An Extended Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the Belvedere-Webster Project, City of Poway, California (APN 323-010-26-00). Prepared for Webster Realty Group. 2014 Cultural Resources Study for the Brook Forest Conservation Bank Project, Valley Center, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Brook Forest, LLC. 2014 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Crystal View Lane Project, Poway, California. Prepared for Mark Catrambone.
2014 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Muscat Project, Poway, California (TPM 13-002; APN 278- 180-44). Prepared for Mr. Ed Muscat.
2014 An Extended Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the Mulholland Highway Improvement Project, Cities of Calabasas and Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. City of Calabasas Public Works Department.
2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 9th and Broadway Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Bridge Housing Corporation.
2013 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Cisterra Sempra Tower Project San Diego, California.
Prepared for Eilar Associates, Inc.
2013 A Section 106 (NHPA) Cultural Resources Study for the Toscana Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Forestar Toscana, LLC.
519
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 14
2013 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Gaslamp Hotel Project. Prepared for The Robert Green Company.
2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Pinnacle International 15th and Island Project. Prepared for Pinnacle International.
2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Horton Plaza Park Improvement Project. Prepared for the City of San Diego.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the T-Mobile West, LLC Telecommunications Candidate SD02867C (Presidio Park). Prepared for Michael Brandman Associates. 2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Old Police Headquarters Project. Prepared for Terramar Retail Centers.
2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Knight Residence Project. Prepared for Mr. Dennis Knight. 2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the 9th and Broadway Project. Prepared for Bridge Housing Corporation.
2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Blue Sky Project. Prepared for Gray Development. 2011 An Archaeological Study for 1887 Viking Way Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Island Architects.
2011 A Cultural Resource Evaluation Program for the Otay Hills Quarry Project, San Diego County, California, Log No. 93-19-006J; P04-004; RPO4-001. Prepared for EnviroMINE. 2010 A Cultural Resource Evaluation Program for the Batchelder Lot Split Project, San Diego County, California, TPM 21177; KIVA PROJECT 10-0125593; APNs 247-010-10, -13. Prepared for David Batchelder.
2010 A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation Program for the Butterfield Trails Ranch Project, Valley Center, San Diego County, California, TM 5551, P 08-028, GPA 06-007, REZ 06-010, LOG NO. 06-08-033. Prepared for Wayne B. Hilbig.
2008 Lithic Analysis for Thirteen Sites Along the Transwestern Phoenix Expansion Project, Loops A and B.
Prepared for Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
2005 Cultural Resource Survey and Testing for the Star Ranch Property, San Diego, California. 2004 Cultural Resource Test Report for the Palomar Point Project: Site CA-SDI-16205, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Lanikai Management Corp.
2004 Cultural Resource Survey and Test Report for the Canyon View Project, Carlsbad, California.
Prepared for Shapouri & Associates.
2004 Cultural Resource Test Report for the Yamamoto Property: Site SDM-W-2046, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Cunningham Consultants, Inc.
2004 Historical Resources Report for the Kuta and Mascari Properties, Otay Mesa, California. Prepared for Centex Homes.
2004 Cultural Resource Monitor and Test Report for the Encina Power Plant Project, Carlsbad, 520
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 15
California. Prepared for Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
2004 Cultural Resource Test Report for Site CA-SDI-16788, Otay Mesa, California. Prepared for Otay Mesa Property, L.P.
2004 Cultural Resource Survey and Test Report for the Lonestar Project, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Otay Mesa Property, L.P. 2003 Cultural Resource Mitigation Program for the Torrey Ranch Site CA-SDI-5325, San Diego, California. Prepared for Garden Communities.
2003 Cultural Resource Survey and Test Report for the Johnson Canyon Parcel, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Otay Mesa Property, L.P. 2002 Cultural Resource Data Recovery Plan for the Shaw Project: Sites CA-SDI-13025 and CA-SDI13067, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Shapouri & Associates. 2001 Archaeological Test Program for CA-SDI-14112 Mesa Norte Project, San Diego, California.
Prepared for Hunsaker & Associates.
2001 The Vista-Oceanside Cultural Resource Survey and Test Program, Vista, California. Prepared for Shapouri & Associates.
2001 Cultural Resource Test Program for the Wilson Property, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad.
2001 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Oceanside-Escondido Project, County of San Diego, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates.
2001 Cultural Resource Test Program for the Kramer Junction Expansion Project Adelanto, California.
Prepared for AMEC.
2001 Cultural Resource Test Program for CA-SDI-12508 San Diego, California (LDR No. 99-1331).
Prepared for Garden Communities.
2000 Archaeological Testing of Prehistoric Sites CASDI-14115 and CA-SDI-14116 for The Mesa Grande Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Solana Mesa Partners, LLC. 2000 Cultural Resource Survey and Test Report for the Wetmore Property, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Mr. Andy Campbell.
2000 The Torrey Ranch Cultural Resource Test Program, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Garden Communities.
2000 Cultural Resource Test Results for the Otay Mesa Generating Project. Prepared for the California Energy Commission and Otay Mesa Generating Company, LCC. 2000 The Eternal Hills Cultural Resource Survey and Test Program, City of Oceanside, California.
Prepared for Eternal Hills Memorial Park.
2000 The Quail Ridge Cultural Resource Test Program, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Helix Environmental Planning Inc.
2000 Cultural Resource Testing Program for CA-SDI-5652/H and CA-SDI-9474H SR 78/Rancho Del Oro 521
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 16
Interchange Project, Oceanside, California. Prepared for Tetratech Inc. 2000 Cultural Resource Test Results for a Portion of CA-SDI-8654 (Kuebler Ranch) Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Shapouri & Associates. 2000 Historical/Archaeological Monitoring and Data Recovery Program for Prehistoric Site CA-SDI-48, Locus C Naval Base Point Loma, San Diego, California. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Southwest Division.
2000 Cultural Resource Evaluation Report for the Palomar College Science Building Project, San Marcos, California. Prepared for Parsons Engineering Science Inc. 1999 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Village of Ystagua Water Main Break City of San Diego, California. Prepared for the City of San Diego Water Department. 1999 The Effect of Projectile Point Size on Atlatl Dart Efficiency in Lithic Technology Vol. 24, No 1 p (27- 37).
1999 Cultural Resource Evaluation Report for the Oceanside-Escondido Bikeway Project, San Marcos, California. Prepared for City of San Marcos.
1999 5000 Years of Occupation: Cultural Resource Inventory and Assessment Program for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared or Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc.
1999 Silver Oaks Estates Cultural Resource Enhanced Survey and Test Report for a Portion of CA-SDI7202 San Diego, California. Prepared for Helix Environmental Planning Inc. 1999 Historical Archaeological Test of a portion of CA-SDI-8303 for the Faraday Road Extension Carlsbad, California. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad. 1999 Cultural Resource Literature Review for the North Coast Transportation Study Arterial Streets Alternative San Diego County, California. Prepared for MLF/San Diego Association of Govt. 1998 Archaeological Test Report for a Portion of CA-SDI-9115/SDM-W-122 Carlsbad, California.
Prepared for Industrial Developments International.
1998 Rainforest Ranch Cultural Resource Survey and Significance Test for Prehistoric Sites CA-SDI14932, CA-SDI-14937, CA-SDI-14938, and CA-SDI-14946 County of San Diego, California.
Prepared for the Boys and Girls Club of Inland North County. 1998 Cultural Resource Evaluation Report for the Oceanside-Escondido Bikeway Project San Marcos, California.
1998 Final Report: Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Sterling Property, Carlsbad, California.
Prepared for SPT Holdings LCC.
1996 Final Report: Archaeological Survey and Test for the Huber Property Carlsbad, California.
Prepared for Gene Huber.
1996 Final Report: Results of Phase II Test Excavations and Phase III Data Recovery Excavations at Nine Archaeological Sites Within the Newport Coast Planned Community Phase III Entitlement Area, San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, California. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, a division of The Irvine Company.
522
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 17
1995 Preliminary Report: Phase II Test Results From Nine Prehistoric Archaeological Sites within the Proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional County Park. Prepared for EDAW, Inc. 1995 Final Report: A Phase II Test Excavation at CA-ORA-136, Block 800 City of Newport Beach, Orange County California. Prepared for the Irvine Apartment Communities. 523
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
524
Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
525
Appendix D:
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and
Review of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 19442, Proposed Residential
Redevelopment
526
17991 Fitch • Irvine, California 92614 • PHONE (949) 442-2442 • FAX (949) 476-8322 • www.nmggeotechnical.com November 25, 2025
Project No. 24074-02
To: Shea Homes
15261 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92618
Attention: Ms. Danielle Prigmore
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 19442, Proposed Residential Redevelopment, Aliso Viejo, California
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In accordance with your request and authorization, NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG) has reviewed the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 19442 and Engineering Site Plan and performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed redevelopment at the subject site. Our study focused on evaluating the existing geotechnical conditions with respect to the proposed residential development. The project will consist of the demolition of the existing office park, regrading of the site, and construction of 137 new residential homes. The project will require minor modification of the existing perimeter slopes and includes addition of retaining walls at the top of existing slopes up to 6 feet tall along the eastern and southeastern perimeter and retaining walls at the toe of slopes up to 8 feet tall along the western and northern perimeter. The project construction will also include new utility and interior street infrastructure. The VTTM reviewed for this report was prepared by Proactive Engineering Consultants (Proactive).
This geotechnical study included a review of background reports and maps, review of a prior geotechnical investigation report covering the subject site and surrounding area prepared by Jack G. Raub Company (1987), field reconnaissance, drilling of six hollow-stem-auger borings, excavation of four geotechnical test pits, laboratory testing, preliminary geotechnical analysis of the collected data, and preparation of this report.
The site is predominantly underlain by a thin mantle of compacted fill over sedimentary bedrock consisting of interbedded sandstone, siltstone and diatomaceous siltstone. Quaternary-age alluvial deposits were encountered in the southeast corner of the property, at depths of approximately 40 feet. The compacted fill thickness varies from about 2.5 to 5 feet over the majority of the site, with the thickest fills (20 to 40 feet thick) located in the southern portion of the site.
No active or potentially active faults are mapped beneath the property. The nearest known seismogenic source is the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust fault, located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast. Furthermore, the site is not located within a mapped seismic hazard zone for Reviewed 12-15-2025
(Accepted for TTM stage, final report
shall be submitted for review at grading
permit stage)
527
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt ii
NMG
liquefaction or earthquake-induced landsliding (CDMG, 2001). The seismic design parameters were prepared in accordance with the 2025 California Building Code.
The main geotechnical issues impacting the project development include:
• Removal of the existing fill and weathered bedrock in the upper 5 feet to provide a uniform cap of certified engineered fill for the building pads. The demolition of existing structures and utilities may require deeper excavations and would result in additional loose, disturbed soil that will need to be removed and replaced as compacted fill. • The finer grade bedrock (siltstone and claystone) is more plastic, expansive, corrosive, and generally poorer subgrade material than the existing fill and coarse-grained bedrock.
Additional mixing and blending of fill materials may be needed to reduce the impact on the project design (i.e. building foundations). Additionally, deepened removals may be required where finer grained bedrock is exposed to mitigate differential expansion. • Retaining wall backcuts into the existing ascending slopes should be mapped to document the existing bedrock conditions and determine the extent of the compacted fill cover for the slope. • Deeper utility excavations into the bedrock may encounter siltstone and claystone layers with adverse bedding conditions which may adversely impact trench stability. This condition should be closely monitored during construction. Excess spoils from the siltstone bedrock should not be placed near the edge of the trench, especially on the up-dip side of the bedding. • Potential for strong seismic shaking during an earthquake on a regionally active fault. • Addition of design fill and retaining wall at the top of slope along the eastern perimeter may cause surcharge loading to the existing retaining wall for the gas station. This condition will require further evaluation once retaining wall plans are made available. • The varying deep and shallow bedrock conditions will influence the seismic and foundation design and will also need to be taken into account during the site grading/earthwork operations and underground utility construction.
• Due to the presence of shallow bedrock, the site is considered unsuitable for stormwater infiltration.
This report presents our geotechnical findings, conclusions and preliminary recommendations for project planning and preliminary design related to the tentative tract plan. The report includes a Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) which depicts the boring and test pit locations by NMG, and the subsurface geologic conditions based on prior mapping by others. Cross section A-A’ (Figure 4) depicts the existing and design conditions and was used for our preliminary slope stability analysis where a portion of the slope below the fire station exposed bedrock, and in a second location along the eastern perimeter where design fill is proposed above an existing slope with a retaining wall at the toe of slope. The geotechnical boring and trench logs and laboratory test data from our subsurface exploration are included in Appendices B and C, respectively. Appendix D includes 528
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt iii
NMG
the code-based seismic analysis. The results of our slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix E. Appendix F includes NMG's general earthwork and grading specifications.
The proposed residential redevelopment at the site is considered geotechnically acceptable, providing the recommendations provided in this report and future reports are incorporated into the design, grading and construction. The recommendations in this report are preliminary and final geotechnical recommendations will be provided based on review of the future grading, foundation, and improvement plans. Additional testing of the subgrade and foundation soils will need to be performed after completion of the site grading for confirmation of the recommendations.
NMG's expertise and scope of services did not include assessment of potential subsurface environmental contaminants or environmental health hazards.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services.
Respectfully submitted,
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
William Goodman, CEG 1577 Karlos Markouizos, RCE 50312
Principal Geologist Principal Engineer
WG/KGM/je
Email Distribution: Addressee
Ms. Emilie Simard, Shea Homes
Mr. Peter Carlson, Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
\NEER/
[5
0 CEG No. 1577
No. C 5031
529
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt iv
NMG
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
1.1 Scope of Work .....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Site Location and Existing Conditions ................................................................................1
1.3 Site Reconnaissance.............................................................................................................2
1.4 Site History ..........................................................................................................................2
1.5 Prior Geotechnical Work .....................................................................................................3
1.6 Proposed Development ........................................................................................................3
1.7 Subsurface Exploration........................................................................................................3
1.8 Infiltration Potential.............................................................................................................4
1.9 Laboratory Testing...............................................................................................................4
2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS................................................................................................5
2.1 Geologic Units.....................................................................................................................5
2.2 Geologic Structure/Faulting.................................................................................................5
2.3 Seismic Hazards...................................................................................................................6
2.4 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................6
2.5 Engineering Soil Properties .................................................................................................7
2.6 Liquefaction Potential..........................................................................................................7
2.7 Settlement Potential .............................................................................................................8
2.8 Slope Stability......................................................................................................................8
2.9 Existing Asphalt Pavement..................................................................................................8
2.10 Corrosivity Testing ..............................................................................................................8
2.11 Earthwork Factors................................................................................................................9
3.0 CONCLUSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................10
3.1 General Conclusion............................................................................................................10
3.2 Demolition of Existing Structures .....................................................................................10
3.3 Site Preparation and Earthwork .........................................................................................10
3.4 Infiltration ..........................................................................................................................11
3.5 Settlement Potential ...........................................................................................................11
3.6 Foundation and Slab Design Guidelines............................................................................11
3.7 Foundation Setbacks..........................................................................................................12
3.8 Seismic Design Guidelines................................................................................................12
3.9 Pavement Design ...............................................................................................................13
3.10 Exterior Concrete ...............................................................................................................14
3.11 Soil Corrosivity and Cement Type .....................................................................................14
3.12 Pipelines, Trench Excavations, Temporary Shoring, and Backfill....................................14
4.0 PLANNING AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................16
5.0 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................17 530
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt v
NMG
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Figures & Illustrations
Figure 1 – Site Location Map – Rear of Text
Figure 2 – Seismic Hazards Map – Rear of text
Figure 3 – Regional Fault Map – Rear of Text
Figure 4 – Cross Section A-A' – Rear of Text
Plate 1– Geotechnical Map – Rear of Text
Appendices
Appendix A – References
Appendix B – Geotechnical Boring and Test Pit Logs
Appendix C – Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – Seismic Parameters
Appendix E – Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix F – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 531
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 1
NMG
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of Work
The purpose of our geotechnical study was to evaluate the existing subsurface conditions in light of the proposed residential redevelopment at the subject site. Our investigation and this report are based upon our review of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Engineering Site Plan prepared by Proactive Engineering (received November 14, 2025).
Our scope of work included the following:
• Background review of available published and unpublished reports and maps (Appendix A). • Review of available historic aerial photographs and topographic maps pertinent to the site and surrounding area.
• Drilling, logging, sampling, and backfilling of six hollow-stem-auger borings (H-1 to H-6) to approximate depths ranging from 11 to 51 feet deep below ground surface (bgs). Approximate boring locations are shown on Plate 1, and the boring logs are included in Appendix B. • Excavation of four geotechnical test pits to confirm the geologic and as-graded conditions of a portion of the perimeter slope below the fire station. Approximate test pit locations are shown on Plate 1, and the logs are included in Appendix B.
• Laboratory testing of relatively undisturbed ring and bulk soil samples. Test results are summarized in Appendix C. Soil test results from the prior investigation in the area were also utilized in our engineering assessment of the soil properties. • Geotechnical evaluation and analysis of the compiled data with respect to the proposed residential development. This included seismic design analysis (Appendix D) and preliminary slope stability analysis (Appendix E).
• Preparation of this report including our findings, conclusions, recommendations, and accompanying illustrations. The report includes a Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) and geologic Cross-Section A-A' (Figure 4).
1.2 Site Location and Existing Conditions
The subject site is located in the city of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California, south of Pacific Park Drive, west of Aliso Creek Road and bounded to the northwest by an existing fire station and Journey street, northeast by an existing gas station and south by an existing office complex (Figure 1).
The roughly 8.4-acre site consists of generally flat ground with elevations ranging between 346 mean sea level (msl) at the southeast corner to 388 msl in the northwest corner. This measurement includes slope areas within the property. The relief across the site for the building area is about 8 feet. A 25- to 35-foot ascending, vegetated slope is present on the west to northwest area of the site with a descending slope on the eastern area bordering Aliso Creek Road that is up to 16 feet tall. Along the northeast perimeter of the site, adjacent to the gas station, there is a combination of 532
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 2
NMG
descending slopes and retaining walls up to approximately 6 feet tall. These slopes are generally constructed at 2H:1V slope ratios. The majority of the site is developed as paved parking lots with three, two-story office buildings, with the exception of the ascending and descending slopes.
1.3 Site Reconnaissance
Our site reconnaissance was initially performed on November 26, 2024 and more recently on October 13, 2025. The site was accessed from Aliso Creek Road and the primary field observations are listed below:
• Three large two-story office buildings are present on the site. The majority of the site is covered in asphalt pavement and hardscape.
• An approximately 2:1 (H:V) descending slope up to 16 feet tall is present from the at-grade building and parking lot area down to Aliso Creek Road and a southern access street. The slopes are covered in vegetation and large trees.
• At the southeastern corner of the subject site, there is an existing 5-foot retaining wall that is tilting 13 degrees to the southeast.
• A retaining wall up to approximately 6 feet high is present on the northeastern boundary associated with the Shell gas station car wash facility. • An ascending 2H:1V slope up to approximately 35 feet high is present on the northwestern and western boundary of the site. The slopes have one concrete stormwater v-ditch and are covered with vegetation and large trees. Bedding was observed dipping into slope at the surface in the northern portion of this slope. As the slope extends to the west, bedding was no longer visible at the surface and a subdrain outlet was observed at the slope face. • Minor cracking was observed in the asphalt pavement across the site. Some cracking and separations were observed in the curbs and hardscape and were generally associated with root systems from nearby trees.
1.4 Site History
The following site history is based on available historic aerial photographs dating back to 1938. • In 1938, the subject property was vacant natural hillside area with two canyons draining southward. This status continued until 1987-1988.
• In 1987, dirt roads are observed crossing the site with associated local drill pads. • In 1988, mass grading at the site was in progress and both small canyons were being filled in. • Between 1988 and 1991, the site became a finished mass graded pad, with a fire station constructed on the northwest border bounded by an ascending 25- to 35-foot-high slope, an office complex constructed on the southern border, a surface drainage detention basin at the 533
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 3
NMG
northeast corner, and both Pacific Park Drive, and Aliso Creek Road being constructed on the north and east borders.
• Between 1996 and 1997, the gas station was constructed on the northeast border of the site.
The gas station was constructed approximately 10 feet below the elevations at the subject site, with a descending slope from the subject site.
• Construction of the office buildings began between 1998 and 1999 and was completed by 2000. • Between 2011 and 2012, the eastern descending slope to the existing gas station was cut back, and an approximately 6-foot-high retaining wall was constructed for the addition of a driveway and carwash.
• The site has remained essentially unchanged since 2012.
1.5 Prior Geotechnical Work
The original geotechnical investigation that included this site was performed by the Jack G. Raub Company in 1987 (Appendix A). They provided the results of their subsurface exploration and geologic field mapping and provided recommendations for mass grading.
Based on our review of city files, the report of mass grading that occurred between 1988 and 1991 and the reports related to design, grading and construction for the existing commercial development were not available for review.
1.6 Proposed Development
According to the architectural site plan, prepared by Woodley Architectural Group, Inc., received November 17, 2025, and the tentative tract map prepared by Proactive Engineering received November 14, 2025, the proposed residential development consists of 3-story attached residential units, open space landscape areas, and an interior street network with parking stalls for guest parking. The total unit count for the development is 137 units with approximately 70 units consisting of a 3-story townhome row style product and the remaining 67 units consisting of a 3-story garden-court-style product. Retaining walls up to 8 feet high are planned at the toe of slopes descending from the fire station and from Journey Street along the west side of the project site, and at the top of slopes descending to the gas station and Aliso Creek Road along the northeastern perimeter. Primary access to the site will be from Pacific Park at the north end of the development and a secondary access from Aliso Creek Road at the southeast corner.
The preliminary cut-fill map prepared by Proactive, shows design grading to consist of 4,200 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 9,800 CY of fill, for a net import of 5,600 CY. We do not anticipate site grades to change significantly.
1.7 Subsurface Exploration
Our initial subsurface exploration was performed on December 6, 2024, and included excavation of six hollow-stem-auger borings (H-1 through H-6) to depths ranging from 11 to 51 feet below 534
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 4
NMG
ground surface (bgs). The hollow-stem borings were initially excavated with a hand-auger to 5 feet deep to confirm no conflicts with shallow utilities and then sampled and geotechnically surface-logged by a geologist to evaluate soil stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. Soil samples were taken at selected intervals with a 2.5-inch-inside-diameter California split-barrel sampler and were also used to obtain a measure of resistance of the soil to penetration (recorded as blows-per-foot on our geotechnical boring logs). Drive weights were with a 140-pound automatic hammer for all borings. Bulk samples of onsite soils were collected from the cuttings and used for additional soil identification purposes and laboratory testing. Soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The depths of the pavement sections were recorded with each boring and are presented on the logs in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1).
Recently, NMG excavated four geotechnical test pits (T-1 through T-4) with a backhoe at the toe of the slope ascending to the fire station at the northwest corner of the site. The purpose of these excavations was to evaluate the limits of compacted fill and bedrock conditions exposed in the lower portion of the slope. The approximate location of the test pits is depicted on the geotechnical map (Plate 1), and the logs are provided in Appendix B.
1.8 Infiltration Potential
Percolation testing was not performed during subsurface exploration since the site consists of compacted fill over siltstone and sandstone bedrock. This condition is not suitable for infiltration.
1.9 Laboratory Testing
The laboratory testing performed is listed below. The test results provide soil engineering properties for the selected samples of the onsite soils. Existing laboratory test results from prior geotechnical studies in the area were also reviewed and utilized for this study. • In-situ density and moisture content.
• Soluble sulfate
• Expansion index
• Atterberg limits
• Hydrometer
• Sieve analysis
• Maximum density
• Consolidation
• Direct shear
• Corrosion testing
• R-Value
Laboratory test results are included in Appendix C. In-situ density and moisture contents are presented on our boring logs in Appendix B.
535
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 5
NMG
2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The site is located within the San Joaquin Hills of the western Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. This province is characterized by Cretaceous-age granitic bedrock and Mesozoic-age metamorphic rock overlain by various terrestrial and marine deposits. Structurally, the San Joaquin Hills are bounded by the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone to the west and the Elsinore Fault Zone to the east.
According to mapping by (Morton and Miller, 2006; Raub Company, 1987), the primary geologic unit at the subject site is Miocene age deposits of the Monterey and Capistrano Formations.
2.1 Geologic Units
Based on available geologic maps (Morton and Miller, 2006; Raub Company, 1987), NMG site reconnaissance, and NMG hollow-stem borings (Appendix B), the site is covered by artificial fill and underlain by Miocene Monterey/Capistrano Formations. The northwestern ascending slope bordering Pacific Park Drive exposes diatomaceous siltstone bedrock of the Monterey Formation.
Based on NMG hollow-stem borings, the artificial fill generally consists of light olive brown, grayish brown and light yellowish-brown silty/clayey sand and sand that is fine to coarse grained, medium dense to dense, and generally ranges in moisture content from 14.2 to 18.1 percent in the upper 6 feet. Locally, moisture was found to be as high as 34.6 percent. The underlying Miocene Monterey Formation generally consists of light grey to very dark grey diatomaceous siltstones and claystones that are moist to wet, hard and have trace fish scales. Locally, we observed light olive brown to pale yellow silty fine sandstones that were moist, dense/very dense and friable in the Monterey formation. The underlying Tertiary Capistrano Formation, Oso Member generally consists of light gray to pale olive clean fine sandstone that is moist, dense/very dense, micaceous and friable. Quaternary-aged alluvium was encountered in the southeast corner of the site in boring H-2, between 40 and 50 feet deep below the existing ground surface. The alluvium consists of olive gray clayey fine to medium sand that was damp to moist and very dense.
During our limited subsurface exploration, significant cementation was not encountered in the Capistrano or Monterrey Formations. However, it is not uncommon to encounter cemented beds within these formations. Thin cemented beds may be encountered locally in deeper excavations that may cause difficult ripping.
2.2 Geologic Structure/Faulting
Based on published mapping by the State of California (CGS, 2010), there are no active faults that transect the site, and the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation (CGS, 2018). Also, no evidence of active faulting was observed during the prior investigation by the Jack G. Raub Company (1987). The closest major active faults identified by the state are the San Joaquin Hills Thrust Fault located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast and the Newport Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault zone (Dana Point Section) located approximately
6.1 miles to the southwest and the Glen Ivy section of the Elsinore Fault Zone located 19.2 miles to the northeast.
536
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 6
NMG
Based on the California Geological Survey, there are no active faults in or near the subject site.
2.3 Seismic Hazards
Using the USGS computer program (USGS, 2025) and the site coordinates of 33.5695 degrees north latitude and 117.7247 degrees west longitude, the controlling fault at the site is the San Joaquin Hills Fault located 4.1 kilometers (2.5 miles) northeast of the site. The maximum Moment Magnitude for the Controlling Fault is 7.27 MW. The other faults noted that can produce strong ground shaking at the site include the Newport-Inglewood (Offshore), and Elsinore (Glen Ivy section) Faults. Based on review of published maps, historic aerial photographs and topographic maps, the potential for primary ground rupture due to an earthquake is considered very low.
Seismicity: Properties in southern California are subject to seismic hazards of varying degrees depending upon the proximity, degree of activity, and capability of nearby faults. These hazards can be primary (i.e., directly related to the energy release of an earthquake, such as surface rupture and ground shaking) or secondary (i.e., related to the effect of earthquake energy on the physical world, which can cause phenomena such as liquefaction and ground lurching). The site is not located in a seismic hazard zone for liquefaction potential (CDMG, 2001), as shown in Figure 2.
Liquefaction potential is discussed further in Section 2.5. Secondary seismic hazards, such as tsunami and seiche, need not be considered since the site is located approximately 4 miles from the ocean or any confined bodies of water and at elevations well above mean sea level.
As with the majority of sites in Southern California, the primary seismic hazard for this site is ground shaking due to a future earthquake on one of the major regional active faults, such as the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust, Newport-Inglewood, or the Elsinore-Glen Ivy Faults. We anticipate the site will be designated as Class CD. However, due to the lack of seismic data at depth, we are unable to determine the Vs (30) shear wave velocity at this time and the default category has been used to develop the preliminary seismic design parameters. The seismic design parameters are presented in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of this report. Seismic design parameters were calculated based on a computer program by the Structural Engineers Association/Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (2025). The results are tabulated in Section 3.5 and the data is included in Appendix D.
2.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered by NMG during our subsurface exploration to a depth of 51.5 feet. Also, based on information on the GeoTracker website there were several borings excavated at the 76-gas station in 2009 that were drilled from 40 to 51 feet deep and did not encounter groundwater. This gas station is located approximately 800 feet north of the subject site.
Therefore, based on our subsurface investigation and publicly available well data groundwater is expected to be greater than 51.5 feet deep.
537
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 7
NMG
2.5 Engineering Soil Properties
Based on the borings at the site, the moisture content of the existing fill generally ranges from 14.2 to 18.1 percent and in-place dry density ranged from approximately 85.4 to 124.8 pcf. Locally, moisture was found to be as high as 34.6 percent. The near-surface fill material (upper 5 feet) is generally moist. The grain size testing indicates 30 to 59 percent fines content (passing No 200 sieve). Most of the soils are non-plastic however, some soils are clayey and had Liquid Limits of 28 to 41 percent and Plasticity Index of 9 to 16 percent. Maximum density testing was performed on one bulk samples collected from the upper 5 to 10 feet that consisted of clayey sand (USCS classification of SC). The maximum dry density test result was 114 pcf with optimum moisture content of 15.5 percent.
Based on the USCS classification, the existing fill consists of crudely layered SP, SC, CL, SM, and ML soils. The soil sample descriptions, classification (USCS group symbol), in-situ soil dry density and moisture content are presented on the boring logs (Appendix B).
Direct shear testing was performed on one sample remolded to 90 percent (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) to evaluate the strength of reworked onsite soils, to assess the strength of the future fill material. The selected sample was a clayey sand material sampled in the upper 5 feet. The test result indicated peak cohesion of 375 psf and a soil friction angle of 27 degrees, and ultimate cohesion of 180 psf and a soil friction angle of 26 degrees. The original direct shear testing of the bedrock in the area indicated friction angles of 27 to 47 degrees and cohesion of 80 to 625 psf.
Expansion index tests were performed on selected bulk samples from the existing fill to evaluate the expansion potential of onsite soils. Based on the laboratory test results, the expansion index (EI) varies from 9 to 23 which corresponds to "Very Low" to "Low" expansion potential. However, due to the presence of the Monterrey Formation bedrock in the shallow subsurface, higher expansive soils should be expected during demolition and grading.
R-value testing was performed on a sample of the clayey sand fill and indicated a minimum value of 29 (by expansion).
The direct shear, Atterberg Limit, and maximum density/optimum moisture content test results for the bedrock materials in the area included in the investigation report (JGR, 1987) were also reviewed and utilized.
2.6 Liquefaction Potential
The subject site is not located within a zone of liquefaction potential as mapped by the State (Figure 2). According to mapping by CDMG (2201) Historic high groundwater at the site is 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). However, groundwater was not encountered while drilling during prior investigations by others or during the current investigation to depths up to 51.5 feet bgs.
Liquefaction potential at the subject site is considered very low to nil due to the significant depth to groundwater and relatively shallow bedrock across the majority of the site. 538
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 8
NMG
2.7 Settlement Potential
We anticipate the future compacted fill and underlying bedrock will have low compressibility.
Based on the minor design grading and the light structural loads, we anticipate only minor settlement. The potential settlement due to seismic shaking should also be minor.
2.8 Slope Stability
The slopes around the perimeter of the site consist mainly of fill slopes or stabilization fill slopes with a limited window of exposed bedrock below the fire station. The bedrock bedding is generally favorable with respect to slope stability. The existing slopes are 2H:1V and up to 35 feet in height.
Slope stability was performed utilizing Cross-Section A-A’ (Figure 4) for the western perimeter ascending slope and the eastern descending slope. The western slope will have a proposed retaining wall cut into the toe of slope. This wall will have a maximum height of 8 feet. A temporary cut slope will be required for construction of the proposed retaining wall at toe of slope. The existing descending eastern slope has an existing retaining wall at the bottom next to the car wash. The height of the slope and retaining wall combination is 9 feet. To accommodate the design finish grades for the new development a retaining wall up to 6 feet in high is proposed at the top of slope.
The results of the preliminary slope stability indicate the revised slope with the new retaining walls have a global factor of safety greater than 1.5. The factor of safety for the pseudostatic slope stability analysis has a factor of safety greater than 1.1. The temporary slope for the new retaining wall construction is anticipated to expose competent bedrock. The results of the slope stability analysis is presented in Appendix E.
2.9 Existing Asphalt Pavement
The existing asphalt encountered during our subsurface exploration within the parking lot area varied from 3 to 4.5 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 5 to 9 inches of aggregate base (AB).
The actual pavement section measurements were obtained during our subsurface exploration and are provided on the boring logs (Appendix B).
2.10 Corrosivity Testing
Corrosion testing was performed by Keegan Labs on three samples provided by NMG to evaluate Resistivity, pH, Sulfate content, and Chloride content. One of the soil samples was of the fine grained (silty) bedrock and the other two samples were of the existing fill (clayey sand/sandy clay).
As a result of the varied soil types, the corrosion potential ranged from corrosive to severely corrosive to metals, negligible to severely corrosive to concrete, and low to moderate chloride exposure. Soil pH values indicate slight to medium alkalinity. The soil analysis lab test results are presented in Appendix C and summarized below.
539
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 9
NMG
Soil Corrosion Test Test Results
Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) 322 -1660
pH 7.0-7.7
Sulfate Content (ppm) 96 – 5,220
Chloride Content (ppm) 44 – 1,061
2.11 Earthwork Factors
The loss or gain of volume (shrinkage or bulking, respectively) of excavated natural materials and re-compaction as fill varies according to earth material type and location. This volume change is represented as a percentage shrinkage (volume loss) and as a percentage bulking (volume gain) after re-compaction of a unit volume of cut in this same material in its natural state. We anticipate the existing fill materials and near-surface bedrock will vary from 2 percent bulk (bedrock) to 1 percent shrinkage (existing fill). The loss of volume due to demolition is not included in our earthwork factors. Due to prior site use, subsidence at the site is anticipated to be negligible. 540
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 10
NMG
3.0 CONCLUSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 General Conclusion
Based on review of the VTTM and Engineering Site Plan, the proposed residential redevelopment at the site is considered geotechnically feasible. This report provides the collected site-specific subsurface information and preliminary recommendations that can be used for planning and initial design at the site. Specific geotechnical recommendations for design, grading, and construction will be provided in future reports based on review of the design plans for the project.
Our subsurface investigation confirmed that most of the site has between 2.5 and 5 feet of fill over bedrock. The southeastern and southwestern perimeter of the site have thicker compacted fills and alluvium where canyons were filled during prior grading. The variable as-graded and geologic subsurface conditions will influence the seismic design parameters, foundation design, grading and earthwork, and underground utility construction. The recommended remedial grading and deeper utility excavations will encounter bedrock across the majority of the site. Where bedrock is encountered, grading may require extra mixing and blending locally to produce a uniform fill and foundation soil conditions. Testing during and at the completion of grading will be required to confirm the engineering soil properties. Groundwater is in excess of 50 feet below ground surface and is not anticipated to impact the subject development.
3.2 Demolition of Existing Structures
Demolition of the three office buildings, existing utilities, walls and pavement will be performed prior to grading. We are anticipating a five-foot removal in the design fill areas and a five-foot over-excavation in the design cut areas. If any of the building foundations, underground utilities or retaining wall footings extend below the anticipated removal bottoms then the deeper areas need to be cleaned out of loose materials and replace with compacted fill to the depth of the anticipated removal bottom.
There will be large quantities of asphalt and concrete generated during demolition of the existing improvements. We understand this material will be exported offsite for disposal.
3.3 Site Preparation and Earthwork
General earthwork and grading specifications are provided below and in Appendix F. Grading will also have to satisfy the requirements of the City of Aliso Viejo. Prior to grading, deleterious material (highly organic topsoil, vegetation, trash, construction debris), if any, should be cleared from the site and disposed of offsite. The existing structures to be demolished and the buried utilities within the site should be removed, the loose soil cleaned out and the areas below the planned remedial removal bottoms be properly backfilled with compacted fill. The demolition operation should minimize disturbing/loosening existing soils and should protect existing improvements to remain.
Although not encountered during our limited exploration, there is the potential for cemented bedrock to be encountered locally in the deeper excavation that may be difficult to rip and may generate some oversize material (greater than 12 inches in diameter. Due to the shallow fills anticipated across the 541
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 11
NMG
site, any oversize material generated will need to be crushed onsite prior to placement in fill or exported offsite.
We recommend a minimum of 5-foot-deep remedial removals in the design fill areas and 5-footdeep overexcavation in the design cut areas for the site to provide a new, uniform compacted fill blanket. Deeper remedial removals may be recommended during grading in areas where diatomaceous siltstone and claystone are encountered in removal bottoms to mitigate the potential for differential heave beneath building pads. The demolition operation and local variations in soil conditions may result in the need for deeper removals. Some of the existing utility lines may be locally deeper than the recommended remedial removals; therefore, special excavation for these lines may be necessary if encountered and backfilled accordingly with compacted fill.
Onsite materials that are relatively free of deleterious material should be suitable for use as compacted fill. Prior to placement of fill, the removal bottoms should be scarified a minimum of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned as needed, and compacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction. The relative compaction should be based upon ASTM Test Method D1557-91.
The moisture content of the fill soil should be over optimum moisture content and consideration should be given to placing fill at higher moisture contents to facilitate the future presoaking process for slab-on-grade foundations. Fill material should be placed in loose lifts no greater than 8 inches in thickness and compacted prior to placement of the next lift. Ground sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be prepared by benching into firm competent material as fill is placed.
If diatomaceous soils are encountered, additional measures may be needed to achieve compaction.
3.4 Infiltration
Due to the subsurface conditions of compacted fill over shallow, low-permeability bedrock, stormwater infiltration is not feasible at this site.
3.5 Settlement Potential
For preliminary foundation design purposes, we estimate total consolidation (static) settlement would not exceed 1 inch and differential settlement on the order of 1 inch over a span of 40 feet.
Additional evaluation of the settlement should be performed once a grading plan and structural loads become available.
3.6 Foundation and Slab Design Guidelines
Slab-on-grade foundations will be acceptable for the subject development. The design of shallow footings and slab-on-grade foundations will require collaboration between the geotechnical and structural engineers based on the anticipated structural loading conditions and considering the requirements of the 2025 CBC. For expansive soils, the CBC requires slab-on-grade foundations to be designed in accordance with the Post-Tension Institute (PTI) or Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) methodology. The foundation design for the shallow fill area will need to consider the potential for higher expansion and differential heave due to siltstone and claystone bedrock. This will be evaluated in more detail with the future design and during the site grading. 542
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 12
NMG
3.7 Foundation Setbacks
The footings of structures located above descending slopes should be set back from the slope face in accordance with the minimum requirements of the City of Aliso Viejo, County of Orange, and 2025 CBC criteria, whichever is greater. The setback distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing bottom along a horizontal line to the face of the slope.
The tables below summarize the minimum setback criteria for structures above descending slopes:
Structural Setback Requirements
Building and Retaining Wall Footings
Above Descending Slopes
Slope Height [H] (feet) Minimum Setback
from Slope face (feet)
Less than 10 5
10 to 20 ½ * H
20 to 30 10
More than 30 ⅓ * H (maximum of 40')
For freestanding walls and other structures that are sensitive to lateral movement (e.g., smooth stucco finish, glass screens, etc.), NMG recommends that the structural setback requirements above be followed or that additional design measures be used to help control the potential for cracking and displacements.
Additionally, foundations for the new retaining wall above the existing retaining wall will need further evaluation for potential surcharge loading.
3.8 Seismic Design Guidelines
The following table summarizes the seismic design criteria for the subject site. The seismic design parameters are developed in accordance with 2025 CBC and ASCE 7-22. Due to the variable depths to bedrock across the overall site and the lack of shear wave velocities at depth, the seismic parameters were determined using the Default Site Class per ASCE 7-22. A geophysical study may be warranted in the future in order to obtain shear wave velocities in the upper 100 feet (Vs (30)) and determine the seismic site class.
543
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 13
NMG
Selected Seismic Design Parameters
from 2025 CBC/ASCE 7-22
Seismic Design
Values
Reference
Latitude 33.5695 North
Longitude 117.7247 West
Controlling Seismic Source San Joaquin Hills USGS, 2025 Distance to Controlling Seismic Source 2.5 mi (4.1 km) USGS, 2025 Site Class per Table 20.3 and 11.4.2 of ASCE 7-22 Default SEA/OSHPD, 2025 Ss, Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods 1.41 g SEA/OSHPD, 2025 S1, Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods 0.45 g SEA/OSHPD, 2025 SDS, Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short
Periods from Equation 11.4-1 of ASCE 7-22 1.09 g SEA/OSHPD, 2025 SD1, Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second
Period from Equation 11.4-2 of ASCE 7-22 0.73 g SEA/OSHPD, 2025 TS, SD1/ SDS, Section 11.4.5.2 of ASCE 7-22 0.67 sec SEA/OSHPD, 2025 TL, Long-Period Transition Period 8 sec SEA/OSHPD, 2025 PGAM, Peak Ground Acceleration Corrected for Site
Class Effects from Equation 11.8.3 of ASCE 7-22 0.64 g SEA/OSHPD, 2025 Seismic Design Category, Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-22 D SEA/OSHPD, 2025
3.9 Pavement Design
We anticipate the future subgrade soils for pavements will have a minimum R-value of 20. Final structural pavement sections should be based on R-value testing after the completion of grading.
The following preliminary pavement sections are for the assumed traffic indices (TIs). The final structural pavement design should be based on the actual design TIs and the actual subgrade soil once the grading and utilities are completed. Lower R-values could be present if the fine grained bedrock ends up near the design pavement subgrade elevation.
Minimum Structural Pavement Section (Preliminary)
Location TI Composite Section Full-Depth Section
Parking Stalls 4.5 0.25' AC over 0.50' AB* 0.50' AC
Private Courts 5.5 0.35' AC over 0.60' AB 0.55' AC
Drives 6.0 0.35' AC over 0.65' AB 0.60' AC
AC = Asphalt Concrete; AB = Aggregate Base
*In accordance with County of Orange/City of Aliso Viejo design minimums.
Asphalt concrete should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. Please note that for two-stage paving operations, the initial based asphalt pavement layer should be a minimum of 0.25-foot AC and the final cap should be a minimum of 0.10 foot thick.
Prior to construction of pavement sections, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned as needed, and recompacted in place to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557. The full-depth pavement area will require 544
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 14
NMG
subgrade to have a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction in the upper 1 foot. Subgrade for the proposed pavements should be uniform, firm, and unyielding.
AB materials can be crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base in accordance with the Greenbook (Section 200-2). The materials should be free of any deleterious materials. Aggregate base materials should be placed in 6- to 8-inch-thick loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557).
3.10 Exterior Concrete
The recommendations provided below should be used for design and construction measures of the concrete pavements/hardscape. These recommendations are considered minimum and may be superseded by more stringent requirements/standards of the City of Aliso Viejo, the Standard Specifications for Public Work Construction "Greenbook" or other designers. The public pavements and other exterior concrete improvements (within the street right-of-way) should be constructed in accordance with City of Aliso Viejo standards.
3.11 Soil Corrosivity and Cement Type
The soil soluble sulfates exposures at the site as found to vary from "negligible" to "severe" per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI-318-19. The existing sandy fill is generally classified as "S0" and the clayey fill is classified as "S2". Finer grained bedrock soil is generally classified as "S2". The chloride levels within the soils are classified as Class C1. The chloride content in the bedrock exceeded 500 ppm. The onsite soils are corrosive to severely corrosive to ferrous metals.
Concrete mix requirements for structural concrete will require additional sulfate testing once the project grading is complete. Otherwise, the concrete mix requirements for structural concrete should be based on the "S2" exposure class. Table 19.3.2.1 in ACI-318-19 lists the appropriate type of cement, maximum water-cement ratio, and minimum concrete compressive strength. The city or other agency may have additional concrete requirements.
Structural concrete elements in contact with soil include footings and building slabs-on-grade.
Concrete improvements for streets, sidewalk and hardscape typically are not considered structural elements.
3.12 Pipelines, Trench Excavations, Temporary Shoring, and Backfill Excavations should conform to the latest edition of OSHA requirements (shoring or layback of trench or wall excavations). The near-surface soils across most of the site are anticipated to be classified as Type B in compacted fill soils (upper 5 feet) and Type C in bedrock (below a depth of 5 feet) for CalOSHA trenching and shoring excavation requirements. Excavations deeper than approximately 5 feet below existing ground surface will encounter siltstone and sandstone bedrock. The bedding conditions may be adverse to the trench wall and shoring may be needed during utility installation. Trench spoils should not be placed immediately adjacent to the trenches, especially on the up-dip side.
545
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 15
NMG
The existing fill should generally be suitable for use as trench backfill. Excavations into bedrock may have chunky siltstone and cemented sandstone fragments and may need to be broken down to comply with trench backfill requirements. Backfill materials should not have rocks greater than 6 inches in the maximum dimension and should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D1557). We recommend that moisture content of native backfill to be over optimum moisture content. Select backfill may be used in lieu of native soils.
If a high-density, polyethylene (HDPE) pipe is proposed for the development, then excavation, installation, bedding, shading, and backfilling should be in strict accordance with the project and manufacturer's requirements. HDPE pipe has specific requirements for the width of the trench excavation.
546
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 16
NMG
4.0 PLANNING AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The future rough grading plan should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant once available, and specific recommendations provided as necessary for the project. Additional subsurface exploration and laboratory testing may be needed based on final design.
2. A geophysical survey may be needed in the future in order to properly determine the seismic site class based on the 2025 California Building Code.
3. A geotechnical rough grading plan review report should be prepared for the site-specific conditions and submitted to the City for their review and approval.
4. The model and production precise grading plans should be reviewed, and reports prepared to provide geotechnical recommendations and foundation design parameters in accordance with the most recent CBC code.
5. The structural and foundation plans, once available, should be reviewed to confirm the geotechnical parameters pertinent to the site are used for design.
6. The retaining and perimeter wall plans, once available, should be reviewed and recommendations provided for future design, grading, and construction. The existing retaining wall in the southeast corner that is tilting will need further evaluation.
7. Additional soil testing should be performed to confirm the final soil conditions related to the foundation design parameters after the completion of rough grading.
8. The street improvement and utility plans should be reviewed, and recommendations provided as needed. Trench excavations in the native bedrock may encounter friable material and/or adverse bedding that should be evaluated for safety compliance. 547
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt 17
NMG
5.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client, Shea Homes, within the specific scope of services requested by them for the subject residential development in Aliso Viejo, California. This report or its contents should not be used or relied upon for other projects or purposes or by other parties without the written consent of NMG and the involvement of a geotechnical professional. The means and methods used by NMG for this study are based on local geotechnical standards of practice, care, and requirements of governing agencies. No warranty or guarantee, express or implied is given.
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations herein are professional opinions based on interpretations and inferences made from geologic and engineering data from specific locations and depths, observed or collected at a given time. By nature, geologic conditions can vary from point to point, can be very different in between points, and can also change over time. Our conclusions and recommendations are subject to verification and/or modification during excavation and construction when more subsurface conditions are exposed. 548
Chevron
SoCal Gas
Company -
Aliso Base
Autumnglen
Deerhurst
Journey
City Lights Dr
Barbados
Dr
Pacific Park Dr
Chevron
Aliso Viejo
Library
Ralphs
Western Digital
CVS Pharmacy
Staples
Shell
Del Taco
Circle K
Cafe río
PetSmart
Aliso Viejo
Journey
Liberty
Deerhurst
Aliso Viejo Pkwy
Orange County
Sheriff's
Department
Aliso Viejo
Station
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: Vantor
World Topographic Map: County of Los Angeles, Bureau
of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT
P, USGS, METI/NASA, NGA, EPA, USDA
Hybrid Reference Layer: Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin,
PACIFIC CORPORATE PLAZA
27061 ALISO CREEK ROAD
SHEA HOMES DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
Project Number: 24074-02
Project Name: Shea Aliso Viejo
Date: 11/25/2025
By: KGM/WG
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
P:\2024\24074-01 Shea Homes - DD\Drafting\GIS\SiteLocation.aprx 0 400
Feet
1 inch =400 feet ±
Subject Site
NMG
~
549
Chevron
SoCal Gas
Company -
Aliso Base
rpus Christi
Catholic
Church
A
utu
m
nglen Deerhurst
Journey
City Lights Dr
Barbados Dr
P
acif
ic P
ark
Dr
Chevron
Aliso Viejo
Library
Ralphs
Western Digital
CVS Pharmacy
Staples
Shell
Del Taco
Circle K
Cafe río
Aliso ViejoJourney
Liberty
Aliso Viejo Pkwy
Orange County
Sheriff's
Department
Aliso Viejo
Station
Service Layer Credits: Hybrid Reference Layer: Sources:
Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
World Imagery: Vantor
California Department of Conservation:
http://data-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/
SHEA HOMES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 27181 ALISO CREEK ROAD TENTATIVE TRACK MAP 19442
CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
Project Number: 24074-02 Project Name: Shea Aliso Viejo Date: 11/25/2025
By: KGM/WG Figure 2
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP
Source: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ Subject Site
P:\2024\24074-01 Shea Homes - DD\Drafting\GIS\SeismicHazards.aprx Legend
±
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch =400 feet
Liquefaction Zones
Landslide Zones
1111
CJ
NMG
~
550
91 S18
Tustin
Santa Ana
Anaheim
Fullerton
Orange
Garden Grove
5 405
O r a n g e
Laguna Beach
Newport
Beach
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Irvine
261
91 15
Temescal
Valley
El Sobrante
74 74
405
Rancho Santa
Margarita
San Juan
Capistrano
Coto de Caza
Laguna Niguel
Mission Viejo
Lake Forest
Laguna Hills
Aliso Viejo
Service Layer Credits: Hybrid Reference Layer: Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
World Imagery: Earthstar Geographics
California Department of Conservation:
http://data-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/
b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd47497dbad_0
Subject Site
fault, approx. located
fault, approx. located, queried
fault, certain
fault, concealed
fault, concealed, queried
fault, inferred, queried
thrust fault, certain
thrust fault, approx. located
thrust fault, concealed
dextral fault, certain
dextral fault, approx. located
dextral fault, concealed
sinistral fault, certain
sinistral fault, approx. located
sinistral fault, concealed
thrust fault, certain (2)
thrust fault, approx. located (2)
thrust fault, concealed (2)
fault, certain (ball and bar)
fault, approx. located (ball and bar)
fault, concealed (ball and bar)
dextral fault, certain (ball and bar)
fault, concealed, queried (ball and bar)
fault, concealed, queried (ball and bar,
fault, certain (dip)
fault, approx. located (dip)
fault, concealed (dip)
SHEA HOMES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
27181 ALISO CREEK ROAD
TENTATIVE TRACK MAP 19442
CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
Project Number: 24074-01
Project Name: Shea Aliso Viejo
Date: 11/25/2025
By: KGM/WG
Figure 3
REGIONAL FAULT ACTIVITY MAP
Base: California Geological Survey, Fault Activity Map of California, 2010 O:\NMGGIS\Templates\ArcGIS PRO Templates\RegionalFault_20230420.aprx 0 10,000 20,000
Feet
1 inch =20,000 Feet ±
Quaternary
Late Quaternary
Holocene
Legend Regency of Movement
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD
PELICAN-HILL
ELSINORE FAULT ZONE
-
-
-
NMG
~
551
A A'
420
380 340
............... ___,____.__.____.__ __._ ............... -..+-+-..+-+---<-- •-- Existin~ t + t t t t t t t t t t .............................. _._ __._ ............... -..+-+-..+-+---<-- 1----+-+-+---+-+-++-+--+-+r r-i------1-i'f E~i~:i~~ 7 I 1 111 I Profile Proposed 1--1--11---1--1- 1--1--11---1--1- Retaining Existing T-3 + + + + + 1 Proi. _1_ 26, Retaining + + ~-__,_ ~--+-+- rrnvya[,11 rTp1asfT 11 • 111 l~xi:ti~g,~ire_1 • 11,
~¾tt -t1 vwa~ ~ (P~ot11:-o·)' j j It ~!-----+--+---+-+-+H--1::-~r~~~s~~ l _ _j_S!afiohL ~ 420 Tfff ~,tation Area ffir1 . nrr ::: ,_,_,_ F etammg + I + Desi n i i t + t t L L +-----+--+--+----I Wall + r t t t t t t t t t t t J~ t I Prn 1~0 ______ t
_
t
_
t -~ _ Existinq ____ LJ_ .J I I I I r I 380 I / v r "- t t + \ . 1 1 1 1 2-Story -LI I J LI --:-t±±tt-1 L flt t .............................. ___.___._ ___.__._-+--+-+ V ? ? ,,-- / >r>--.. ' --1..1---ll' 1 1 +, ,L -1Ltf f Office Build ng ___._1._ _l_l___Lff' t rf-W _ , _ / / ~0&-Y 9 .... gv T , , 1- ,,,.,v /+ /[),- ?f'jY;v' "-?-?---- -?_iU. ..:....U 11 .....JU. -?-+-- - .llj ?-' __ L - I t t f/ / / I Teo/" m' \ • I I • T r\--1-1 Cl Teo/Tm T~<t~1~)rr=ff1 1 ·1 I I I I 1---r==r~mL~ 1- h-:: 340 '/ " t t --· - --------- -It ~L!-t--~ 1urr= 'LLJ-Lt: _ _1:::1:cLLLLl + + +
+
! ! : 11 1 t : I ! ! : I ! ! : ! ! : [ [ : +1~~ ~t_;-"!!/~ J. T<,OfT~ 1 1............... ; --1--1--1---1 300 __._!.,___!._,____!,___!___!__.___j_____.!.,_____!,__,!__!__--i--__!____!__!.__!__-l----!,__!.,___!___cC---j___!___!____!,__,!_---+---!,____.!,__!__!._--+-__!,___!,_!.,___!__-+--,----'-------'--'----'----+----=---:---;--++-++-+-+-+-+-t-+-11-+-1-+-t-+-+-++-++-+--+--+-+-+-+-+-1 ++-+-+-t--300 I +--1-+--1-1--1--1-1
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
W-E
7 CROSS-SECTION A-A'
+ + + +
+ + + +
Project No.: 24074-02 Project Name: Shea Aliso Viejo
Date: 11/25/2025
+ + + +
BY:KGM/WG
SCALE: 1 "-40'
FIGURE 4
NMG
552
390.J
390.4
390.9 { 390. 8± TC) I
390.5 f390.5
,ao, • I
I +390.6
19.6 '0
0 389.2
+
392.5
I
r
BASE MAP: PROACTIVE ENGINEERING
I l
341 51---
I\
LEGEND
EARTH UNITS - CIRCLED WHERE BURIED
Af
Qal
Tc+Tm
ARTIFICIAL FILL
ALLUVIUM
INTERFINGERED CAPISTRANO AND MONTEREY FORMATION
SYMBOLS - LOCATIONS ARE APPROX/MA TE, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN - - -• • • • • GEOLOGIC CONTACT, DOTTED WHERE BURIED
---F • • FAULT, DOTTED WHERE BURIED
--- t --- ANTICLINAL FOLD AXIS, SHOWING DIRECTION OF PLUNGE C ___ DESIGN CUT/ FILL/ EXISTING/ NATURAL LINE -0---0
F
OTHER SYMBOLS - LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
~H-6
T.D.11'
[email protected]'
[email protected]'
NoY.
QJGR-33
T.D.67'
•TR-21
HOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING, SHOWING TOTAL DEPTH,
DEPTH TO EARTH UNIT AND DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER
PRIOR BORING BY JGR (1987) SHOWING TOTAL DEPTH
PRIOR GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH BY JGR (1987)
GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES- LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, DASHED WHERE BURIED A lt-----------11 A I
BEDDING ATTITUDE
CROSS-SECTION
LIMITS OF EXISTING BULIDINGS (3 TOTAL)
GRAPHIC SCALE
40 D 20 4-0
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 40 ft.
PLATE 1
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19390
27181 ALISO CREEK ROAD
CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
1-----------------~----~--------l
Project No.: 24074-02 By: KGM/WG Project Name: Shea/Aliso Viejo DD NMG Date: 11/25/2025 SCALE: 1" = 40' Gizot&hnical. Inc. ~ "" tJ
-..j
"' tJ
-..j
-Cc
::,
tJ
-..j
Q
553
APPENDIX A
554
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt A-1
NMG
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
AMI_OC_84, 11929, 1984, Courtesy of UCSB Library Geospatial Collection. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ ap_indexes/FrameFinder/
AMI_OC_86, 12237, 1986, Courtesy of UCSB Library Geospatial Collection. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, Recommended Criteria for Delineating Seismic Hazard Zones: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 118, 12 p.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 2001, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle, Official Map Released December 21, 2001, Scale 1:24,000.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, Originally Adopted March 13, 1997, Revised and Re-adopted September 11, 2008.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas (Scale 1: 750,000), Geologic Data Map No. 6, Compiled and Interpreted by Charles W.
Jennings and William Z. Bryant.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.
EAG_OC_93, 921, 1993, Courtesy of UCSB Library Geospatial Collection. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/
Jack G. Raub Company, 1987, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Planning Areas 52 and 26, Vesting Tentative Map Track T.T. 11795, Area Plan AP 86-21P, City of Aliso Viejo, California, dated April 15, 1987.
Morton, P.K., and Miller, R.V., 2006, Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2006-1217, 1:100,000.
Morton, P.K., and Miller, R.V., 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County, California, showing mines and mineral deposits, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin B-204, 1:48,000.
Netra Online, 2024, Historic Aerials, website address: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer 555
24074-02
November 25, 2025
251125 NMG VTTM Rpt A-2
NMG
REFERENCES (Continued)
Structural Engineers Association/Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (SEA/OSHPD), 2025, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, web site address: https://seismicmaps.org/ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2025, USGS Earthquake Hazard Toolbox, NSHM 2018 Dynamic Disaggregation and Hazard Curves Program; Date Accessed: November 13, 2025, web site address: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/nshmp/
556
APPENDIX B
557
Surface: Asphalt Pavement, 4.5" AC over 9" AB.
Artificial Fill (Af)
@ 1-5': Light olive brown clayey fine to coarse SAND, damp to moist, few sandstone/claystone clasts up to 1", trace roots, trace rusted metal, trace concrete, crystalline rock clast encountered @4.5'.
@ 5': Light olive brown clayey fine SAND, damp to moist, medium dense, few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", FeO staining in bedrock fragments.
@ 10': Light olive brown clayey fine to medium SAND, damp to moist, medium dense to dense, few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", FeO staining in bedrock fragments.
@ 15': Light olive brown clayey fine to medium SAND, moist, medium dense, few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", FeO staining in bedrock fragments, some layers of more clay. @ 20': Grayish brown to yellowish brown clayey SILT to silty CLAY, moist to wet, very stiff, trace FeO and MnO staining, upper rings contain few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1/2".
SC
ML-CL
39 45
29 26
B-1
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
110.1
110.6
105.8
99.5 B-1 @ 1-5'
14.2 13.3
17.9 22.2
Date(s)
Drilled
Drilling
Company
Drill Rig
Type
Sampling
Method(s)
Approximate Groundwater Depth:
Comments Hand Augered First 5 Feet.
Modified California, Bulk
CME 75
2R Drilling
12/6/24 Logged
By
Drill Bit
Size/Type
Hammer
Data
8"
SHC
140 lbs @ 30 inch drop
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
Total Depth
Drilled (ft) 30.8
359.0 msl
Sheet 1 of 2
H- 1
No Groundwater Encountered
Type
Elevation (ft) SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS USCS Depth (ft) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Number Blows per foot Graphic Log
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
LOG OF BORING
Shea/ Aliso Viejo
0 5
10 15
20 25
350
340
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 24074-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 11/18/25 1--------->-----I -------II
-
>-
~ NMG
558
Tertiary Capistrano Formation, Oso Member (Tco)
@ 30': Upper: Grayish brown sandy SILTSTONE, damp, hard, trace clay laminations, trace MnO staining, minimal mica.
Lower: Light gray clean fine SANDSTONE, damp, very dense, trace FeO staining.
Notes:
Total Depth: 30.8 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Upper 6" Patched with Quick-Set Concrete and Black Dye.
ML
SC
D-5 90/10" 4.9 107.6
Shea/ Aliso Viejo Aliso Viejo, CA H- 1 Sheet 2 of 2
Template: HOLLOW STEM; Prj ID: 24074-01.GPJ; Printed: 11/18/25 Type
Elevation (ft) SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS USCS Depth (ft) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Number Blows per foot Graphic Log
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
LOG OF BORING
Shea/ Aliso Viejo
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 330
320
310
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 24074-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 11/18/25 -. ______ -----+',...._.--:-7--=-+- •._--_1 (..+----+----+--------t ___________________________ J
I
>-
- -
- -
~ NMG
559
Surface: Asphalt Pavement, 4" AC over 7" AB.
Artificial Fill (Af)
@ 1-5': Light grayish brown to olive yellow clayey fine to medium SAND , moist, few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", trace FeO staining.
@ 5': Grayish brown fine sandy CLAY, wet, very stiff, few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", trace FeO staining. @ 10': Light olive brown to orange sandy silty CLAY, wet, very stiff, few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", trace medium to coarse sand, trace FeO staining.
@ 15': Brownish yellow clayey fine to medium SAND, damp, dense, few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", trace FeO and MnO staining.
@ 20': Light olive brown clayey fine SAND, damp, dense, trace to few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", trace FeO staining.
SC
CL
SC
34 25
61 50
B-1
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
85.4 96.4
116.1
109.3
B-1 @ 1-5'
34.6 -200, AL, CN
26.6 9.2
9.6 Date(s)
Drilled
Drilling
Company
Drill Rig
Type
Sampling
Method(s)
Approximate Groundwater Depth:
Comments Hand Augered First 5 Feet.
Modified California, Bulk
CME 75
2R Drilling
12/6/24 Logged
By
Drill Bit
Size/Type
Hammer
Data
8"
SHC
140 lbs @ 30 inch drop
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
Total Depth
Drilled (ft) 50.9
352.0 msl
Sheet 1 of 2
H- 2
No Groundwater Encountered
Type
Elevation (ft) SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS USCS Depth (ft) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Number Blows per foot Graphic Log
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
LOG OF BORING
Shea/ Aliso Viejo
0 5
10 15
20 25
350
340
330
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 24074-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 11/18/25 I
I
I
~ NMG
560
@ 30':Upper: Black to dark Grayish brown silty CLAY to clayey SILT, damp to moist, hard, low plasticity, few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", trace FeO and MnO staining.
Lower: Yellowish brown clayey fine SAND, damp to moist, dense, trace to few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", trace FeO staining.
Quaternary Alluvium (Qal)
@ 40': Olive gray clayey fine to medium SAND, damp to moist, very dense, trace to few highly weathered sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", trace coarse sand, trace pinhole pores.
Tertiary Monterey Formation (Tm)
@ 50': Upper: Light gray diatomaceous SILTSTONE, wet, hard, trace joints, trace fish scales, well bedded.
Lower: Light yellowish brown silty fine SANDSTONE, wet, very dense, trace FeO staining, minimal mica, friable.
Notes:
Total Depth: 50.9 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Upper 6" Patched with Quick-Set Concrete and Black Dye.
ML-CL
SC
ML
SM
65 85/11"
70/11"
D-5
D-6
D-7
124.8
120.1
82.8 12.4
11.7 40.5
Shea/ Aliso Viejo Aliso Viejo, CA H- 2 Sheet 2 of 2
Template: HOLLOW STEM; Prj ID: 24074-01.GPJ; Printed: 11/18/25 Type
Elevation (ft) SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS USCS Depth (ft) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Number Blows per foot Graphic Log
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
LOG OF BORING
Shea/ Aliso Viejo
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 320
310
300
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 24074-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 11/18/25 I I I ___________________________ J
I
___________________________ J I.+--+----+---------,
~ NMG
561
Surface: Asphalt Pavement, 3" AC over 5" AB.
Artificial Fill (Af)
@ 1-2.5': Yellowish brown silty clayey fine SAND, damp, few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1", trace FeO staining.
Tertiary Monterey Formation (Tm)
@ 2.5': Grayish brown fine sandy CLAYSTONE, wet, stiff, moderately bedded, trace FeO staining, trace fish scales, diatomaceous.
@ 5' Upper: Grayish brown clayey fine SANDSTONE, wet, dense, moderately bedded, trace FeO and MnO staining, micaceous.
Lower: Light grayish brown very fine clean SANDSTONE, wet, dense, trace FeO and MnO staining, friable.
@ 10': Upper: Light grayish brown very fine clean SANDSTONE, dry to damp, dense, trace FeO and MnO staining, friable.
Lower: Light grayish brown silty CLAYSTONE, damp, hard, low plasticity, trace fish scales, trace FeO and MnO staining.
Notes:
Total Depth: 11.5 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Upper 6" Patched with Quick-Set Concrete and Black Dye.
SC
CL
SC
SP
CL
18 68
56 B-1
D-1
D-2
D-3
86.4 90.1
112.7
B-1 @ 1-2.5'
32.9 27.7
4.2 Date(s)
Drilled
Drilling
Company
Drill Rig
Type
Sampling
Method(s)
Approximate Groundwater Depth:
Comments Hand Augered First 5 Feet.
Modified California, Bulk
CME 75
2R Drilling
12/6/24 Logged
By
Drill Bit
Size/Type
Hammer
Data
8"
SHC
140 lbs @ 30 inch drop
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
Total Depth
Drilled (ft) 11.5
355.0 msl
Sheet 1 of 1
H- 3
No Groundwater Encountered
Type
Elevation (ft) SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS USCS Depth (ft) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Number Blows per foot Graphic Log
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
LOG OF BORING
Shea/ Aliso Viejo
0 5
10 15
20 25
350
340
330
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 24074-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 11/18/25 I ~~- ~ ---------------------- -
· .... '
·. :·.·.;
.. •. ·. ~
- -
\~ _____________ ___,r
\~ _____________ ___,
~ NMG
562
Surface: Asphalt Pavement, 3" AC oer 5" AB.
Artificial Fill (Af)
@ 1': Grayish brown silty fine SAND, damp.
@ 2': Light gray clean fine SAND, damp, minimal mica, trace medium sand.
Tertiary Capistrano Formation, Oso member (Tco)
@ 5': Pale olive clean fine SANDSTONE, dense, dry to damp, minimal mica, friable.
@ 10': Pale olive clean fine to medium SANDSTONE, medium dense, dry to damp, trace coarse sand, minimal mica, trace FeO staining, friable.
Notes:
Total Depth: 11.5 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Upper 6" Patched with Quick-Set Concrete and Black Dye.
SM
SP
SP
53 38
B-1
D-1
D-2
110.8
108.2
B-1 @ 1-5'
2.1 2.3
Date(s)
Drilled
Drilling
Company
Drill Rig
Type
Sampling
Method(s)
Approximate Groundwater Depth:
Comments Hand Augered First 5 Feet.
Modified California, Bulk
CME 75
2R Drilling
12/6/24 Logged
By
Drill Bit
Size/Type
Hammer
Data
8"
SHC
140 lbs @ 30 inch drop
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
Total Depth
Drilled (ft) 11.5
354.0 msl
Sheet 1 of 1
H- 4
No Groundwater Encountered
Type
Elevation (ft) SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS USCS Depth (ft) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Number Blows per foot Graphic Log
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
LOG OF BORING
Shea/ Aliso Viejo
0 5
10 15
20 25
350
340
330
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 24074-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 11/18/25 ~:
~-------------------------------
-
.·.··.'.··
- -
~ NMG
563
Surface: Asphalt Pavement, 4" AC over 9" AB.
Artificial Fill (Af)
@ 1': Light olive brown fine SAND, damp, trace clay.
@ 3': Light olive brown silty clayey fine SAND, damp, trace sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1".
Tertiary Monterey Formation (Tm)
@ 3.5': Thinly bedded very dark gray SILTSTONE clasts in cuttings, damp.
@ 5': Upper: Very dark gray clayey SILTSTONE, wet, hard, moderately bedded, diatomaceous.
Lower: Light olive brown very fine sandy SILTSTONE/silty very fine SANDSTONE, moist to wet, hard/dense, minimal mica.
@ 8.5 Increase in clay content.
@ 10': Upper: Very dark gray cemented SILTSTONE, moist, hard, highly oxidized w/ FeO staining, 3" claystone layer in upper three rings.
Lower: Pale yellow silty very fine SANDSTONE, dense to very dense, moist, moderately bedded, trace FeO and MnO staining, minimal mica.
Notes:
Total Depth: 11 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Upper 6" Patched with Quick-Set Concrete and Black Dye.
SP
SC
ML
SM-ML
ML
SC
62 63
B-1
D-1
D-2
93.0 101.2
B-1 @ 1-5', GS,
AL,MD, EI, CC, DS
32.4 15.0
Date(s)
Drilled
Drilling
Company
Drill Rig
Type
Sampling
Method(s)
Approximate Groundwater Depth:
Comments Hand Augered First 5 Feet.
Modified California, Bulk
CME 75
2R Drilling
12/6/24 Logged
By
Drill Bit
Size/Type
Hammer
Data
8"
SHC
140 lbs @ 30 inch drop
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
Total Depth
Drilled (ft) 11.0
360.0 msl
Sheet 1 of 1
H- 5
No Groundwater Encountered
Type
Elevation (ft) SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS USCS Depth (ft) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Number Blows per foot Graphic Log
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
LOG OF BORING
Shea/ Aliso Viejo
0 5
10 15
20 25
360
350
340
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 24074-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 11/18/25 -
t7.7).---------------------------------
• • ''----------------~{
.... -
~~~---n r =~--- ~---------------------------1 ~ ..... ~ t-:-::-:-=-:-
;_:/ ... ~
1-:--::-:---=-:-
·::::::.
~=:·.
; .. :/ ... ~ ~----=--~ - -~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 ~::z---n ,. -L---+-----11'-" _. ~-+-----+,\ ___________________________ J .+---+--+----------, ~ NMG
564
Surface: Asphalt Pavement, 4" AC over 8" AB.
Artificial Fill (Af)
@ 1-5': Light brown to light gray clayey fine SAND, moist, few sandstone/siltstone clasts up to 1".
@ 5': Olive yellow clayey fine to medium SAND, moist, medium dense, few siltstone clasts up to 1", trace FeO and MnO staining. @ 10': Mottled yellowish brown and light olive gray clayey medium to coarse SAND, damp to moist, medium dense, orange clayey coarse sand in upper rings.
@15': Light yellowish brown silty fine to medium SAND, moist to wet, medium dense, few siltstone clasts up to 1", trace FeO staining.
@ 20': Upper: Light yellowish brown clayey SAND, damp, dense, few siltstone clasts up to 1".
Tertiary Capistrano Formation, Oso Member (Tco)
Lower: Light gray clean fine SANDSTONE, damp, very dense, abundant FeO staining, trace MnO staining, friable, minimal mica.
SC
SM
SC
SP
39 28
28 75/11"
B-1
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
109.4
113.8
101.6
105.9
B-1 @ 1-5', GS, AL, EI,
CC
18.1 12.7
22.8 6.1
Date(s)
Drilled
Drilling
Company
Drill Rig
Type
Sampling
Method(s)
Approximate Groundwater Depth:
Comments Hand Augered First 5 Feet.
Modified California, Bulk
CME 75
2R Drilling
12/6/24 Logged
By
Drill Bit
Size/Type
Hammer
Data
8"
SHC
140 lbs @ 30 inch drop
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
Total Depth
Drilled (ft) 30.9
361.0 msl
Sheet 1 of 2
H- 6
No Groundwater Encountered
Type
Elevation (ft) SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS USCS Depth (ft) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Number Blows per foot Graphic Log
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
LOG OF BORING
Shea/ Aliso Viejo
0 5
10 15
20 25
360
350
340
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 24074-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 11/18/25 -
...
~}7- ~,.____ ____ ____,;
(:/··;·
·.:·.·.;
(:i/
· ...
:::.-::.
~ NMG
565
@ 30': Light gray clean fine SANDSTONE, dry to damp, very dense, abundant FeO staining, minimal mica, friable.
Notes:
Total Depth: 30.9 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Upper 6" Patched with Quick-Set Concrete and Black Dye.
SP D-5 84/11" 3.5 108.6
Shea/ Aliso Viejo Aliso Viejo, CA H- 6 Sheet 2 of 2
Template: HOLLOW STEM; Prj ID: 24074-01.GPJ; Printed: 11/18/25 Type
Elevation (ft) SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS USCS Depth (ft) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Number Blows per foot Graphic Log
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
LOG OF BORING
Shea/ Aliso Viejo
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 330
320
310
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 24074-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 11/18/25 -
- -
- -
~ NMG
566
-,
a.
(!)
..,. ~ "' J:
u
z
w
0::
>--
iiii Project Name: Shea - Aliso Viejo Logged By: ASC Project Number: 24074-02 Elevation: 361 NMG Equipment: John Deere 31 0SL Location: Northeast of Building K
GEOLOGIC
ATTITUDES DESCRIPTION: I DATE: 11/7/25
Surface: Fill Slope
Artificial Fill (Af)
@ 0-2': Olive gray and very dark gray clayey sandy SILT, damp, stiff, abundant roots up to 1.5-inches in diameter, abundant rootlets, scattered bedrock clasts comprised of siltstone and sandstone, weathered in the upper fool. -@ 2'-5.5': Alternating layers of yellowish brown to olive brown clayey SAND and very dark brown sandy CLAY, moist, medium dense to dense/very stiff to hard, scattered rootlets and root hairs, abundant bedrock clasts up to 2-inches in diameter.
Notes:
Total Depth 5.5 Feet.
Partially Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Portion of Trench Left Open for Landscapers to Repair Electrical Lines for Irrigation.
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION: West Wall SCALE: 1" = 3' SURFACE SLOPE: 24° ,- -
~
-f-
,- -- -fI- --
--
I-
- f- .~ - ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' I I ' ' I I I ' I I ' I M ~I f ~ I 0,' f I I ' - -- - 11 I --
-
- -
C> ( ',
- ~-: ( (I I 0 ' - - I /
,) -- C I - / - - -{ .,,;;,r·~ .,,. 0 -- ( o\ r
l:l.i<--1-r.c.ol"=:.. I ~ r_ __1/
_._ ,- - LiAtS l=or
I- -- "ur',~o-hotl\
--
,- --
-
-
--
_._
TRENCH NO.: ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
T-1 Wt- >- ~ c.=- (/) w O::z -I ci ~ci :Jw~ !;; ~ e:, o::U)o GEOLOGIC (/) <Cz O z a. ::i oo w~ UNIT (/) ~<.) Q ML
SC/CL
TREND: N4°E
-
-
-
-
' ' I I I I ' ' I 1 ' ' l ' ' ' I ' ' I ' ' l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:J
n
.
5 G)
0 "Tl
..,
::0
m
z
()
:J:
z
q
-;-I
....
567
~
Project Name: Shea - Aliso Viejo Logged By: ASC TRENCH NO.: ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 363 : 24074-02 Elevation: T-2 W1- NMG Equipment: >-~c u:i w O:::z John Deere 31 0SL West of Building H ....I Location: c..:i a.. • ::::iw~ 20 ti;~~ 0::: (/) u I DATE: 11/7/25 u:i Cl GEOLOGIC z C. GEOLOGIC ::::i <Cz oo w~ ATTITUDES DESCRIPTION: UNIT (/) 20 Cl Surface: Fill Slope
Artificial Fill (Af)
@ 0-1 .5': Yellowish brown to olive brown silty fine SAND, damp, medium dense, trace roots up to 1/4-inch in diameter, SM abundant root hairs and rootlets, scattered bedrock clasts composed of mostly sandstone with some siltstone, highly weathered with trace -@ 1.5'-5.5': Yellowish brown to olive brown silty SAND and grayish brown fine sandy SILT, damp to moist, medium - SM/ML dense/stiff, scattered rootlets and roothairs, scattered bedrock clasts. MB-1 Notes:
Total Depth 5.5 Feet.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Compacted with Backhoe-Mounted Compaction Wheel.
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION: West Wall SCALE: 1" = 3' SURFACE SLOPE: 30° TREND: N25°W -
- -f- -
-
- -f- - ~ --
~
-f- -
,- -f- -f- -
I ' I 1 I I ' ' I ' I I I I I I I ' I I ....... ,.)4 l\'I '11 I I I ' I I I I I I 1 I I ,- -r- /,, -?F~ 1, - / I - -
-
~~~ L"' .,T' L . , - - 1'\S-, •,_ c:::-- -
-
.,,. ( ~ ~'~·-·'/ - - - ~ .... r
-:~( • .' ~ ( I o I ~ - ( . ' - -
- /_ ~ ' ( 'I / y -
- R.~
-
- -~ -
-
-
- r- -
-
--
- r- -
tz 31: G') G') (1) 0 ct (") ::::r :::s (") I» ~ -:::s (") . r-0 G) 0 "T1 -I ::0 m z 0 :I: z q -f N 568
in ~ ...,
0..
(!) ~ ...
I:, ~ :r:
u
z
LlJ
Cr'.
t-
~
Project Name: Shea - Aliso Viejo Logged By: ASC TRENCH NO.: ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 24074-02 Elevation: 363 T-3 UJ I- NMG (/) UJ C:::z >- John Deere 310SL West of Building D ....I >- !::: c;=- Equipment: Location: (.) ~o ::J UJ ~ 1-1-~ c::: Cl) u GEOLOGIC I GEOLOGIC (/) <( z ~z~ O z a. DATE: 11/7/25 :::i oo UJ~ ATTITUDES DESCRIPTION: UNIT (/) :i?: (.) 0 Surface: Fill Slope
1: Bedding- Artificial Fill (Af)
N30°W/10°NE (N Wail)
2 A: Very dark brown clayey sandy SILT, dry to damp, medium stiff, abundant roots and rootlets, highly weathered. SM : BeddingN50°W/2°SW (S Wall) ~------------------------------------------------- 3: Bedding- Capistrano Formation, Oso Member (Teo) SM
N20°E/19°NW B: Reddish yellow silty fine SANDSTONE, Damp to moist, abundant FeO staining, bioturbations infilled with gray fine sandstone and highlighted with FeO staining.
C: Thinly bedded Olive gray SILTSTONE with trace fine reddish yellow SANDSTONE laminations, moist, very stiff to ML hard, Siltstone beds generally between 1/2- and 1-inch thick. Locally, Siltstone bed is undulatory in the upper foot.
Notes:
Total Depth 6.3 Feet.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Compacted with Backhoe-Mounted Compaction Wheel.
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION: South Wall SCALE: 1" = 3' SURFACE SLOPE: 25° TREND: N85°E f- +· ~~ ~ ~~® - - I- ->-
-
~
fr .• ~ ·-·~ - ~ ~-- :··.: C - a . .. - - >- .... - I I ' I I ' I I ' I I • ,• •• • I • 1 I I I . I I I I ' \ -:.._~·-.;·· .. I I I I I I I - - • . • : .. ':'---,:::~·. .. >- - • . •. .. , . •. . .. . .. r" .... - r:-- -,- - \
•. ·:-re~.·: -_: .. - - .. -1- -
-,~ :.:®f: -· - - . -1- -
.. .. .. ; .. , ,• ,
'-..:._"' . . . - / 1-- --
-
-
I- ->-
. ...
-
I- --
-
-
1--
--
- -
-
z
3:
G')
G')
CD
s.
CD
0 ':J'
:::s -· 0
m
-
:::s
0 r
0 G)
0 -n
;ti
m
z
(")
:::t
z
q ~
569
-,
Cl.
(!) ~ ~
Project Name: Shea - Aliso Viejo Logged By: ASC
Project Number: 24074-02 Elevation: 362
NMG Equipment:
GEOLOGIC
ATTITUDES
1: BeddingN4°E/16°NW
2: BeddingN1°W/15°NE
3: Fault- N26°E/66°SE
4: Fault- NB0W/46°SW
5: Joint- N6°W/82°NE
John Deere 310SL Location: West of Building C
DESCRIPTION: DATE: 11/7/25
Surface: Cut Slope
Capistrano Formation, Oso Member (Teo)
A:Pale brownish yellow silty fine SANDSTONE, damp, dense, slightly micaceous, trace FeO staining.
B: Pale brownish gray to olive gray thinly bedded SILTSTONE, damp, very stiff to hard, trace laminations of pale gray fine SANDSTONE.
Faulting and Joints:Steeply dipping faults and joints were obseNed in the excavation. The faults were generally highlighted with FeO staining and had abundant rootlets and roothairs lining the surface. SILTSTONE within the trench had an apparen
Notes:
Total Depth 5 Feet.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Compacted with Backhoe-Mounted Compaction Wheel.
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION: South Wall SCALE: 1" = 2' SURFACE SLOPE: 29° v- ~ N
:c
(.)
z
w
TRENCH NO.: ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
T-4
GEOLOGIC
UNIT
ui
(.)
ui
::i
SM
ML
TREND:
w
...J a. .
~o c(z
Cf.I
N85°E
LJ.J I-
>- ~ c;=-- C::z ::::iw~ l-1-~ a:: Cf.I 0
cr.,z~ O z o.. oo w~
~(..) 0
1=
____________________________________ ..... ____________ ..... ____________ ..... _____ _. z
:s:
G)
G)
(1)
0 -
(1)
(')
=r
:::::i
(')
0)
:::I
(')
r0
G)
0 "Tl
-I
;o
m
z
C)
:c
z
9 t
570
APPENDIX C
571
H- 1 D-1 5.0 354.0 39 125.8 110.1 14.2 72.4
H- 1 D-2 10.0 349.0 45 125.2 110.6 13.3 68.4
H- 1 D-3 15.0 344.0 29 124.7 105.8 17.9 81.6
H- 1 D-4 20.0 339.0 26 121.6 99.5 22.2 86.5
H- 1 D-5 30.0 329.0 90/10" 112.9 107.6 4.9 23.2
H- 2 D-1 5.0 347.0 34 115.0 85.4 34.6 96.1 59 41 16 CL CN H- 2 D-2 10.0 342.0 25 122.1 96.4 26.6 96.2
H- 2 D-3 15.0 337.0 61 126.8 116.1 9.2 55.0
H- 2 D-4 20.0 332.0 50 119.8 109.3 9.6 47.8
H- 2 D-5 30.0 322.0 65 140.2 124.8 12.4 95.3
H- 2 D-6 40.0 312.0 85/11" 134.2 120.1 11.7 78.4
H- 2 D-7 50.0 302.0 70/11" 116.3 82.8 40.5 100.0
H- 3 B-1 1.0 5.0 354.0 29 CC
H- 3 D-1 2.5 352.5 18 114.7 86.4 32.9 93.3
H- 3 D-2 5.0 350.0 68 115.0 90.1 27.7 86.0
H- 3 D-3 10.0 345.0 56 117.5 112.7 4.2 23.1
H- 4 D-1 5.0 349.0 53 113.1 110.8 2.1 11.1
H- 4 D-2 10.0 344.0 38 110.7 108.2 2.3 11.2
H- 5 B-1 1.0 5.0 359.0 102.6 26.7 45 11 32 11 SC 180 26 375 27.0 114.0 15.5 23 0.21 H- 5 D-1 5.0 355.0 62 123.2 93.0 32.4 100.0
H- 5 D-2 10.0 350.0 63 116.3 101.2 15.0 60.9
H- 6 B-1 1.0 5.0 360.0 30 8 28 9 SC 6 0.05 CC
H- 6 D-1 5.0 356.0 39 129.2 109.4 18.1 90.5
H- 6 D-2 10.0 351.0 28 128.3 113.8 12.7 71.3
H- 6 D-3 15.0 346.0 28 124.8 101.6 22.8 93.4
H- 6 D-4 20.0 341.0 75/11" 112.4 105.9 6.1 27.9
H- 6 D-5 30.0 331.0 84/11" 112.4 108.6 3.5 17.2
T-2 MB-1 3.0 360.0 CC
Printed: 11/24/25; Template: SUM_SOIL_LAB_ALL; Proj ID: 24074-01.GPJ Shea/ Aliso Viejo DD Aliso Viejo, CA
SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY DATA
Sheet 1 of 1
Project Number: 24074-01
APPENDIX C
Boring/Sample Information
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(feet) (feet)
Remarks
Soluble
Sulfate
Content
(% by wt)
Expansion R-Value
Index
Compaction
Optimum
Moisture
Content
(%)
Depth
Maximum
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Count
(N)
Direct Shear
Peak
Friction
Angle ( )
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction
Ultimate
Angle ( )
Cohesion
(psf)
USCS
Group
(%) Symbol
Atterberg
Limits
LL
(%)
PI
Content
(% pass.
2µ)
Hydrometer
Fines o o BlowClay
Sieve/
Content
(% pass.
#200)
Degree
of
Sat.
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Field
Density
(pcf)
End Wet
(feet)
Elevation
Geotechnical, Inc.
iii
NMG 572
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
1,000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
36 SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
100 200 PERCENT PASSING
U.S. STANDARD
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CL
SC
SC
Passing
2µ (%)
Passing
Sieve (%)
59 45
30 C
Activity
PI/-2µ Moisture Sample Depth(feet)
BOULDERS COBBLES
GRAVEL
coarse
LL
41 32
28 Field
35 16
11 9
11 8
1.00 1.13
6 SILT OR CLAY
1-1/2 3/4 3/8
fine
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
Symbol PI u Cc No. 200 USCS
(%)
SAND
fine
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
12 8
coarse medium
3 4 16 30 50
Boring
Number
H- 2
H- 5
H- 6
Number
D-1
B-1
B-1
5.0 1.0 - 5.0
1.0 - 5.0
Shea/ Aliso Viejo DD
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
Template: NMSIV; Prj ID: 24074-01.GPJ; Printed: 1/10/25 Geotechnical, Inc.
I
0 IZI
~
I ~1 -------+-----------------i
I
I II
\
'
I II I I
I
I II
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
1 "'
NMG--=====================
573
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PLASTICITY CHART
LIQUID LIMIT(%)
PLASTICITY INDEX (%)
U-LINE A-LINE
CL- ML ML or OL
16 7
4 CL or OL
MH or OH
CH or OH
Shea/ Aliso Viejo DD
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
Template: NMATT; Prj ID: 24074-01.GPJ; Printed: 1/10/25 Geotechnical, Inc.
Symbol LL
41 32
28 Passing
No. 200
Sieve (%)
59 45
30 Description
Number
(Af) Pale gray sandy CLAY
(Af) Yellowish brown clayey SAND
(Af) Light brown clayey SAND
USCS
CL
SC
SC
PI
16 11
9 Boring
H- 2
H- 5
H- 6
Number
Sample Depth
(feet)
D-1
B-1
B-1
5.0 1.0 - 5.0
1.0 - 5.0
0 IZI
~
/ ,,, • v
••••• /:'::/ /:/:{:/ :/::::::::7
17 I
NMG--================= 574
140 -~------.--.....--....... - '\ \ ~
[\ \ Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 114.0
\ f\ i\. Optimum Moisture Content (%) 15.5
\ \ f\. G/S/F= 4 I 51 / 45
I\ \ \. 130 1---1---1---1---1---1---1---1---1--+->,-\-i--"l.-\-!->I.\ 1---1---1--+-+---l----l-----+---+---+--1-\-1'-" ---+-' ,\'--+- 1 '\...... Zero Air Voids Curves
1---1---1--+-+---l----l-----+---+---+--1--1-"--->,1--,A' \ c-+--\.~ " Gs = 2. 80 \ r\\~ __..........- Gs = 2. 70
120 .--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-f\.,.._,+-~---+~---Pl..v-__........- Gs = 2. 60 l--+--+--+---+--l--+--+--+---+--1--+--+--+--f~ +-~--:::ai.~ '\ • ...->(' '
100 l--+--+--+--+- +--+--+--+--f-+-+--+--+--fl---t--+--+--+-1---t--+-"' -"<l----+--"k'-+'-<: I"'- "' ... -+-, ~ "'- I"- ' I°'.. r-....
90 l--+--+--+---+--l--+--+--+--+-+-+--+--+--fl---t--+--+--+--fl--+--1--+--+-l--+--1--+--+-1---1 5 Boring No. H- 5
Sample Description:
Liquid Limit: 32
Comments: 1557A
~ NMG Geotechnical Inc.
10 15 20 25
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
Sample No. B-1 Depth: 1.0 - 5.0 ft
(Af) Ye llowish brown clayey SAND uses: SC
J Plasticity Index: 11 Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve:
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
Shea Homes DD
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
45 30
Template: NMCOMP _21; Prj ID: 24074--01.GPJ; Plinted: 1/10/25 575
-1
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
STRAIN (%)
STRESS (ksf)
Shea/ Aliso Viejo DD
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
Template: NMCONS; Prj ID: 24074-01.GPJ; Printed: 1/13/25 Geotechnical, Inc.
86.3 Degree of
Saturation (%)
89.7 98.7
Void
Ratio
0.966
0.952
Boring No. H- 2
Liquid Limit: 41 Plasticity Index: 16
Test
Sample Description:
Stage
Initial
USCS:
Percent Passing
Final
Moisture
Content (%)
32.1 34.8
Dry
Density (pcf)
85.7 Sample No. D-1
(Af) Pale gray sandy CLAY
No. 200 Sieve: 59
CL
Depth: 5.0 ft
LEGEND
= initial moisture
= after saturation
% Collapse (-)
or % Swell (+) +0.04
~
0 ~--+---+-+-+--+--------+-----+-+------+I •
- --- -,
-r-- ',
r---_ "'- - -----.
I
I I I
NMG--======
576
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
SHEAR STRENGTH (psf)
Shea/ Aliso Viejo DD
Aliso Viejo, CA
PROJECT NO. 24074-01
Template: NMDS; Prj ID: 24074-01.GPJ; Printed: 1/13/25
Geotechnical, Inc.
27.0 Cohesion (psf) 375 180
Parameter Peak Ultimate
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
Sample Type: Remolded @ 90%RC Rate of Shear (in./min.):
26.7 102.6 Saturation (%):
Degree of 100
Liquid Limit: Percent Passing
Sample No. B-1
Final Moisture
Content (%):
Final Dry
Friction Angle (degrees) 26.0
32 Plasticity Index: 11 45 No. 200 Sieve:
Sample Description: (Af) Yellowish brown clayey SAND USCS: SC Boring No. H- 5
0.005
Density (pcf):
Depth: 1.0 - 5.0 ft
• 0
~ NMG--============== 577
Sample
Compacted
Moisture
(%)
Compacted
Dry Density
(pcf)
Final
Moisture
(%)
Volumetric
Swell
(%)
Expansion
Index1
Value/Method
Expansive
Classification2
Soluble
Sulfate
(%)
Sulfate
Exposure3
H-5
B-1
1-5'
15.0 97.0 23.7 2.07 23 B Low 0.21 S2
H-6
B-1
1-5'
11.0 105.0 18.8 0.56 6 A Very Low 0.05 S0
Test Method:
ASTM D4829
HACH SF-1 (Turbidimetric)
Notes:
1. Expansion Index (EI) method of determination:
[A] E.I. determined by adjusting water content to achieve a 50 ±2% degree of saturation [B] E.I. calculated based on measured saturation within the range of 40% and 60%
2. ASTM D4829 (Classification of Expansive Soil)
3. ACI-318-14 Table 19.3.1.1 (Requirement for Concrete Exposed to Sulfate-Containing Solutions) Expansion Index
and Soluble
Sulfate
Test Results
(FRM001 Rev.5)
Project No. 24074-01
Project Name: Shea/ Aliso Viejo DD
~ NMG
578
Sample ID
Resistivity
saturated
pH
Electrical
Co nductivity
Table 1 - Laboratory Te sts on Soil Samples
NMG Geotechnical, Inc.
Shea/Aliso Viejo
Keegan Labs #25-0203, Your #24074-02
19-Nov-25
Units
ohm-cm
mS/cm
T-2, MB- 1 H-3, B-1
@ 3 1 @ 1-5 I
322
7.0 2.04
573
7.6 0.51
H-6, B-1
@ 1-5'
1,660
7.7 0.10
Chemical Analyses (Total Salts)
Cations
sodium Nal+ mg/kg 1,051 459
ammonium NH4 1+ mg/kg ND ND
potassium Kl+ mg/kg 24 15
magnesium Mg2+ mg/kg 281 9.8
calcium Ca2+ mg/kg 898 31
Anions
carbonate CO3
2- mg/kg ND ND
bicarbonate HCO3
1 -mg/kg 21 92
fluoride Fl- mg/kg 5 . 4 5.6
chloride Cl i- mg/kg 1,061 505
nitrate N031- mg/kg 7.0 15
phosphate PO43- mg/kg 19 ND
sulfate SO4
2- mg/kg 5,22 0 437
Other Tests
sulfide s 2- mg/kg na na
Redox mV na na
g_ Moisture H2O g_ 0 0 na na
For test methods r efer to Laborator y Test Methods a t tachment Conductivity in millisi emens/cm and chemical ana l yses were made mg / kg = mil l i grams per ki l ogram (part s per mi llion) of dr y s o i l .
ND= no t detected
na = not a n al yzed
on
465 W Alvarado St., Pomona, CA 91768
Phone: 9 51 -203-6581
89 ND
1. 4
0 ND
ND
43 7.0
44 7.1
ND
96 na
na
na
a 1:5 soi l-to-water extract .
579
APPENDIX D
580
Latitude, Longitude: 33.5695, -117.7247
Announcement
ASCE 7-22 is now available.
OSHPD
-
~ Q)
-0
ii>
0 ....
Pacific Park Dr Pacific Park Dr
Q Sushi Kizuna
Journey
0 Aliso Viejo Ice Palace
Shell fl Q
I
I
Foxborough Park O J Go gle Pacific Park Plaza 0
Map data ©2025
Date 11/13/2025, 2:47:14 PM
Design Code Reference Document
Risk Category
ASCE7-22
II
Site Class Default
Type Value Description (Data)
Ss 1.41 The MCER spectral response acceleration at 0.2 seconds for Site Class BC, in units of g.
S1
SMs
SM1
Sos
So1
Type
SDC
0.45 1.64
1.1 1.09
0.73 The MCER spectral response acceleration at 1 second for Site Class BC, in units of g.
SMs = 1.5 x Sos, the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration for short periods (of the two-period spectrum) and the user-specified Site Class.
SM1 = 1.5 x S01 , the MCER spectral response acceleration for 1 second (of the two-period spectrum) and the user-specified Site Class.
The design spectral response acceleration for short periods (of the two-period spectrum) and the user-specified Site Class, in units of g.
The design spectral response acceleration for 1 second (of the two-period spectrum) and the user-specified Site Class, in units of g Value Description (Data Contd.)
D Seismic design category
PGAM 0.64 PGAM, the Geometric-Mean Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEG) peak ground acceleration for the user-specified Site Class, in units of g Ts 0.672 Ts = S01/S0s, in seconds, for construction of the two-period design spectrum TO 0.134 TO = 0.2 x Ts, in seconds, for construction of the two-period design response spectrum 8 TL• the long-period transition period, in seconds, for construction of the two-period design response spectrum 581
Type
PGAuh
PGA84th
Vs30
Spatial Interpolation
Method
PG~Floor
riskTargetedSpectrum
eightyFourthSpectrum
Value
See underlying data for Site
Classes C, CD, and D
See underlying data for Site
Classes C, CD, and D
260
linearloglinear
Description (Underlying Data and Metadata)
Probabilistic uniform-hazard (2%-in-50-years), geometric-mean peak ground acceleration, in units of g.
Deterministic 84th-percentile, geometric-mean peak ground acceleration (without deterministic lower limit), in units of g.
The shear-wave velocity used for the user-specified Site Class, in units of m/s Identifier for spatial interpolation method used to obtain values for location of interest from underlying gridded values: "linearloglinear" for bilinear of natural logarithm of values.
Deterministic lower limit peak ground acceleration (PGA8 ) for the user-specified Site Class, in units of g.
Probabilistic risk-targeted, maximum direction response spectrum (for 1 %-in-50-years collapse risk)
Deterministic 841h-percentile, maximum-direction response spectrum (without deterministic lower limit)
582
Click to CORY.
Period
T(s)
0 Design Spectrum Ordinates (g)
0.48 0.01
0.02 0.03
0.05 0.075
0.1 0.15
0.2 0.25
0.3 0.4
0.5 0.75
1.5 2
3 4
5 7.5
10 Click to CORY.
Period T(s)
0 0.025
0.05 0.1
0.13 0.15
0.2 0.25
0.3 0.35
0.4 0.45
0.5 0.55
0.6 0.65
0.67 0.7
0.75 0.8
0.85 0.9
0.95 0.48
0.48 0.51
0.62 0.8
0.93 1.07
1.15 1.18
1.21 1.19
1.13 0.9
0.73 0.51
0.38 0.24
0.17 0.13
0.077
0.052
Design Spectrum Ordinates (g)
0.44 0.56
0.68 0.93
1.09 1.09
1.09 1.09
1.09 1.09
1.09 1.09
1.09 1.09
1.09 1.09
1.09 1.05
0.98 0.92
0.86 0.82
0.77 Multi Period
Two Period
MCER Spectrum Ordinates (g)
0.72 0.72
0.73 0.76
0.93 1.2
1.4 1.61
1.73 1.77
1.82 1.78
1.69 1.35
1.1 0.77
0.57 0.36
0.25 0.19
0.12 0.079
MCER Spectrum Ordinates (g)
0.66 0.84
1.02 1.39
1.64 1.64
1.64 1.64
1.64 1.64
1.64 1.64
1.64 1.64
1.64 1.64
1.64 1.57
1.47 1.38
1.3 1.22
1.16 583
Period T(s) Design Spectrum Ordinates (g) MCER Spectrum Ordinates (g) 1 0.73 1.1
1.05 0.7 1.05
1.1 0.67
1.15 0.64 0.96
1.2 0.61 0.92
1.25 0.59 0.88
1.3 0.56 0.85
1.35 0.54 0.82
1.4 0.52 0.79
1.45 0.51 0.76
1.5 0.49 0.73
1.55 0.47 0.71
1.6 0.46 0.69
1.65 0.44 0.67
1.7 0.43 0.65
1.75 0.42 0.63
1.8 0.41 0.61
1.85 0.4 0.6
1.9 0.39 0.58
1.95 0.38 0.56
2 0.37 0.55
2.05 0.36 0.54
2.1 0.35 0.52
2.15 0.34 0.51
2.2 0.33 0.5
2.25 0.33 0.49
2.3 0.32 0.48
2.35 0.31 0.47
2.4 0.31 0.46
2.45 0.3 0.45
2.5 0.29 0.44
2.55 0.29 0.43
2.6 0.28 0.42
2.65 0.28 0.42
2.7 0.27 0.41
2.75 0.27 0.4
2.8 0.26 0.39
2.85 0.26 0.39
2.9 0.25 0.38
2.95 0.25 0.37
3 0.24 0.37
3.05 0.24 0.36
3.1 0.24 0.36
3.15 0.23 0.35
3.2 0.23 0.34
3.25 0.23 0.34
3.3 0.22 0.33
3.35 0.22 0.33
3.4 0.22 0.32
3.45 0.21 0.32
584
Period T(s) Design Spectrum Ordinates (g) MCER Spectrum Ordinates (g)
3.5 0.21 0.31
3.55 0.21 0.31
3.6 0.2 0.31
3.65 0.2 0.3
3.7 0.2 0.3
3.75 0.2 0.29
3.8 0.19 0.29
3.85 0.19 0.29
3.9 0.19 0.28
3.95 0.19 0.28
4 0.18 0.28
4.05 0.18 0.27
4.1 0.18 0.27
4.15 0.18 0.27
4.2 0.17 0.26
4.25 0.17 0.26
4.3 0.17 0.26
4.35 0.17 0.25
4.4 0.17 0.25
4.45 0.16 0.25
4.5 0.16 0.24
4.55 0.16 0.24
4.6 0.16 0.24
4.65 0.16 0.24
4.7 0.16 0.23
4.75 0.15 0.23
4.8 0.15 0.23
4.85 0.15 0.23
4.9 0.15 0.22
4.95 0.15 0.22
5 0.15 0.22
5.05 0.15 0.22
5.1 0.14 0.22
5.15 0.14 0.21
5.2 0.14 0.21
5.25 0.14 0.21
5.3 0.14 0.21
5.35 0.14 0.21
5.4 0.14 0.2
5.45 0.13 0.2
5.5 0.13 0.2
5.55 0.13 0.2
5.6 0.13 0.2
5.65 0.13 0.19
5.7 0.13 0.19
5.75 0.13 0.19
5.8 0.13 0.19
5.85 0.13 0.19
5.9 0.12 0.19
5.95 0.12 0.19
585
Period T(s) Design Spectrum Ordinates (g) MCER Spectrum Ordinates (g) 6 0.12 0.18
6.05 0.12 0.18
6.1 0.12 0.18
6.15 0.12 0.18
6.2 0.12 0.18
6.25 0.12 0.18
6.3 0.12 0.17
6.35 0.12 0.17
6.4 0.11 0.17
6.45 0.11 0.17
6.5 0.11 0.17
6.55 0.11 0.17
6.6 0.11 0.17
6.65 0.11 0.17
6.7 0.11 0.16
6.75 0.11 0.16
6.8 0.11 0.16
6.85 0.11 0.16
6.9 0.11 0.16
6.95 0.11 0.16
7 0.1 0.16
7.05 0.1 0.16
7.1 0.1 0.16
7.15 0.1 0.15
7.2 0.1 0.15
7.25 0.1 0.15
7.3 0.1 0.15
7.35 0.1 0.15
7.4 0.099 0.15
7.45 0.099 0.15
7.5 0.098 0.15
7.55 0.097 0.15
7.6 0.097 0.14
7.65 0.096 0.14
7.7 0.095 0.14
7.75 0.095 0.14
7.8 0.094 0.14
7.85 0.094 0.14
7.9 0.093 0.14
7.95 0.092 0.14
8 0.092 0.14
8.05 0.091 0.14
8.1 0.09 0.13
8.15 0.088 0.13
8.2 0.087 0.13
8.25 0.086 0.13
8.3 0.085 0.13
8.35 0.084 0.13
8.4 0.083 0.12
8.45 0.082 0.12
586
Period T{s)
8.5 8.55
8.6 8.65
8.7 8.75
8.8 8.85
8.9 8.95
9 Click to CORY.
Period T{s)
Design Spectrum Ordinates (g)
0.081
0.08 0.079
0.078
0.078
0.077
0.076
0.075
0.074
0.073
0.073
Risk Targeted Spectrum Ordinates (g)
Probabilistic & Deterministic
DISCLAIMER
MCER Spectrum Ordinates (g)
0.12 0.12
0.12 0.12
0.12 0.12
0.11 0.11
0.11 0.11
0.11 84th Spectrum Ordinates(g)
While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website. 587
Disaggregation Report
Disaggregation
~ co
0 N
N
'°LO I,-
0 -C:
.2o '5.-
.0
·;::
-
C:
CLO
u
?s
•
.. •
•• ••
• • • • • •
• •• .•
•• ••
• • •
•
• •
• •
•
• •
■ s = (-oo .. -2.5)
■ s = (-2.5 .. -2)
■ s = (-2 .. -1.5)
s=(-1 5 .. -1)
□ s = (-1 .. -0.5)
□ s = (-0.5 .. 0)
□ s = (0 .. 0.5)
Ds=[0.5 .. 1)
□ s = (1 .. 1.5)
■ s = (1 .5 .. 2)
■ s = (2 .. 2.5)
■ s = (2.5 .. +oo)
588
Geographical Disaggregation
Parameter Summary
Model: NSHM Conterminous U.S. 2023
Latitude: 33.5695 °
Longitude: -117. 724 7 °
Site Class: CD (Vs30 365)
Intensity Measure Type: PGA
Return Period: 2475 (2% in 50)
Component: Total
589
Disaggregation Summary: Total
Disaggregation targets
Return period : 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate : 4.040e-4 yr-•
PGA ground motion : 6.223e-1 g
Totals
Binned : 1 00 %
Residual : 0 %
Trace : 0.12 %
Mode {largest m-r bin)
m : 7.47
r : 5.35 km
&0 : 0.01 a
Contribution : 11 . 79 %
Discretization
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, l::.. = 20.0 km
m : min = 4.4, max = 9.4, l::.. = 0.2
& : min= -3.0, max= 3.0, l::.. = 0.5 a
Recovered targets
Return period : 2456. 1 29 yrs
Exceedance rate : 4.071 e-4 yr- 1
Mean (over all sources)
m : 6.83
r : 13.31 km
&0 : 0.91 a
Mode {largest m-r-e0 bin)
m : 7.47
r : 5.2 km
&0 : 0.17cr
Contribution : 3.68 %
Epsilon keys
&0: [-oo .. -2.5)
&1 : [-2.5 .. -2.0)
&2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
&3: [-1.5 .. -1 .0)
&4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
&5 : [-0.5 .. 0.0)
&6 : [0 .0 .. 0.5)
&7 : [0 .5 .. 1 .0)
&8 : [1 .0 .. 1 .5)
&9 : [1 .5 .. 2.0)
&10 : [2.0 .. 2.5)
&11 : [2.5 .. +oo]
590
Disaggregation Contributions: Total
Source Set L+ Source Type m Eo Ion lat az %
WUS Branch Average FaultSystem 65.36
San Joaquin Hills (2) 4.08 7.27 -0.13 117.699°W 33.588°N 48.73 28.36 Newport - Inglewood (offshore) (3) 9.75 7.17 0.86 111.190•w 33.507°N 224.61 11.29 Elsinore (Glen Ivy) (1) 30.87 7.32 1.97 117_495•w 33.770"N 43.52 2.99 Chino (3) 29.55 7.43 1.70 117.571 ·w 33.821 "N 26.88 2.94 Compton (0) 33.54 7.60 1.60 118.043"W 33.703"N 296.72 2.58 Lausuen Knoll (2) 11.17 7.27 0.47 117.896"W 33.421 "N 223.96 2.42 San Joaquin Hills (1) 7.40 7.29 0.35 117.758"W 33.632"N 336.30 2.3 Palos Verdes (3) 33.58 7.30 2.06 118.019"W 33.394"N 234.54 1.94 Newport - Inglewood (offshore) (1) 11.11 6.92 1.16 117.837°W 33.535"N 249.95 1.79 Elsinore (stepover) (0) 35.07 7.35 2.07 117_373•w 33.685°N 68.36 1.01 WUS Branch Average (opt) Grid 34.64
PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.628 7.44 5.76 1.17 117_725•w 33.628°N 0.00 1.4 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.61 0 6.24 5.70 1.01 117.725°W 33.610°N 0.00 1.39 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.637 8.04 5.80 1.24 117_725•w 33.637°N 0.00 1.29 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.619 6.82 5.73 1.09 111.125•w 33.619°N 0.00 1.26 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.61 0 7.20 5.71 1.05 111.125•w 33.610°N 0.00 1.23 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.646 8.68 5.84 1.31 117_725•w 33.646°N 0.00 1.22 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.628 8.49 5.77 1.22 117.725°W 33.628°N 0.00 1.21 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.601 5.74 5.67 0.93 117.725"W 33.601 'N 0.00 1.19 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.583 4.88 5.68 0.77 117.725°w 33.583°N 0.00 1.17 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.637 9.15 5.81 1.28 111.125•w 33.637°N 0.00 1.11 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.583 5.52 5.69 0.80 111.125•w 33.583'N 0.00 1.1 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.619 7.83 5.74 1.14 117_725•w 33.619°N 0.00 1.1 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.655 9.29 5.90 1.36 117_725•w 33.655'N 0.00 1.07 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.601 6.60 5.68 0.97 117_725•w 33.601 °N 0.00 1.07 PointSourceFinite: -117.725, 33.646 9.82 5.85 1.35 111.125•w 33.646°N 0.00 1.06 591
Application Metadata
Application: Disaggregation
URL: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/nshmp/hazard/disagg
Repository: nshmp-apps
Version: 20.8.0
URL: https://code.usgs.gov/ghsc/nshmp/nshmp-apps
Repository : nshmp-haz
Version: 2.7.0
URL: https://code.usgs.gov/ghsc/nshmp/nshmp-haz
Repository : nshmp-lib
Version: 1.7.15
URL: https://code.usgs.gov/ghsc/nshmp/nshmp-lib
Repository : nshm-conus
Version: 6.1.1
URL: https://code.usgs.gov/ghsc/nshmp/nshms/nshm-conus
November 13, 2025, 02:41 PM
592
APPENDIX E
593
1.9 Ru
Value
Water
Surface
Phi
(°)
Cohesion
(psf)
Strength
Type
Unit Weight
(lbs/ft3) Color Material Name
150 27 None 0 Mohr- Coulomb Af 120200 30 None 0 Mohr- Coulomb Tco 120 Method Name Min FS
Janbu corrected 1.9
PL
RW
34.7 450 400 350 300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Analysis By
FEO/KGM
Analysis
Static, Slope H=35', RW at Toe
File Path & Name
P:\2024\24074-02 Shea Aliso Viejo\Slide2\A-A'' Design Slope.slmd Date
11/25/2025
Project Number
24074-02
Cross Section
Cross Section A-A', West Side
Project
Shea/Aliso Viejo
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.038
~~~hnical, Inc.------------------------
594
1.6 34.8
PL
RW
Ru
Value
Water
Surface
Phi
(°)
Cohesion
(psf)
Strength
Type
Unit Weight (lbs/
ft3) Color Material Name
180 30 None 0 Mohr- Coulomb P-Static Af 125250 35 None 0 Mohr- Coulomb P-Static Tco 125 Method Name Min FS
Janbu corrected 1.6
0.19 450 400 350 300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Analysis By
FEO/KGM
Analysis
P-Static, Slope H=35', RW at Toe
File Path & Name
P:\2024\24074-02 Shea Aliso Viejo\Slide2\A-A'' Design Slope.slmd Date
11/25/2025
Project Number
24074-02
Cross Section
Cross Section A-A', West Side
Project
Shea/Aliso Viejo
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.038
I 1~1 I I 11 I I
~~~hnical, lnc .-------------+----------1
595
1.5 Ru
Value
Water
Surface
Phi
(°)
Cohesion
(psf) Strength Type Unit Weight (lbs/ ft3) Color Material Name 150 27 None 0 Mohr- Coulomb Af 120200 30 None 0 Mohr- Coulomb Tco 120
14.8 RW
RW
Method Name Min FS
Janbu corrected 1.5
400 350 300
250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525
Analysis By
FEO/KGM
Analysis
Static, Slope H=15', RW Top of Slope
File Path & Name
P:\2024\24074-02 Shea Aliso Viejo\Slide2\A-A'' East Side - Design Slope.slmd Date
11/25/2025
Project Number
24074-02
Cross Section
Cross Section A-A' East Side
Project
Shea/Aliso Viejo
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.038
-
-
I I I I/ - ) r' +
L ' 1~ [J -
T
-
-
-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~~~hnical, Inc.
596
1.2 14.8
Ru
Value
Water
Surface
Phi
(°)
Cohesion
(psf)
Strength
Type
Unit Weight (lbs/
ft3) Color Material Name
180 30 None 0 Mohr- Coulomb P-Static Af 125250 35 None 0 Mohr- Coulomb P-Static Tco 125 RW RW
0.19 Method Name Min FS
Janbu corrected 1.2
400 350 300
250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525
Analysis By
FEO/KGM
Analysis
P-Static, Slope H=15', RW Top of Slope
File Path & Name
P:\2024\24074-02 Shea Aliso Viejo\Slide2\A-A'' East Side - Design Slope.slmd Date
11/25/2025
Project Number
24074-02
Cross Section
Cross Section A-A' East Side
Project
Shea/Aliso Viejo
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.038
- ,;
-
I )/ rr I I - • ' "--JI~ [J - If
-
-
-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~~~hnical, Inc.
597
APPENDIX F
598
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\Appendix F - Grading Specifications.doc F-1
APPENDIX F
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1.0 General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 Geotechnical Consultant: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
599
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\Appendix F - Grading Specifications.doc F-2
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
600
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\Appendix F - Grading Specifications.doc F-3 As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.
2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
601
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\Appendix F - Grading Specifications.doc F-4
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
602
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\Appendix F - Grading Specifications.doc F-5
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant’s discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 603
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\Appendix F - Grading Specifications.doc F-6
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.
7.2 Bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction.
Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface, except in traveled ways (see Section 7.6 below).
7.3 Jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.4 Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
7.6 Trench backfill in the upper foot measured from finish grade/subgrade within existing or future traveled way, shoulder, and other paved areas (or areas to receive pavement) should be placed to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction unless specified differently by the governing agency.
604
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL FILL KEY ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
DESIGN FINISH GRADE
BROW
BERM
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
MAINTAIN 9' MIN. HORIZONTAL WIDTH
FROM SLOPE FACE TO BENCH/BACKCUT
NATURAL
GRADE
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
PROJECTED SLOPE GRADIENT
(1:1 MAXIMUM)
BACKCUT -- VARIES
2' MINIMUM
KEY DEPTH
PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL
TO ORIGINAL GRADE
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
NOTE: BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1 OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. WHERE THE
NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE DESIGN SLOPE RATIO, SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
VARIABLE
COMPACTED FILL
KEY IN COMPETENT
MATERIAL. MINIMUM
WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR
AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT.
FIGURE 1
4' TYPICAL
8/96 FILL KEY ABOVE NAT. SLOPE.ai
REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
--
605
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
FIGURE 2
DESIGN FINISH GRADE COMPACTED FILL
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
BROW
BERM
4'
TYPICAL
CUT/FILL SHOWN ON
GRADING PLAN
NATURAL GRADE
CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED
PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL
TYPICAL HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS
4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
VARIABLE
KEYWAY IN COMPETENT
MATERIAL. MINIMUM
WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR
AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
2'
NOTE: THE FILL PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHALL BE COMPACTED
AS STATED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.
9' MIN.
8/03 TYP FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE.ai
REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
---
-- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- ::a,::
I
606
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
TERRACE DRAIN
BROW
BERM
IN-PLACE EARTH MATERIAL
KEYWAY
COMPACTED FILL
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT (3' TYPICAL)
DESIGN FINISH GRADE
30' MAX
W
D
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
OR 2 % SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
2% TYP
SLOPE OF INTERFACE TO BE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
FOR SAFE WORKING CONDITIONS, AS RECOMMENDED
BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. TYPICAL HEIGHT OF
BENCHES 4 FEET.
KEY IN COMPETENT
MATERIAL. MINIMUM
WIDTH (W) AND DEPTH (D)
OF BUTTRESS KEY AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT.
NOTE: SUBDRAIN DETAILS, SEE FIGURE 5.
FIGURE 3
1/04 TYP BUTTRESS FILL.ai
---
---
f ----------
--------
-- --- --
-- - -- ---
I
607
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
COMPETENT MATERIAL
ACCEPTABLE TO THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
TYPICAL HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4'
OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
MAINTAIN A 9' MINIMUM HORIZONTAL WIDTH
FROM SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT OR BENCH
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
2' MIN.
KEY BOTTOM
COMPACTED FILL
TERRACE DRAIN
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT (3' TYPICAL)
FIGURE 4
15' MINIMUM BACKCUT
AT TOP OF SLOPE
VARIABLE
15' MINIMUM
KEY WIDTH
9/96 STABILIZATION FILL.ai
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE
NOTE:
SEE FIGURE 5 FOR TYPICAL SUBDRAIN DETAILS FOR
STABILIZATION FILLS
608
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL STABILIZATION AND BUTTRESS FILL SUBDRAINS
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100'
MAXIMUM INTERVALS. EXTEND 12 INCHES
BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROUGH
GRADING CONSTRUCTION.
DESIGN
FINISH
SLOPE
BROW
BERM
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
(3' TYPICAL)
2' CLEAR
10' MIN
30' MAX
COMPACTED
FILL
2%
2%
4-INCH DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE
TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
NOTE:
TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE
BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL.
"FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET
FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION
OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT.
SIEVE SIZE
1"
3/4"
3/8"
NO. 4
NO. 8
NO. 30
NO. 50
NO. 200
PERCENTAGE
PASSING
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF THREE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE.
SEE FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION.
ALTERNATE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL, THREE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF SUBDRAIN (WITHOUT PIPE) MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC.
SEE GRAVEL SPECIFICATION, AND FIGURE 6 FOR
FILTER FABRIC SPECIFICATION
"GRAVEL" TO CONSIST OF 1/2" TO 1" CRUSHED ROCK
PER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC
WORKS CONSTRUCTION.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES
ON ALL JOINTS.
MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40
ASTM D1527 OR D1785 OR SDR 35 ASTM D2751
OR D 3034. FOR FILL DEPTH OF 90 FEET OR
GREATER, USE ONLY SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF
8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER
FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH
PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE.
PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE.
SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE.
FIGURE 5
SEE DETAIL BELOW
DETAIL
OUTLET PIPE TO BE
CONNECTED TO
SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH
TEE OR ELBOW
8/96 STAB. BUTTRESS FILL SUBDRAINS.ai
30' MAX
I
609
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
FIGURE 6
NOTES: DOWNSTREAM 20' OF PIPE AT OUTLET SHALL BE NON-PERFORATED AND BACKFILLED WITH
FINE-GRAINED MATERIAL
PIPE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4-INCH DIAMETER. FOR RUNS OF 500 FEET OR MORE, USE 6-INCH
DIAMETER PIPE, OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT .
TYPICAL
BENCHING
SEE DETAIL BELOW
COMPETENT MATERIAL
NATURAL GRADE
FILTER FABRICS SHALL BE PERMEABLE NON-WOVEN POLYESTER, NYLON, OR POLYPROPYLENE MATERIAL CONFORMING TO THE FOLLOWING:
1) GRAB TENSILE STRENGTH. POUNDS, MIN. ASTM D 4632......................................................90 2) ELONGATION, AT PEAK LOAD, PERCENT, MIN. ASTM D 4632.................................................50 3) PUNCTURE STRENGTH, LBS., MIN. ASTM D 3787....................................................................45 4) COEFFICIENT OF WATER PERMITTIVITY, 1/SEC. ASTM D 4491............................................>0.7 5) BURST STRENGTH, P.S.I., MIN. ASTM D 3786..........................................................................180 6" MIN.
18" MIN.
3' TYPICAL
DEPTH AND
BEDDING MAY VARY
WITH PIPE AND LOAD
CHARACTERISTICS.
3' TYPICAL
DETAIL
FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF NINE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT
OF PIPE. SEE FIGURE 5 FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS.
ALTERNATE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL, NINE CUBIC FEET OF
GRAVEL PER FOOT OF SUBDRAIN (WITHOUT PIPE) MAY BE
ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE FIGURE 5 TO GRAVEL
SPECIFICATION. SEE ABOVE FOR FILTER FABRIC SPECIFICATION.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES ON
ALL JOINTS.
MINIMUM 4 INCH DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 ASTM D 1527, OR
D 1785, OR SDR 35 ASTM 2751 OR D 3034. FOR FILL DEPTH OF 90 FEET OR GREATER, USE ONLY SCHEDULE 40 OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY
SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH
PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE.
COMPACTED FILL
MINIMUM
CLEARANCE
DIMENSIONS
Rev. 8/96 CANYON SUBDRAIN.ai
REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
... ...
----
610
TYPICAL OVERSIZE ROCK PLACEMENT METHOD
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAIL
FOR STRUCTURAL FILL
PLACE OVERSIZE MATERIAL IN TRENCH.
FALSE SLOPE OR CUT SLOT INTO APPROVED
MATERIAL. OVERSIZE MATERIAL MAY BE PLACED
SIDE BY SIDE IF SIZE PERMITS. (NOT TO EXCEED
A WIDTH OF 4 FEET)
FILL VOIDS WITH
SELECT GRANULAR
SOIL PLACED BY
WATER
DENSIFICATION
AND MECHANICAL
COMPACTION.
NESTING OR
STACKING OF
OVERSIZE
MATERIAL
IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
FIGURE 7
4’
4’
4' MIN.
15' MIN.
15' MIN.
NOTES:
A) OVERSIZED ROCK IS DEFINED AS LARGER THAN 12" IN SIZE (IN GREATEST DIMENSION).
B) SPACE BETWEEN ROCKROWS SHOULD BE ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET.
C) THE WIDTH AND HEIGHT OF THE ROCKROW SHALL BE LIMITED TO FOUR FEET AND THE LENGTH LIMITED TO 300 FEET UNLESS APPROVED OTHERWISE BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. OVERSIZE SHOULD BE PLACED WITH FLATEST SIDE ON THE BOTTOM.
D) OVERSIZE MATERIAL EXCEEDING FOUR FEET MAY BE PLACED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS IF APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT.
E) FILLING OF VOIDS WILL REQUIRE SELECT GRANULAR SOIL (SE > 20, OR LESS THAN 20 PERCENT FINES) AS APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. VOIDS IN THE ROCKROW TO BE FILLED BY WATER DENSIFYING GRANULAR SOIL INTO PLACE ALONG WITH MECHANICAL COMPACTION EFFORT.
F) IF APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT, ROCKROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIALS OR BEDROCK, PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION.
G) THE FIRST LIFT OF MATERIAL ABOVE THE ROCKROW SHALL CONSIST OF GRANULAR MATERIAL AND SHALL BE PROOF-ROLLED WITH A D-8 OR LARGER DOZER OR EQUIVALENT.
H) ROCKROWS NEAR SLOPES SHOULD BE ORIENTED PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE.
I) NESTING OR STACKING OF ROCKS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
FINISH GRADE
TYPICAL
ROCK ROW
FINISH
SLOPE
FACE
3/04 TYP OVERSIZE ROCK PLACEMENT.ai
PROFILE ALONG ROCKROW
300’ MAX.
SECTION THROUGH ROCKROW
4’ MAX.
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
10’ MIN.
10’ MIN.
4’
MAX.
4’
MAX.
611
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL OVEREXCAVATION OF DAYLIGHT LINE
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
FIGURE 8
NOTE: DEEPER THAN THE 3-FOOT OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT IN STEEP TRANSITIONS.
COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE
TO THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
NATURAL GRADE
COMPACTED FILL
5' MIN.
CUT LOT
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
NATURAL GRADE
COMPACTED FILL 3' MIN.
SEE NOTE
3' MIN.
SEE NOTE
5' MIN.
CUT FILL LOT (TRANSITION)
COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE
TO THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
TYPICAL BENCHING
TYPICAL BENCHING
DESIGN
FINISH GRADE
DESIGN
FINISH GRADE
8/96 OVEREXCAVATION OF DAYLIGHT LINE.ai
----- -------- ----- ------- ------ ----- ---
I
612
Appendix E:
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and
Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project
613
PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR
THE JOURNEY AND PACIFIC PARK DRIVE
(SHEA ALISO VIEJO) PROJECT
CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APN 632-124-08
Prepared on Behalf of:
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Prepared for:
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Prepared by:
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
July 30, 2025
BFSA Environmental Services
A Pcrt•nni,il 'oiup;my
614
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project Paleontological Database Information
Author: Todd A. Wirths, M.S., P.G., Principal Paleontologist, California Professional Geologist No. 7588
Prepared by: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company 14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
Report Date: July 30, 2025
Report Title: Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California, APN 632-124-08
Prepared on Behalf of: Carlson Strategic Land Solutions 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Prepared for: City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 632-124-08
USGS Quadrangle: Township 7 South, Range 8 West on the USGS San Juan Capistrano, California (7.5-minute) topographic quadrangle Study Area: 8.44 acres
Key Words: Paleontological assessment; Niguel Formation; Monterey Formation; high paleontological sensitivity; monitoring recommended.
615
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project Table of Contents
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION........................................................................1 II. REGULATORY SETTING ........................................................................................1 State of California.......................................................................................................1 City of Aliso Viejo .......................................................................................................5 III. GEOLOGY..................................................................................................................5 IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................7 Definition ....................................................................................................................7 Paleontological Resource Records Search.................................................................7 V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ....................................................................7 Overview .....................................................................................................................7 Professional Standards...............................................................................................7 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................8 Suggested PRIMP .......................................................................................................8 VII. CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................10 VIII. REFERENCES .........................................................................................................10 Appendices
Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Paleontological Locality Records Search
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 General Location Map .................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Location Map...................................................................................3 Figure 3 Project Development Map ...........................................................................4 Figure 4 Geologic Map...............................................................................................6 616
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION
A paleontological resource assessment has been completed for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Aliso Viejo environmental requirements. The project is located on the southern side of Pacific Park Drive between Journey and Aliso Creek Road in the city of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The 8.44‐acre project (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 632-124-08) is situated within an unsectioned area of Township 7 South, Range 8 West, on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) San Juan Capistrano, California (7.5-minute) topographic quadrangle map (see Figure 2). The subject property is currently developed with three professional buildings and a parking lot with associated landscape, hardscape, and infrastructure.
As proposed, the project applicant plans to demolish the existing buildings for the construction of a 137-unit multi-family residential development, along with associated infrastructure (Figure 3).
A remedial grading cut of five feet is estimated for the project (Goodman and Markouizos 2025).
According to Goodman and Markouizos (2025), the project property and surrounding area were rough graded by 1988, with two small canyons on the parcel filled in. Between 1988 and 1991, the site became a finished, mass-graded pad, with a fire station constructed on the northwest border, an office complex constructed on the southern border, and both Pacific Park Drive and Aliso Creek Road constructed on the northern and eastern borders.
As the lead agency, the City of Aliso Viejo has required the preparation of a paleontological assessment to evaluate the project’s potential to yield paleontological resources. The paleontological assessment of the project included a review of paleontological literature and fossil locality records in the area, a review of the underlying geology, and recommendations to mitigate impacts to potential paleontological resources, if necessary. A paleontological survey of the project was not performed, since the parcels are completely developed.
II. REGULATORY SETTING
CEQA, which is patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act, is the overriding regulation that sets the requirement for protecting California’s cultural and paleontological resources. CEQA mandates that governing permitting agencies (lead agencies) set their own guidelines for the protection of nonrenewable paleontological resources under their jurisdiction.
State of California
Under “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,” as amended in December 2018 (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq.), procedures define the types of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. Section 15063 of the CCR provides a process by which a lead agency may review a project’s potential impact on the environment, determine whether the impacts are significant, and provide recommendations, if necessary. 617
Av
Newport
Beach
BFSA Environmental Services
A Perennial Company
Laguna Beach
Foothill Ranch 1/
Lake Forest / J
l
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Coto de Caza
Laguna Niguel
I
San Clemente/
/
I
Figure 1
General Location Map
,---✓-
L-,
r J
I - - -
I
I .._
I 'o<:::-
1 'o C,
\e~
\ 'o,,... -- /
/
1663
The Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project ESRI Street Map
2 618
BFSA Environmental Services
A Perennial Company
Figure 2
Project Location Map
The Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project USGS San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle (7.5-minute series) 3 619
,, -~- 11 i ·\l'l'v· 1 ,r~ • ~~) m\l\ > =, ~~~~
•. 1 ~· \ \
g ,.};\\
D Project boundary
BFSA Environmental Services
A Perennial Company
Jf'.~I~ ' I~"' .,,"' J ,;;, ,\
"". • \ 11 ,\ 1"
.. q. 11"
- 1\ 1,r
Figure 3
I
I
+' I
I
J$.~ •
I
I I
\
l
.f!
Project Development Map
SITE DATA
GARDEN COURTS
PLAN 1 ( AFFORDABLE)
PLAN 2
PLAN 3
F'LA LI
ROWTOWNS
PLAN 1
P[A 2
TOTAL UNITS
PARKING
GARAGE SPACES
STREET SPACES
TOTAL SPACES
SPACES PER UNIT
OPEN SPACE
TOTAL SITE AREA
67 14
14 14
11 70
15 27i
137
260
85 345 (343 REQ'D)
2.52 (2.5 REQ'D)
8.44 AC (367,646 SQ.FT.)
PASEOS/GREEN COURTS 51,400 SQ.FT.
OPEN SPACE SUBTOTAL
LOP AR A
58,000 SQ.FT. (15.8%)
OPEN SPACE TOTAL 127,400 SQ.FT. (34.7%)
I I I I I
0 140 ft
El ::::::3:~E~~I
0 40m
The Journey Parkway and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project 620
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project 5 In CEQA’s Environmental Checklist Form, a question to respond to is, “Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” (Appendix G, Section VII, Part f). This is to ensure compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, the law which protects nonrenewable resources including fossils, paraphrased below:
a) A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. b) As used in this section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.
c) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
City of Aliso Viejo
According to the General Plan of the City of Aliso Viejo, “the City will review future development proposals to ensure that cultural and historic [and paleontological] resources are conserved in compliance with this Element and the requirements of the CEQA” (City of Aliso Viejo 2004: COS-23).
III. GEOLOGY
The project lies within the San Joaquin Hills, a low mountain range characterized by multiple, mostly marine, Cenozoic geologic formations. The Pleistocene- to Pliocene-aged (approximately two to three million years old) Niguel Formation is partly mapped at the project, composed of marine deposits of interbedded, poorly sorted, coarse-grained sandstones and conglomerates (brown areas labeled “Tn” on Figure 4, after Morton and Miller 2006). However, in the Dana Point quadrangle, it consists of gray, fine-grained sandstones and siltstones (Tan 1999).
Also mapped at the project is the Miocene-aged (approximately five- to 15-million-year-old) Monterey Formation, composed of siliceous and diatomaceous marine siltstones and sandstones (amber areas labeled “Tm”). The Niguel and Monterey Formations are fossiliferous (Eisentraut and Cooper 2002; Morton and Miller 2006; Kennedy and Tan 2007). 621
BFSA Environmental Services
A Perennial Company
Legend
Geologic Units
Holocene and late Pleistocene
~ Young axial-channel deposits
~ 9 y1~ I Young landslide deposits
Pliocene
Tn Niguel Formation
Early Pliocene and Miocene
Tes Capistrano Formation, Siltstone facies
Miocene
~ Monterey Formation
Middle Miocene
Tsob San Onofre Breccia
~ Topanga Group
Early Miocene, Oligocene, and late Eocene
~ Vaqueros Formation
Ts Sespe Formation
*a=arenitic
Figure 4
Geologic Map
The Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project Geology after Morton and Miller (2006)
6 622
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project 7 A due diligence geotechnical investigation was recently performed for the project by NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (Goodman and Markouizos 2025). The investigation found that the project is primarily covered by a thin veneer of compacted fill placed over sandstone and siltstone bedrock over most of the site. Quaternary-age alluvium was encountered in the southeast corner of the project at a depth of 40 feet. The existing compacted fills range from 2.5 to 40 feet thick. Deeper fills are generally located in the southern portion of the project.
IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Definition
Paleontological resources are the remains of prehistoric life that have been preserved in geologic strata. These remains are called fossils and include bones, shells, teeth, and plant remains (including their impressions, casts, and molds) in the sedimentary matrix, as well as trace fossils such as footprints and burrows. Fossils are considered older than 5,000 years of age (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010) but may include younger remains (subfossils) when viewed in the context of local extinction of the organism or habitat. Fossils are considered a nonrenewable resource under state and local guidelines (see Section II of this report).
Paleontological Resource Records Search
A paleontological locality and records search was conducted by the OC Parks Division of Orange County for the project (Gelnaw 2025; Appendix B). The records search indicates that within one mile of the project, there are 66 fossil localities with 3,613 cataloged fossils, that represent mammals, birds, reptiles, and invertebrates from the Niguel, Monterey, and other formations.
V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
Overview
The degree of paleontological sensitivity of any particular area is based on a number of factors, including the documented presence of fossiliferous resources on a site or in nearby areas, the presence of documented fossils within a particular geologic formation or lithostratigraphic unit, and whether or not the original depositional environment of the sediments is one that might have been conducive to the accumulation of organic remains that may have become fossilized over time.
As summarized in Gelnaw (Appendix B), the Niguel and Monterey formations have an extensive fossil record in Orange County and in the San Joaquin Hills.
Professional Standards
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) has drafted guidelines that include four categories of paleontological sensitivity for geologic units (formations) that might be impacted by a proposed project, as paraphrased below:
623
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project 8 • High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered.
• Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment, and that further study is needed to determine the potential of the rock unit. • Low Potential: Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections or based on a general scientific consensus that only preserve fossils in rare circumstances.
• No Potential: Rock units that have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources, such as high-grade metamorphic rocks and plutonic igneous rocks.
Based upon these criteria, the Niguel and Monterey formations mapped at the project have a high potential to contain paleontological resources.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Niguel and Monterey formations (bedrock) mapped at the project have a high potential to yield significant paleontological resources, based upon age, depositional environment, and extensive regional fossil records. Therefore, paleontological monitoring is recommended during earth disturbance activities within these formations, wherever they occur beneath artificial fill soils. Monitoring of artificial fill or disturbed deposits is not recommended.
Based upon the conclusions and recommendations above, a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) is warranted. The following PRIMP is suggested and, when approved by the City of Aliso Viejo and implemented, would reduce adverse impacts to potential paleontological resources to a level below significant.
Suggested PRIMP
1. All mitigation programs shall be performed by a qualified professional (project) paleontologist, defined as an individual with a master’s or doctorate in paleontology or geology who has proven experience and is knowledgeable in professional paleontological procedures and techniques. Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall always work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.
2. Starting at one foot above the artificial fill/bedrock interface, full-time monitoring shall be conducted in areas of grading or excavation within the Niguel and Monterey formations. Monitoring of artificial fill or disturbed deposits that may be present otherwise is not required.
3. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to 624
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project 9 avoid construction delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources.
The monitor shall notify the project paleontologist, who will then notify any concerned parties of the discovery.
4. Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities is typically from the generated spoils and will not delay trenching or drilling activities. Fossils will be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, collector, and date collected. Before the site is vacated and the fossils are moved to a safe place, notes are taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site.
On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites are protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils will be collected in a similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before removing the fossils. Precise location of the site is determined through use of handheld Global Positioning System units. If a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as a large bone or a mammoth tusk, is too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find(s), encase the find(s) within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove the find(s) after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help move the jacket to a safe location.
5. In the laboratory, individual fossils will be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks will be repaired, and the specimen, if needed, will be stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).
6. Recovered specimens will be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.
7. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Orange County Parks’ Cooper Center) shall be conducted. The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to initiating mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (the City of Aliso Viejo) will be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material.
8. A final report of findings and significance will be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to and accepted by the appropriate lead agency, will signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts 625
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project 10 to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.
VII. CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this paleontological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and have been compiled in accordance with CEQA criteria.
July 30, 2025
Todd A. Wirths, M.S., P.G. Date
Principal Paleontologist
California Professional Geologist No. 7588
VIII. REFERENCES
City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. City of Aliso Viejo General Plan: Conservation / Open Space Element. https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/394/Conservation--Open-Space-Element-PDF.
Eisentraut, P.J. and Cooper, J.D. 2002. Final Report, Development of a model curation program for Orange County’s Archaeological & Paleontological Collections. Unpublished report prepared for the County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department, Harbors, Beaches and Parks, Santa Ana, Calif.
Gelnaw, W. 2025. Paleontological record search letter for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive Project. For BFSA Environnemental Services, Poway, California, by the OC Parks Division of Orange County.
Goodman, W., and Markouizos, K. 2025. Geotechnical Due Diligence Evaluation for the Pacific Corporate Plaza Site, 27081, Aliso Creek Road, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California. Prepared for Shea Homes, LP, Irvine, California, by NMG Geotechnical, Inc., Irvine, California.
Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S. 2007. Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' X 60' quadrangle, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map Series, scale 1:100,000.
Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1217, scale 626
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project 11 1:100,000.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources; by the SVP Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee: https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf.
Tan, S.S. 1999. Geologic map of the Dana Point Quadrangle, Orange County, California: A digital database. California Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Mines and Geology, v. 1.0, scale 1:24,000.
627
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project
APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
628
Todd A. Wirths, MS, PG No. 7588
Principal Paleontologist
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 Email: [email protected] Education
Master of Science, Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, California 1995 Bachelor of Arts, Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz 1992 Professional Certifications
California Professional Geologist #7588, 2003
Riverside County Approved Paleontologist
San Diego County Qualified Paleontologist
Orange County Certified Paleontologist
OSHA HAZWOPER 40-hour trained; current 8-hour annual refresher Professional Memberships
Board member, San Diego Geological Society
San Diego Association of Geologists; past President (2012) and Vice President (2011) South Coast Geological Society
Southern California Paleontological Society
Experience
Mr. Wirths has more than a dozen years of professional experience as a senior-level paleontologist throughout southern California. He is also a certified California Professional Geologist. At BFSA, Mr.
Wirths conducts on-site paleontological monitoring, trains and supervises junior staff, and performs all research and reporting duties for locations throughout Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Mr. Wirths was formerly a senior project manager conducting environmental investigations and remediation projects for petroleum hydrocarbonimpacted sites across southern California.
Selected Recent Reports
2019 Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2019 Paleontological Assessment for the MorningStar Marguerite Project, Mission Viejo, Orange County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
BFSA Environmental Services
A Perennial Company
629
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 2
2019 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Nimitz Crossing Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Voltaire 24, LP. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2019 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Prepared for JRT BP 1, LLC.
Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Oceanside Beachfront Resort Project, Oceanside, San California. Prepared for S.D. Malkin Properties. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Nakase Project, Lake Forest, Orange County, San California. Prepared for Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. Report on file at Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Sunset Crossroads Project, Banning, Riverside County. Prepared for NP Banning Industrial, LLC. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Assessment for the Ortega Plaza Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County.
Prepared for Empire Design Group. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Record Search Update for the Green River Ranch III Project, Green River Ranch Specific Plan SP00-001, City of Corona, California. Prepared for Western Realco. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Assessment for the Cypress/Slover Industrial Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Imperial Landfill Expansion Project (Phase VI, Segment C-2), Imperial County, California. Prepared for Republic Services, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Manitou Court Logistics Center Project, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Link Industrial. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2021 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Del Oro (Tract 36852) Project, Menifee, Riverside County. Prepared for D.R. Horton. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Alessandro Corporate Center Project (Planning Case PR-2020- 000519), City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. Prepared for OZI Alessandro, LLC.
Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2021 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Boardwalk Project, La Jolla, City of San Diego.
Prepared for Project Management Advisors, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
630
Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project
APPENDIX B
Paleontological Locality Records Search
631
Brian F. Smith and Associates
14010 Poway Road
Poway, CA 92064
Todd Wirths,
I have thoroughly searched the Orange County Paleontology Collection (OCPC) records for locality and specimen data relevant to the project area at the corner of Journey and Pacific Park Dr, in Aliso Viejo, California. The project details, comprising a KMZ file with the project area outline, were sent to me via email on June 20, 2025. The proposed project area occupies approximately 34413 square meters of an existing office park. Our collection has no records of fossil localities within the proposed project area, but there are 66 known localities within a onemile radius (Table 1), including several major bone beds. There are 3613 cataloged fossils from within a one-mile radius of the project area, representing a mammal-dominated assemblage that also includes many fish, reptiles, birds, and invertebrates.
The proposed project area occupies an existing development. The sediment there has likely been disturbed or compacted at the surface for structural support and stability. On-site assessment or reference to grading plans for the existing development in the project area would be necessary to determine if new excavations are likely to disturb native bedrock. Most of the project area is mapped as being underlain by the Niguel formation (Tn) and Monterey (Tm) formations1 (Figure 1). The Niguel formation lies unconformably on top of the Monterey formation and the extent to which the Niguel formation remains after prior grading is uncertain. Within the one-mile radius, there are also outcrops of the siltstone facies of the Capistrano Formation to the east, and The Topanga formation to the west. The Capistrano formation should overly the Monterey formation, so it is unlikely to be encountered during excavation. Similarly, because of the thickness of the Monterey formation, the Topanga formation is also unlikely to be disturbed during excavation. There are quaternary fluvial deposits west of the project area, but also seem unlikely to be disturbed during excavation because shallow materials were previously disturbed during development of the office park.
Precise geographical data is provided for each locality in keeping with best practices for records searches2. However, geographic data provided by the Orange County Paleontology Collection may not be published in public reports or replicated for other projects without the express written permission of OC Parks. Several localities were originally reported with the same coordinates and may represent different stratigraphic levels, or an approximation based on the coordinates of a local landmark. Field notes associated with these localities does not clarify why they have the same coordinates. I am also providing the lists of taxa known in our collection from each of the relevant formations (Tables 2-3) and a breakdown of the relative abundance of different important taxa in each formation (Figures 3-4).
The Niguel formation in Orange County typically produces a mix of terrestrial and shallow marine fauna, with a roughly even mix of vertebrate and invertebrate remains (Figure 3, Table 2). Niguel formation fossils in the OCPC tend to be small, most recovered by screen washing. The Niguel formation correlates with
DYLAN WRIGHT
DIRECTOR
OC COMMUNITY RESOURCES
CYMANTHA ATKINSON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OC COMMUNITY RESOURCES
JOANNE VEEDOR
DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
MONICA SCHMIDT
DIRECTOR
OC ANIMAL CARE
JULIA BIDWELL
DIRECTOR
OC HOUSING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
RENEE RAMIREZ
DIRECTOR
OC COMMUNITY SERVICES
PAM PASSOW
DIRECTOR
OC PARKS
JULIE QUILLMAN
COUNTY LIBRARIAN
OC PUBLIC LIBRARIES
13042 OLD MYFORD ROAD
IRVINE, CA 92602
PHONE: 866.OCPARKS
e OCCommunity Resources
Cparks
632
2 the Fernando formation in the west Los Angeles basin and are both treated the same here because there is inadequate lithostratigraphic distinction in Orange County to distinguish them 3, 4, 5.
The Monterey formation is the most fossiliferous stratigraphic unit in Orange County (Figure 2) and has produced a diverse Miocene assemblage of micro and macro fossils (Figure 4, Table 3). Of the 3613 catalog numbers within a onemile buffer around the project area, 3262 are from the Monterey formation. The Monterey assemblage here is dominated by macro vertebrate remains, mostly from mammals. Of the 3613 catalog numbers associated with this area, approximately 49% are mammal remain, including several articulated skeletons of pinnipeds, whales and sirenians.
This records search covers only the Orange County Paleontology Collections curated at the Cooper Lab and Ralph B. Clark Regional Park. It is not intended to be an exhaustive paleontological survey of the proposed project area covering other institutional records, a literature survey, or any potential on-site survey.
The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the San Diego Museum of Natural History both have extensive collections originating from Orange County and should also be consulted to evaluate the paleontological impact risk.
Literature Cited:
1. Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller. 2006. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x60’ quadrangles, California. U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 2006-1217.
2. Murphey, P.C., G.E. Knauss, L.H. Fisk, T.A. Demere, R.E. Reynolds. 2019. Best practices in mitigation paleontology. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History 47: 1-43.
3. Davis, G.E. 1998. Systematic paleontology of a densely fossiliferous, upper Pliocene molluscan shell lens, 6th and Flower Streets, Los Angeles, California, with commentary on the stratigraphic nomenclature of the “Fernando Formation” [Ph.D. dissertation]: Northridge, California State University, 235 p.
4. Campbell, R.H., C.J. Wills, P.J. Irvine, B.J. Swanson, C.I. Gutierrez, and M.D. O’Neal. 2014. Preliminary geologic map of the Los Angeles 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, California.
5. Buczek, A. J., A.J.W. Hendy, M.J. Hopkins, and J.A. Sessa. 2021. On the reconciliation of biostratigraphy and strontium isotope stratigraphy of three southern Californian Plio-Pleistocene formations. GSA Bulletin; January/February 2021; v. 133 (1/2), p. 100-114;
https://doi.org/10.1130/B35488.1
Best Regards,
07/22/2025
Dr. William Gelnaw, PhD
Paleontology Curator
OC Parks
633
3 Figure 1. Geology and fossil localities in a one-mile radius (black ring) around the proposed project area (blue polygon), modified from Morton & Miller (2006).
Figure 2. Plot of the abundance of fossils represented by the number of OCPC catalog entries from each formation.
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000 I 2000
1000 ■ I 0 -
Catalog Numbers
■ I I I ■ I I I -
One-mile Buffer
Proposed Project Area
I I
634
4 Figure 3. Distribution of taxa in the Niguel and Fernando formations in Orange County, based on number of cataloged specimens in OCPC.
Figure 4. Distribution of taxa in the Monterey formation in Orange County, based on number of cataloged specimens in OCPC.
Niguel & Fernando Formation Catalog Numbers
Other Invertebrates"-
Gastropoda
Birds and Reptiles
Actinopterygii
Elasmobranchii
Monterey Formation Catalog Numbers
Plants & Algae
Other invertebrates
Bivalvia
Reptilia
Actinopterygii
Mammalia
Aves Elasmobranchii
635
5 Table 1: Orange County Paleontology Collection Localities within a one-mile radius of the project area
Locality Number Latitude Longitude Formation
01006 33.56715 -117.71499 Older Alluvium
03427 33.5762051 -117.7133056 Older Alluvium
00122 33.57119 -117.7107 Stream Terrace
00341 33.571666 -117.71027 Capistrano
00345 33.571666 -117.71027 Capistrano
03120 33.571666 -117.71027 Capistrano
03187 33.575334 -117.710372 Capistrano
03198 33.575334 -117.710372 Capistrano?
03931 33.5750261 -117.7103111 Capistrano
03932 33.5747141 -117.7100386 Capistrano
04007 33.5762888 -117.7116273 Capistrano
04013 33.5753321 -117.7105097 Capistrano
03137 33.566667 -117.722778 Monterey or Capistrano
03138 33.556225 -117.72068 Monterey or Capistrano
03139 33.556225 -117.72068 Monterey or Capistrano
03142 33.556249 -117.720761 Monterey or Capistrano
00134 33.58188 -117.71413 Monterey
00333 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
00334 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
00338 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
00339 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
00340 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
00344 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
00346 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
00360 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
00485 33.56732 -117.71439 Monterey
00486 33.56273 -117.71348 Monterey
00487 33.56312 -117.71338 Monterey
00499 33.570323 -117.706828 Monterey
00530 33.567962 -117.7263 Monterey
01002 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
01003 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
01004 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
01005 33.56877 -117.714354 Monterey
01007 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
01008 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
01009 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
01010 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
02353 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
03116 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
636
6 Locality Number Latitude Longitude Formation
03117 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
03123 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
03125 33.572138 -117.710504 Monterey
03127 33.564699 -117.727564 Monterey
03130 33.582453 -117.714406 Monterey
03140 33.576065 -117.72114 Monterey
03141 33.572987 -117.724424 Monterey
03143 33.575964 -117.721748 Monterey
03144 33.576065 -117.72114 Monterey
03146 33.571666 -117.71027 Monterey
03178 33.572317 -117.710461 Monterey
03426 33.5813121 -117.7198448 Monterey
03933 33.5747831 -117.7100779 Monterey
04010 33.5752452 -117.7112022 Monterey
04125 33.568078 -117.734538 Monterey
04126 33.567817 -117.734388 Monterey
04136 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
04138 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
04139 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
04140 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
04141 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
04142 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
04143 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
04144 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
04145 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
04146 33.56715 -117.71499 Monterey
Table 2: Taxa found in Niguel & Fernando Formations in
Orange County
Class Order Family Taxa Present
Arthropoda
Cirripedia Sessilia Balanidae Balanus, Megabalanus
Malacostraca Decapoda Decapoda indet.
Maxillopoda Maxillopoda indet.
Vertebrata
Actinopterygii
Perciformes
Anarhichidadidae
Labridae Semicossyphus pulcher
Scaridae Scaridae indet.
Salmoniformes Salmonidae Oncorhynchus
Uranoscopiformes Ammodytidae Ammodytidae indet.
Elasmobranchii Carcharhiniformes Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus, Caleocerdo, Hemipristis serra, Physogaleus
637
7 Sphyrnidae Sphyrna
Triakidae Galeorhinus
Heterodontiformes Heterodontidae Heterodontus
Hexanchiformes Hexanchidae Hexanchidae indet.
Lamniformes
Cetorhinidae Cetorhinus
Lamnidae
Carcharodon carcharias, Isurus
hastalis, I. oxyrinchus, Lamna, aff.
Megachasma
Otodontidae Otodus megalodon
Myliobatiformes Dasyatidae Dasyatis
Myliobatidae Myliobatis
Rajiformes Rajidae Rajidae indet.
Squaliformes Squalidae Etmopterus, Squalus, Squatina
californica
Aves
Anseriformes Anatidae Chendytes lawi
Charadriiformes Alcidae Mancalla
Mammalia
Artiodactyla
Bovidae Bison latifrons
Camelidae Camelops
Delphinidae Delphinidae indet.
Physeteridae Physeteridae indet.
Mysticeti
Carnivora Otariidae Otariidae indet.
Felidae Felidae indet.
Lagomorpha Leporidae Leporidae indet.
Perissodactyla Equidae Equus occidentalis
Proboscidea Elephantidae Mammuthus
Rodentia Cricetidae Microtus cf. californicus
Geomyidae Thomomys
Sirenia Dugongidae Dugongidae indet.
Reptilia Testudines Demochelidae Dermochelys
Echinodermata
Echinoidea Clypeasteroida Clypeasteroida indet.
Echinolampadacea Dendrasteridae Dendraster
Brachiopoda
Brachiopoda Rhynchonellata Terebratulida
Bryozoa
Bryozoa
Cnideria
Anthozoa Scleractinia Caryophylliidae Paracyathus stearnsii Mollusca
Bivalvia
Arcida Arcidae Anadara, Glycymeris
Cardiida Cardiidae Trachycardium procerum
Donacidae Donax gouldii
638
8 Tellinidae Tellina
Ungulinidae Diplodonta sericata
Carditida Carditidae Cardita, Cyclocardia
Mytilida Mytilidae Mytilus
Nuculanida Nuculanidae Nuculana
Nuculida Nuculidae Nucula
Ostreida Ostreidae Dendostrea vespertina, Ostrea
lurida, O. vespertina
Pandorida Lyonsiidae Entodesma
Pectinida Pectinidae Pectinidae indet.
Pholadida Pholadidae Pholadidae indet.
Poromyida Pormyidae Poromya
Venerida
Mactridae Mactra
Veneridae Amiantis callosa, Chione, Dosinia
ponderosa, Tivela stultorum
Gastropoda
Archaeogastropoda
Acmaeidae Acmaea
Trochidae Tegula
Turbinidae Astrea
Elobiida Ellobiidae Melampus
Littorinimorpha
Calyptraeidae Crepidula fornicata, C. princeps
Naticidae Polinices reclusiana
Triviidae Trivia
Vermetidae Petaloconchus, Sperpulorbis,
Thylaeodus
Cerithiidae Bittium
Epitoniidae Epitonium, Opalia
Mesogastropoda Potamididae Cerithideopsis californica
Turritellidae Turritella
Neogastropoda
Conidae Californiconus californicus
Olividae Olivella baetica
Mitridae Mitridae inet.
Muricidae Ocenebra
Olividae Olivella baetica
Scaphopoda Dentaliidae Dentaliidae Dentalium
Porifera
Demospongiae Clionaida Clionaida indet.
Plants and Algae
Angiospermae Arecales Arecaceae Arecaceae indet.
Fagales Fagaceae Quercus
Traces
Rhizolith Rhizolith
Foraminifera
Foraminifera indet.
639
9 Table 3: Taxa found in the Monterey Formation in Orange County
Class Order Family Taxa Present
Arthropoda
Cirripedia Sessilia Balanidae Balanus
Malacostraca
Amphipoda Amphipoda indet.
Decapoda Callianassidae Callianassa
Stomatopoda Stomatopoda indet.
Maxillopoda Maxillopoda indet.
Brachiopoda
Brachiopoda indet.
Bryozoa
Gymnolaemata Cheilostomata Gemelliporellidae Gemelliporella punctata Vertebrata
Actinopterygii
Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenseridae indet.
Anguilliformes
(Apodes) Anguilliformes (Apodes) indet.
Argentiniformes Bathylagidae Bathylagidae indet.
Atheriniformes Atherinidae Atherinidae indet.
Clupeiformes
Clupeidae +
Engraulidae +
Dussumieriidae
Etringus scintillans, Ganolytes
cameo, Xyne grex
Gadiformes Merulucciidae Eclipes santamonicae, Gadus
Myctophiformes Myctophidae
(Scopelidae) Lampanyctus bolini, L. petrolifer
Notacanthiformes Halosauridae Laytonia californica
Perciformes
Carangidae
(Seriolidae) Decapterus, Seriola
Clinidae Clinidae indet.
Euzaphlegidae Thyrsocles kriegeri
Labridae Semicossyphus pulcher
Oplegnathidae Oplegnathidae indet.
Scaridae Scaridae indet.
Sciaenidae Lompoquia retropes
Scombridae Acanthocybium, Sarda, Scomber
Serranidae Serranus
Sparidae Plectrites
Sphyraenidae Sphyraena
640
10 Pleuronectiformes Bothidae Paralichthys
Salmoniformes Salmonidae Oncorhynchus rastrosus
Scorpaeniformes Agonidae Bathyagonus
Scorpaenidae Scorpaenidae indet.
Stomiiformes
Gonostomatidae Cyclothone
Chauliodontidae Chauliodus eximius
Syngnathiformes Syngnathidae Syngnathus acus, S. emeritus Tetradontiformes
Balistidae Balistes
Diodontidae Diodon
Tetraodontidae Tetraodontidae indet.
Holocephali Chimaeriformes Chimaeridae Chimaera
Elasmobranchii
Batoidea
Galeomorpha
Carcharhinidae
Carcharhinus, Galeocerdo aduncus,
Hemipristis serra, Negaprion,
Rhizoprionodon
Hexanchidae Hexanchus
Sphrynidae Sphyrna
Lamniformes
Alopiidae Alopias
Carchariidae Carcharias
Cetorhiniidae Cetorhinus
Lamnidae Carcharodon carcharias, Isurus
hastalis, I. oxyrinchus, I. planus
Otodontidae Otodus megalodon
Myliobatiformes
Dasyatidae Dasytatis
Gymnuridae Gymnura, Pteroplatea lapislutosa
Mobulidae Mobula
Myliobatidae Myliobatis
Rajiformes Rajidae Raja
Squalomorpha
Echinorhinidae Echinorhinus
Squalidae Squalus
Squatinidae
(Rhinidae) Squatina
Mammalia Artiodactyla
Mysticeti
Antracotheriidae Octacodon
Balaenopteridae Balaenopteridae indt.
641
11 Camelidae Camelidae indet.
Delphinidae Delphinidae indet.
Kentriodontidae Kentriodontidae indet.
Physeteridae Scaldicetus
Ziphiidae Ziphiidae indet.
Carnivora
Desmatophocidae Allodesmus
Mustelidae Enhydritherium
Odobenidae Imagotaria, Neotherium, Pontolis
barroni
Otariidae Pithanotaria, Zalophus
Desmostylia Desmostylidae Desmostylus
Paleoparadoxiidae Neoparadoxia cecilialina
Perissodactyla Equidae Equidae indet.
Proboscidea Gomphotheriidae Gomphotheriidae indet.
Rodentia Rodentia indet.
Sirenia Dugongidae Dusisiren
Aves
Anseriformes Anatidae Anatidae indet.
Charadriiformes Alcidae Cephus, Cerorhinca, Mancalla,
Praemancalla, Uria paleohesperis
Gaviiformes Gavidae Gavia
Pelecaniformes
Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocoracidae indet.
Sulidae Morus lampocanus, M. magnus
Procellariiformes
Diomedeidae Diomedea
Procellariidae Puffinus
Reptilia
Squamata Lacertilia
Testudines
Cheloniidae Cheloniidae indet.
Dermochelyidae Dermochelys, Psephophorus
Echinodermata
Echinoidea
Cidaroida Cidaridae Eocidaris thouarsii
Clypeasteroida
Dendrasteridae Dendraster pacificus
Echinarachniidae Kewia blancoensis
Mollusca
Bivalvia
Arcida Arcidae Anadara perdisperis
Cardiida
Cardiidae Trachycardium
Solecurtidae Tagelus
Tellinidae Tellina
Hilatellida Hiatellidae Panomya, Panopea
Mytilida Mytilidae Lithophaga plumula, Mytilus
Ostreida Ostreidae Ostrea titan
642
12 Pectinida
Limidae Lima
Pectinidae
Chlamys crassicardo, Cyclopecten
alaskensis, Delectopecten peckhami,
Lyropecten crassicardo, Pecten,
Propeamussium
Venerida
Mactridae Spisula
Veneridae Chione, Dosinia ponderosa,
Petricola, Saxidomus
Gastropoda
Archaeogastropoda
Acmaeidae Acmaea
Trochidae Calliostoma
Littorinimorpha
Calyptraeidae Crepidula
Ficidae Ficus kerniana
Naticidae Polinices
Mesogastropoda Turritellidae Turritella temblorensis
Neogastropoda
Conidae Conus
Muricidae Forreria
Plants and Algae
Angiospermae
Alismataceae Typhaceae Typha
Apliales Araliaceae Araliophyllum quina
Arecales Arecaceae Sabalites
Berberidales Berberidaceae Mahonia marginata
Ericales Ericaceae Arbutus menziensii
Fabales Fabaceae Mimosites, Robinia
Fagales
Betulaceae Alnus, Betula
Fagaceae Lithocarpus coatsi, Quercus
dumosa, Q. hannibali
Graminales Poaceae Phragmites
Hamamelidales Hamamelidaceae Platanus racemosa
Laurales Lauraceae Persea, Sassafras
Malpighiales Salicaceae Populus, Populus, Salix
Ranales Magnoliaceae Magnolia
Rosales Rosaceae Prunus
Sapindales
Rutaceae Ptelea
Sapindaceae Acer tyrrelli, Cardiospermum
Polypodiopsida Polypodiopsida indet.
Equisetales Equisetaceae Equisetum
Charophyta Charophyta indet.
Phaeophyceae
Fucales Cystoseiraceae Paleocystophora delicatula,
Paleohalidrys liguliformis
Laminariales Lessoniaceae Julescraneia grandicornis
643
13 Florideophyceae Ceramiales Rhodomelaceae Chondrides ramulosa Foraminifera
Foraminifera indet.
644
Appendix F:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
and Shallow Soil Sampling Report
645
www.farallonconsulting.com
Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Report and Shallow Soil
Sampling Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
Farallon PN: 2450-009
February 6, 2025
Prepared by:
Jared Eudell
Associate Scientist
Kathy Lehnus, P.G.
Senior Geologist
Reviewed by:
Martin Hamann P.G.
Principal Hydrogeologist
For:
Shea Homes Limited Partnership
655 Brea Canyon Road
Walnut, California 91789
Submitted by:
Farallon Consulting, L.L.C.
27 Mauchly, Suite 213
Irvine, California 92618
Y FARALLON
1/f CONSULTING
646
i
www.farallonconsulting.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT ....................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK ............................................ 1-1
1.2 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................... 1-1
1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE ................................................................. 1-1
1.4 SHELF LIFE OF ALL APPROPRIATE INQUIRIES RECORDS ................................. 1-3
1.5 DEVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 1-3
1.6 DATA GAPS .......................................................................................................... 1-4
2.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY OVERVIEW ................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION ......................................................................... 2-1
2.2 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ................................................................... 2-1
2.3 SUBJECT PROPERTY OPERATIONS .................................................................... 2-1
2.4 ADJOINING AND SURROUNDING LAND USE ..................................................... 2-2
3.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 TOPOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ....................................................................... 3-1
3.3 OIL AND GAS RECORDS ...................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ...................................................................................... 3-2
4.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION ................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 TITLE AND LIEN RECORDS.................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 EXPERIENCE AND SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE ................................................. 4-1
4.3 COMMONLY KNOWN INFORMATION ................................................................. 4-1
4.4 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT USERS ..................... 4-1
4.5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES .............................................................. 4-1
4.5.1 2011 Phase I Report .............................................................................. 4-2
4.5.2 2018 Phase I Report .............................................................................. 4-2
5.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJOINING PROPERTY HISTORY ....................................... 5-1
5.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY ........................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 ADJOINING PROPERTIES .................................................................................... 5-2
6.0 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY INTERVIEWS .......................................... 6-1
6.1 COUNTY AGENCIES ............................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 CITY OF ALISO VIEJO ........................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ..................................... 6-1
6.4 LOCAL DRINKING WATER AUTHORITY ............................................................... 6-2
7.0 RECORDS REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 7-1 647
ii
www.farallonconsulting.com
7.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY LISTINGS ........................................................................... 7-1
7.2 ADJOINING FACILITY LISTINGS ........................................................................... 7-1
7.3 SURROUNDING FACILITY LISTINGS ................................................................... 7-4
7.4 UNPLOTTABLE LISTINGS .................................................................................... 7-4
8.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY INTERVIEW(S)............................................................................ 8-1
8.1 INTERVIEW WITH SUBJECT PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVES............................. 8-1
9.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ............................................................................................. 9-1
9.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 9-1
9.1.1 Limiting Conditions ................................................................................. 9-1
9.2 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................. 9-1
9.2.1 Interior Observation Comments ............................................................. 9-2
9.3 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................. 9-3
9.3.1 Exterior Observation Comments ............................................................ 9-3
10.0 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS ......................................................................................... 11-1
11.0 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 12-1
12.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................... 13-1
13.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................. 14-1
13.1 GENERAL LIMITATIONS .................................................................................... 14-1
13.2 LIMITATION ON RELIANCE BY THIRD PARTIES ............................................... 14-2
FIGURES
Figure 1 Subject Property Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Subject Property Plan and Sampling Locations
APPENDICES
Appendix A Professional Qualifications
Appendix B Subject Property Photographs
Appendix C User Questionnaire
Appendix D Historical Sources
Appendix E Environmental Database Report
Appendix F SpyGlass Pharma Hazardous Materials List
Appendix G Laboratory Analytical Report
648
iii
www.farallonconsulting.com
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as established in Part 312.10 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 312.10) and I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Subject Property. I have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR 312.
Name Jared Eudell Name Kathy Lehnus, P.G.
Title Associate Scientist Title Senior Geologist
Name Martin Hamann, P.G.
Title Principal Hydrogeologist
649
iv
www.farallonconsulting.com
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Farallon Consulting, L.L.C. (Farallon) has prepared this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Shallow Soil Sampling Report for the property at 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road in Aliso Viejo, California (herein referred to as the Subject Property).
The Phase I ESA was conducted by Jared Eudell and Kathy Lehnus and was reviewed and approved by Martin Hamann. The Phase I ESA Report was prepared for Shea Homes Limited Partnership (Client and User) in accordance with ASTM International Standard E1527-21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E1527-21). There were no deviations from ASTM E1527-21 during this Phase I ESA.
The Subject Property consists of Orange County Parcel No. 632-124-08, which totals approximately 8.44 acres of land developed with three two-story commercial office buildings totaling 20,195, 25,951, and 18,092 square feet, constructed in 1999. Each building is serviced by a hydraulic elevator. Remaining areas of the Subject Property consist of paved parking, outdoor seating, and landscaped areas. The Subject Property is occupied by Spyglass Pharma, American Association of Critical Care Nurses, and GetDandy for commercial office space. Spyglass Pharma, an ophthalmic biotechnology company, additionally has operated a drug delivery research and development laboratory in the 27081 building since 2024.
Based on historical sources reviewed, the Subject Property appeared to be generally vacant, undeveloped land in 1931 and from 1947 through 1994. A potential orchard was present on the eastern adjacent property in the 1938 aerial photograph, a small portion of which may have been present on the southeastern corner of the Subject Property. The potential orchard may have been in use as early as 1932 and as late as 1946. Wide-spread grading was apparent at the Subject Property and vicinity in 1988, which appeared to terrace the hilltop into large developable tracts. The current Subject Property buildings were constructed in 1999, and the Subject Property has appeared relatively unchanged to the present in the historical records reviewed. City directory listings for the Subject Property addresses included various commercial office tenants, including health care, computer, financial, insurance, real estate, and management service companies, since as early as 2001.
Due to the lack of evidence that the adjacent potential orchard was present on a substantial portion of the Subject Property in the 1930s, the relatively short duration of the potential 650
v
www.farallonconsulting.com
orchard use, the lack of evidence of storage or mixing areas on or near the Subject Property, and the extensive grading of the hilltop and reworking of the soil conducted to redevelop this area, it is unlikely that historical pesticide use (if any) would represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Subject Property. However, at the request of the Client, Farallon collected three shallow soil samples from along the southwestern corner of the Subject Property in the vicinity of the former orchard use and submitted the samples for analysis for the presence of pesticides and arsenic. No pesticides were detected. Arsenic was detected at concentrations ranging from 4.3 to 6.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), below the background screening concentration of 12 mg/kg for arsenic in soil in southern California (Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 11).
According to a previous environmental report dated 2011, the western transformer at the Subject Property spilled approximately 8 gallons of oil. At the time, a representative from Southern California Edison indicated that the oil did not affect soil and did not contain polychlorinated biphenyls. Due to the size of the release and the lack of secondary containment around the transformer, Farallon notes that a small amount oil may have impacted soil at less than what Southern California Edison considered a reportable quantity.
If so, the impacts would be considered de minimis. At the request of the Client, Farallon collected two shallow soil samples from the vicinity of the transformer in areas where spills would be likely to accumulate. Farallon submitted the samples for analysis for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). No PCBs were detected. TPH as diesel and oil were detected at low concentrations of 9.9 J and 24 mg/kg at SB-4-1’, and TPH as oil was detected at a concentration of 4.5 J mg/kg in SB-5-1’, below the DTSC-modified Regional Screening Levels for Residential Soil in HHRA Note 3.
The Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) Database Report dated November 25, 2024, prepared for the Subject Property (ERIS Report), did not identify the Subject Property address in the databases reviewed. Farallon searched the California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database for the Subject Property, but found no listings.
Adjoining properties were developed commercially between 1994 and 2012. Notable occupants have included the Orange County Fire authority to the northwest, a gasoline station to the northeast, and dry cleaners to the north and south that might have historically used the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethene; however, it’s usage was not reported. No releases have been reported from these facilities. Based on the regulatory oversight, relative 651
vi
www.farallonconsulting.com
distance, depth to groundwater of over 50 feet below ground surface, and/or topographic gradient, these sites do not represent recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property at this time.
Based on review of the Subject Property history, interviews with persons knowledgeable about the Subject Property, reconnaissance of the Subject Property, and review of the ERIS Report, this Phase I ESA did not identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. Shallow soil sampling conducted at the Subject Property did not identify releases of agricultural chemicals or transformer oil that would warrant further investigation or remediation. Although concentrations of arsenic exceeded screening levels, when the source is naturally occurring, agencies generally do not require any action as long as the detected concentrations are consistent with established background concentrations.
Accordingly, the arsenic at the Subject Property is not considered a recognized environmental condition.
652
1-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Farallon Consulting, L.L.C. (Farallon) has prepared this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Shallow Soil Sampling Report for the property at 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road in Aliso Viejo, California (herein referred to as the Subject Property) (Figure 1). This section discusses the project authorization and scope of work, the qualifications of the Environmental Professionals who conducted and reviewed the Phase I ESA work, the project purpose and objective, the shelf life of records per the All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Final Rule established in Part 312.10 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 312.10), deviations, and data gaps.
1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK
This Phase I ESA Report was prepared for Shea Homes Limited Partnership (Shea Homes) (Client and User) in accordance with the Shea Homes Project Consultant Agreement Number: 42792 HN, executed by Danielle Prigmore and Brooke Doi of Shea Homes Limited Partnership and Martin Hamann of Farallon (Authorization). The scope of work for this Phase I ESA included a records review, literature research and review, a site reconnaissance, interviews with individuals familiar with the Subject Property, interviews with local governmental officials, and preparation of this report. The scope of work is consistent with ASTM International Standard E1527-21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E1527-21).
1.2 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
The Phase I ESA was conducted by Jared Eudell and Kathy Lehnus and was reviewed and approved by Martin Hamann. All have an understanding of surface and subsurface environmental conditions and the processes used to evaluate these conditions, and the ability to develop opinions regarding conditions indicative of a release or a threatened release of hazardous substances and petroleum products. AAI has been performed in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR 312.10. The professional qualifications of the Environmental Professionals are provided in Appendix A.
1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE
The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify, as practicable, recognized environmental conditions at the Subject Property and within the appropriate study area that have caused and/or may cause an adverse environmental impact. ASTM E1527-21 is intended to permit 653
1-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for protection from potential liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser. ASTM E1527-21 constitutes “all appropriate inquiry” into the previous ownership, uses, and environmental conditions of a property consistent with good commercial or customary practice, as defined in Section 9601(35)(B) of Title 42 of the U.S. Code.
The objective of the Phase I ESA was to perform an appropriate inquiry into past and present ownership and uses of the Subject Property, consistent with good commercial and/or customary practice. This Phase I ESA Report is to be used as a risk management tool to meet AAI Final Rule requirements and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act liability defense. The Phase I ESA does not guarantee that there are no impacts to the Subject Property.
For the purpose of this Phase I ESA Report, the term “recognized environmental condition” is defined as (1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. A de minimis condition is not a recognized environmental condition.
The term “controlled recognized environmental condition” is defined as a recognized environmental condition affecting the Subject Property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in-place subject to implementation of required controls.
The term “historical recognized environmental condition” is defined as a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the Subject Property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the Subject Property to any controls (e.g., activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). A historical recognized environmental condition is not a recognized environmental condition.
654
1-3
www.farallonconsulting.com
1.4 SHELF LIFE OF ALL APPROPRIATE INQUIRIES RECORDS
The AAI Final Rule prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1 specifies that AAI must be conducted within 1 year prior to the date of acquisition of the Subject Property. EPA has defined the date of acquisition as the date a person acquires title to the property. To ensure full coverage under the AAI Final Rule, a valid Phase I ESA Report must be completed within 1 year prior to the date of acquisition of title.
The following Phase I ESA Report components and supporting information sources must be updated if they were completed more than 6 months (180 days) prior to acquisition of title.
The Phase I ESA components with a 180-day shelf life consist of:
• Site reconnaissance;
• Subject Property interview(s);
• User-provided information;
• Review of government regulatory records; and
• Declaration/signature of certifying Environmental Professional.
The date on the cover of this Phase I ESA Report is the production date of the written report.
The dates various components of this Phase I ESA were completed are as follows:
• Site reconnaissance: December 5, 2024.
• Subject Property interviews: December 5, 2024.
• User-provided information: December 11, 2024.
• Review of government regulatory records: November 25, 2024. • Declaration/signature of certifying Environmental Professional: February 6, 2025.
1.5 DEVIATIONS
There were no deviations from ASTM E1527-21 during this Phase I ESA. 1 Part 312 of Subchapter J of Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 655
1-4
www.farallonconsulting.com
1.6 DATA GAPS
Data gaps may affect the ability to identify recognized environmental conditions and Farallon’s ability to render opinions and conclusions for presentation in the Phase I ESA Report. Farallon did not identify significant data gaps during this Phase I ESA. 656
2-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
2.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY OVERVIEW
This section presents the Subject Property location, description, and operations.
A description of adjoining and surrounding land use is also provided.
2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION
The Subject Property is south of Pacific Park Drive, east of Journey, and west of Aliso Creek Road at 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road in Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California. The Subject Property is in a commercial and residential area. The Subject Property vicinity is shown on Figure 1.
2.2 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property consists of Orange County Parcel No. 632-124-08, which totals approximately 8.44 acres of land developed with three two-story commercial office buildings totaling 20,195, 25,951, and 18,092 square feet, constructed in 1999. Each building is serviced by a hydraulic elevator. Remaining areas of the Subject Property consist of paved parking, outdoor seating, and landscaped areas. Access to the Subject Property is gained from Pacific Park Drive, north of the Subject Property, Aliso Creek Road, east of the Subject Property, and off-site parking areas to the south. According to a title report provided by the Client, the Subject Property owner is AACN Property Holdings, LLC, a California limited liability company. According to the Aliso Viejo City GIS Viewer, the Subject Property is zoned “PO” for Professional Office use.
Figure 2 presents a plan map of the Subject Property. Additional details pertaining to the Subject Property are provided in Section 9, Site Reconnaissance. Subject Property photographs are presented in Appendix B.
2.3 SUBJECT PROPERTY OPERATIONS
The building at 27061 Aliso Creek Road is occupied by Spyglass Pharma, an ophthalmic biotechnology company for office space and a laboratory for drug delivery research and development. The laboratory was reportedly built in the northwestern portion of the building in 2024.
The building at 27071 Aliso Creek Road is occupied by the American Association of Critical Care Nurses (AACN) for office space.
657
2-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
The building at 27081 Aliso Creek Road is occupied by Spyglass Pharma for office space, AACN for warehousing and shipping nursing-related books and supplies, and GetDandy, an internet-based company. Performance Racing Industry had occupied a suite on the first floor for office space and was in the process of moving out.
2.4 ADJOINING AND SURROUNDING LAND USE
Adjoining properties at the time of the site reconnaissance included Pacific Park Drive followed by a shopping center with restaurants, retail stores, a grocery store, and Bio-Safe Cleaners to the north; a Shell gasoline station and carwash to the northeast; Aliso Creek Road followed by a multi-family residential property to the east; commercial flex buildings to the south, including Pacific Plaza Cleaning (formerly Pacific Plaza Cleaners); Journey followed by Aliso Viejo Self Storage, a medical plaza, and the Aliso Viejo Library to the west; and the Orange County Fire Authority – Station 57 to the northwest.
Observations were restricted to areas readily observable from the Subject Property and to public rights-of-way. Although Farallon did not observe evidence of spills or releases at these properties during the reconnaissance, dry cleaner facilities, gasoline stations, fire stations, and occupants of commercial flex facilities are known to use hazardous substances. These properties and associated uses of hazardous substances are further discussed in Section
7.2, Adjoining Facility Listings.
658
3-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
3.0 PHYSICAL SETTING
The topography, geology, and hydrogeology of the Subject Property are described in this section. Farallon’s assessment of sensitive receptors in the area is also discussed. Farallon reviewed the following physical setting sources as part of this Phase I ESA:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps of Santiago Peak, California dated 1942; and of San Juan Capistrano, California dated 1948, 1949, 1968, 1974 (aerial photograph), 1978, 1981, 2015, 2018, and 2022;
• The Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) Physical Setting Report dated November 22, 2024, prepared for the Subject Property (ERIS PSR); and/or • Documentation of previous environmental studies referenced in Section 4.5, Previous Environmental Studies, and/or documents cited in Section 7, Records Review.
3.1 TOPOGRAPHY
Farallon reviewed the USGS topographic maps for the Subject Property area provided by ERIS. The topographic maps from 2015 to 2022 depict the Subject Property at an elevation of approximately 340 to 380 feet above mean sea level. The Subject Property topography slopes to the east. Regional topography slopes down to the east-southeast.
Historically, topographic maps from 1942 to 1981 depict the Subject Property on the southern side of a knoll and ranging in elevation from approximately 340 to 460 feet above mean sea level, indicating the leveling of the terrain in the 1980s or early-1990s in preparation for future development of the vicinity in the mid-1990s.
3.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
According to the ERIS PSR, surface soil at the Subject Property consists primarily of sandstone and mudstone. Surface soil on the Subject Property consists of three types:
Cieneba sandy loam, which is somewhat excessively drained; Myford sandy loam, which is moderately well drained; and rock outcrop-Cieneba complex, which is weathered bedrock.
According to the California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database (GeoTracker database), the Subject Property is not located within a groundwater basin. 659
3-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
According to information reviewed for a nearby property approximately 650 feet north of the Subject Property, and at a similar elevation, groundwater was not encountered to a terminal drilling depth of 51 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on the topography of the Subject Property vicinity, groundwater is expected to flow to the south to east-southeast. Farallon cannot determine the actual direction of groundwater flow or the depth to groundwater at the Subject Property without the installation of monitoring wells.
3.3 OIL AND GAS RECORDS
Farallon reviewed the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Well Finder online database for records pertaining to the presence of oil and gas fields and associated wells on the Subject Property and surrounding properties.
According to the CalGEM Well Finder database, no oil or gas wells are located on or near the Subject Property.
3.4 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive receptors are areas such as hospitals, schools, day care facilities, and elderly housing or convalescent facilities where occupants are more susceptible to the adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants. Extra care must be taken when dealing with contaminants and pollutants proximate to areas recognized as sensitive receptors. Farallon’s limited assessment for sensitive receptors on or adjoining the Subject Property consisted of a review of properties where occupants are more susceptible to adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants; observation of apparent features such as surface water bodies (e.g., low-lying wet areas, streams, ponds) and residential and recreational areas; and review of readily ascertainable information relating to the presence of private, semiprivate, public, and industrial watersupply wells on or in the vicinity of the Subject Property.
No sensitive receptors were identified on the Subject Property at the time of the site reconnaissance; however, childcare facilities were located on the south-adjoining property, potentially cross or downgradient from the Subject Property, depending on groundwater flow direction. No evidence of industrial activities or releases has been found for the Subject Property.
According to the ERIS PSR, the Subject Property is in an area of minimal flood hazard. The water body nearest the Subject Property was identified as Aliso Creek, approximately 0.3 660
3-3
www.farallonconsulting.com
mile east, which is also a federally designated wetland. A public water supply well was identified 0.45 mile southeast, potentially downgradient, of the Subject Property. 661
4-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
4.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
Farallon understands that the User of this report is seeking to follow the standards set forth in ASTM E1527-21 to complete an environmental assessment of the Subject Property. The User has specific responsibilities for fulfilling ASTM E1527-21 requirements to help identify the possibility of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. These responsibilities do not require the technical expertise of an Environmental Professional, and were not performed by Farallon.
To facilitate fulfillment of the ASTM E1527-21 requirements identified below, Farallon provided the User with a copy of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment User Questionnaire (User Questionnaire) to complete. Information from the completed User Questionnaire is summarized below in Sections 4.1 through 4.3. The completed User Questionnaire is provided in Appendix C of this Phase I ESA Report.
4.1 TITLE AND LIEN RECORDS
The User was not aware of environmental liens against the Subject Property.
4.2 EXPERIENCE AND SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE
The User has no experience or specialized knowledge regarding the Subject Property.
4.3 COMMONLY KNOWN INFORMATION
The User is not aware of commonly known information that would lead to identification of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property.
4.4 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT USERS
The User will rely on this Phase I ESA Report.
4.5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Farallon was provided with the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California dated April 25, 2011, prepared by Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. (2011 Phase I Report) and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Pacific Corporate Plaza property at 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California dated December 19, 2018, prepared by Farallon Consulting (2018 Phase I Report). These reports are summarized below. 662
4-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
4.5.1 2011 Phase I Report
The 2011 Phase I Report described the Subject Property in its current configuration.
According to the 2011 Phase I Report, the western transformer at the Subject Property had been recently replaced due to a spill of approximately 8 gallons of oil. According to a representative from Southern California Edison contacted by Bureau Veritas North America, Inc., the oil did not affect soil and did not contain polychlorinated biphenyls. No recognized environmental conditions were identified.
Due to the size of the release and the lack of secondary containment around the transformer, Farallon notes that a small amount oil may have impacted soil at less than what Southern California Edison considered a reportable quantity. If so, the impacts would be considered de minimis.
4.5.2 2018 Phase I Report
The 2018 Phase I Report described the Subject Property in its current configuration and summarized the 2011 Phase I ESA Report. No recognized environmental conditions were identified.
663
5-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
5.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJOINING PROPERTY HISTORY
Farallon reviewed the historical sources listed below as part of this Phase I ESA. The historical sources documented were reasonably ascertainable and practically reviewable during this Phase I ESA. Farallon is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the historical sources reviewed.
• Aerial photographs of the Subject Property and its vicinity dated 1931, 1938, 1947, 1952, 1960, 1967, 1972, 1981, 1988, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2023 obtained from ERIS;
• City directories dated 1955, 1959, 1964, 1970, 1975, 1981, 1986, 1991-1992, 1996-1997, 2001-2002, 2003, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2023 obtained from ERIS; and
• USGS topographic maps of Santiago Peak, California dated 1942; and of San Juan Capistrano, California dated 1948, 1949, 1968, 1974 (aerial photograph), 1978, 1981, 2015, 2018, and 2022; obtained from ERIS.
A search for fire insurance maps resulted in notification that there was no coverage for the Subject Property.
Historical sources provided by ERIS are presented in Appendix D.
5.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY
The Subject Property appeared to be generally vacant, undeveloped land from in 1931 and from 1947 through 1994. Small white objects in an organized pattern, which could have been an orchard, were present on the eastern adjacent property in the 1938 aerial photograph, a small portion of which may have been present on the southeastern corner of the Subject Property. The potential orchard may have been in use as early as 1932 and as late as 1946. Wide-spread grading was apparent at the Subject Property and vicinity in the 1988 aerial photograph, and the retaining wall and perimeter landscaping were apparent in the 1994 aerial photograph. The current Subject Property buildings were constructed in 1999, and the Subject Property has appeared relatively unchanged to the present. City directory listings for the Subject Property addresses included various commercial office tenants, including health care, computer, financial, insurance, real estate, and management service companies, since as early as 2001.
664
5-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
Due to the lack of evidence that the adjacent potential orchard was present on a substantial portion of the Subject Property in the 1930s, the relatively short duration of the potential orchard use, the lack of evidence of storage or mixing areas on or near the Subject Property, and extensive grading of the hilltop and reworking of the soil conducted to redevelop this area, it is unlikely that historical pesticide use (if any) would represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Subject Property.
5.2 ADJOINING PROPERTIES
Adjoining properties appeared to be vacant, undeveloped land from at least 1931 through 1994, except for the possible orchard to the east as noted above. Wide-spread grading was apparent at the Subject Property and vicinity in the 1988 aerial photograph. The Orange County Fire Authority fire station to the northwest, residential communities to the east, and the commercial flex buildings to the south were present by 1994. The shopping center buildings to the north, gasoline station and carwash to the northeast, and self-storage facility and library to the west were present by 2002. The medical plaza to the west was present by 2012.
City directory listings for adjoining commercial properties included numerous retail, commercial and professional services listings since as early as 1996. Notably, the gasoline station northeast of the Subject Property was listed from 2001 to the present, and Pacific Plaza Cleaners south of the Subject Property was listed from 1996 to the present.
Additionally, Bio Safe Cleaners (not listed in city directories) was present north of the Subject Property in the shopping center across Pacific Park Drive since at least 2015. Based on the operations during a period of environmental regulatory oversight, hazardous substances used by adjoining properties were inspected and documented by regulatory agencies and are discussed in Section 7.2. Adjoining Facility Listings. No releases were reported from these properties.
665
6-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
6.0 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY INTERVIEWS
The objective of interviews with state and/or local government agencies is to obtain information related to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. The interviews consist of questions asked in person, or by email, telephone, and/or online request for records.
6.1 COUNTY AGENCIES
Farallon contacted Orange County on November 22, 2024 to request records from the Orange County Health Care Agency (the Certified Unified Program Agency for the Subject Property), and the Public Works Department regarding notices of violations and/or reported hazardous spills at the Subject Property and adjoining properties were on file, and regarding hazardous substances, clarifiers, wells, septic systems, and previous and current aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) at the Subject Property. On January 15, 2025, Orange County fulfilled the request; no records for the Subject Property were provided.
6.2 CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
Farallon contacted the City of Aliso Viejo on November 22, 2024 to request building permits, fire records, and to inquire whether notices of violations and/or reported hazardous spills at the Subject Property were on file, and regarding previous and current wells, septic systems, ASTs, USTs, clarifiers, hazardous material storage, spills, release investigations, and closure reports at the Subject Property. On December 6, 2024, a representative of the City of Aliso Viejo stated that it had no responsive records associated with wells, septic systems, ASTs, USTs, clarifiers, hazardous material storage, spills, release investigations, and closure reports.
Farallon reviewed City of Aliso Viejo Building Department records, which included various tenant improvements dated between 2001 and 2009, with none of environmental significance.
6.3 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Farallon searched the South Coast Air Quality Management District Facility INformation Detail (FIND) database on November 22, 2024 for air permits and indications of emissions of hazardous substances at the Subject Property or in the vicinity of the Subject Property. No 666
6-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
records were identified for the Subject Property addresses, nor environmentally significant records for the Subject Property vicinity.
6.4 LOCAL DRINKING WATER AUTHORITY
Farallon reviewed the 2023 Water Quality Report for the Moulton Niguel Water District, which provides drinking water to the Subject Property to determine whether drinking water is monitored for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and if there have been any detections of PFAS in the public drinking water system that supplies the Subject Property.
The 2023 Water Quality Report indicated the drinking water is routinely monitored for PFAS and PFAS are not present in the drinking water system.
667
7-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
7.0 RECORDS REVIEW
ERIS conducted a review of environmental regulatory agency database listings to identify reported environmental issues related to the Subject Property and facilities in the Subject Property vicinity. Pertinent regulatory files and/or records associated with the listings were reviewed by Farallon. Farallon used the greater of each approximate minimum search distance from the Subject Property for each of the referenced federal and state environmental databases, as specified in ASTM E1527-21.
Farallon reviewed the ERIS Database Report dated November 25, 2024, prepared for the Subject Property (ERIS Report), to note reported facilities in the vicinity of the Subject Property that were considered to have a potential to adversely impact the Subject Property (i.e., are known to have resulted in or are expected to result in a recognized environmental condition). Reported facilities were evaluated with respect to the nature and extent of a given release, the distance of the reported facility from the Subject Property, the geology of the area, and the topographic position of a reported facility with respect to known or expected local and/or regional groundwater flow direction.
The complete database names for the abbreviations used in this Phase I ESA Report, the descriptions of the databases searched, and the associated search distances from the Subject Property are provided in the ERIS Report presented in Appendix E.
7.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY LISTINGS
The ERIS Report did not identify the Subject Property in the databases reviewed.
Farallon searched the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases; no files were available.
7.2 ADJOINING FACILITY LISTINGS
ASTM defines “adjoining” as “any real property or properties the border of which is contiguous or partially contiguous with that of the Subject Property, or that would be contiguous or partially contiguous with that of the Subject Property but for a street, road, or other public thoroughfare separating them.” The ERIS Report identified the following adjoining facilities in the databases reviewed:
• Orange County Fire Authority and Aliso Viejo Fire Station #57 at 57 Journey, northwest-adjoining to and in the presumed up-gradient direction of the Subject 668
7-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
Property and at a higher topographic elevation, was identified in the AST, ORANGE AST, CERS TANK, DELISTED TNK, HAZ GEN, and UST SWEEPS databases. According to the ERIS Report, a 2,000-gallon diesel AST and 180-gallon diesel day tank are used to fuel an emergency generator. Various administrative violations were documented but no spills or releases were reported. Waste oil was removed from the facility under manifest in 1997 and 2001, presumed to be associated with a clarifier used for vehicle washing that is typical at fire stations. The facility formerly operated a 1,000-gallon gasoline UST and a 1,000-gallon diesel UST. The USTs were potentially installed in the early to mid-1990s with the construction of the fire station and were reportedly removed prior to 2013 with oversight provided by the Orange County Health Care Agency. Based on the information provided in the ERIS Report, regulatory oversight, and the depth to groundwater of over 50 feet bgs, this facility does not represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Subject Property.
• A recyclables drop-off depot and numerous retail stores and restaurants located in the shopping center, north of and in the presumed up- to cross-gradient direction from the Subject Property across Pacific Park Drive and at a lower topographic elevation, were identified in various databases due to recycling collection activities, and normal retail and restaurant operations, including accumulation of damaged and returned household cleaners, storage of pharmaceuticals, and storage of compressed gases for beverage dispensing.
Bio Safe Cleaners Inc at 26895 Aliso Creek Road, within the northern-adjoining shopping plaza, was identified in the CERS HAZ, DRYCLEANERS, FED DRYCLEANERS, HW ORANGE, RCRA NON GEN, and RCRA TSD databases. According to the ERIS Report, the facility has operated at this location from at least 2007 to the present, and has used a hydrocarbon-based cleaning solvent since at least 2015, and possibly earlier; however, the cleaning solution prior to 2015 was not reported since records prior to this date were purged by the Orange County Health Care Agency. No releases from this facility have been reported. Based on the information provided in the ERIS Report, regulatory oversight, and relative distance (at least 450 feet from the northern Subject Property border), this facility does not represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Subject Property. 669
7-3
www.farallonconsulting.com
• Tesoro Shell, et al., Texaco, and 7-Eleven Inc at 27055 Aliso Creek Road, northeastadjoining to and in the presumed up- to cross-gradient direction from the Subject Property and at a lower topographic elevation, was identified in the CERS TANK,
DELISTED TNK, EMISSIONS, HW ORANGE, RCRA NON GEN, RCRA SQG, UST, AND UST ORANGE databases. According to the ERIS Report records, the gasoline station has been present since 1997 and operated one 20,000-gallon regular gasoline doublewalled UST, and a 15,000-gallon premium gasoline double-walled UST. No releases are reported from this facility. Based on the information provided in the ERIS Report and regulatory oversight, this facility does not represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Subject Property at this time. • Numerous commercial, medical, and laboratory occupants in the commercial plaza, south of and in the presumed down-gradient direction from the Subject Property and at a similar topographic elevation, were identified in various databases without environmental significance.
Pacific Plaza Cleaners at 27131 Aliso Creek Road, Suite 115 within in the southern adjoining commercial plaza was identified in the DRYCLEANERS, FED DRYCLEANERS, HW ORANGE, RCRA NON GEN, and RCRA SQG databases. According to the ERIS Report, the facility has operated at this location since at least 1995. No additional information was provided; however, no releases from this facility have been reported. Based on the information provided in the ERIS Report, regulatory oversight, relative distance (at least 400 feet from the southern Subject Property border), and presumed down-gradient location, this facility does not represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Subject Property.
• Pacific Bell Telephone Company DBA AT&T California at 27151 Aliso Creek Road, geocoded at 0.08 mile from the Subject Property, was confirmed to be located in Laguna Niguel and not on the adjoining property.
• Sea View Pediatrics at 2 Journey, west-adjoining to and in the presumed up- to crossgradient direction from the Subject Property and at a higher topographic elevation, was identified in the RCRA NON GEN database. According to the ERIS Report records, this facility does not generate hazardous waste, and no violations are reported. Based on the information provided in the ERIS Report and regulatory oversight, this facility does 670
7-4
www.farallonconsulting.com
not represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Subject Property.
• AT&T California at 53 ½ Journey, west-adjoining to and in the presumed up- to crossgradient direction from the Subject Property and at a higher topographic elevation, was identified in the CERS HAZ database. According to the ERIS Report records, this facility stores nickel-cadmium batteries in an underground cabinet, and no violations are reported. Based on the information provided in the ERIS Report and regulatory oversight, this facility does not represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Subject Property.
7.3 SURROUNDING FACILITY LISTINGS
Reported facilities within 0.25 mile up-gradient or 0.125 mile cross-gradient of the Subject Property are considered to have a potential to have impacted the Subject Property, depending on the depth and the directional flow of groundwater. Facilities commonly known to be potential PFAS sources and that are within 1 mile up-gradient of the Subject Property were evaluated for the potential to impact the Subject Property. Facilities that were listed in the ERIS Report but not identified as a reported facility (e.g., a facility listed as a hazardous waste generator but not as having had a release), and facilities that were listed as “Closed” were not considered to have a potential to have impacted the Subject Property.
Based on the information provided in the ERIS Report and regulatory files, their topographic location and distance relative to the Subject Property, and/or known or presumed soil and groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the Subject Property, none of the surrounding facilities identified was considered to represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Subject Property.
7.4 UNPLOTTABLE LISTINGS
Listings or facilities that cannot be mapped due to inaccurate or inadequate address information are identified as “unplottable” in the ERIS Report.
No unplottable facilities were identified in the ERIS Report. 671
8-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
8.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY INTERVIEW(S)
Farallon attempted to interview individuals familiar with the Subject Property, including owners, operators, and occupants, to obtain additional Subject Property information.
Interviews were conducted in person, in writing, or by telephone. The individual(s) interviewed, and their responses are discussed in the following sections.
8.1 INTERVIEW WITH SUBJECT PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVES
On December 4, 2024, Farallon interviewed Christopher Bosley of Cushman & Wakefield, a representative of the Subject Property ownership. The following information was obtained from this interview:
• The Subject Property is occupied by three two-story buildings with commercial office occupants. In addition to offices, one tenant, SpyGlass Pharma, built a research and development laboratory on the first floor of the 27061 building in 2024. A list of approved hazardous substances was provided for review and is provided in Appendix F. The hazardous substances are discussed in Section 9.2, Interior Observations.
• No known ASTs or USTs are present at the Subject Property. • Except as noted above, no additional hazardous substances are present at the Subject Property except for janitorial cleaning supplies, building maintenance-related materials, and hydraulic oil for the hydraulic elevator systems. • No reportable spills or releases have occurred at the Subject Property.
Christopher Bosley stated on behalf of the Subject Property owner that there have not been any pending, threatened, or past:
• Litigation relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the Subject Property;
• Administrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the Subject Property; or
• Notices from a governmental entity regarding violations of environmental laws or liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products. 672
8-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
On December 5, 2024, Farallon interviewed Robert Keys of Cushman & Wakefield, Building Engineer and a representative of the Subject Property ownership. The following information was obtained from this interview:
• The Subject Property is occupied by three two-story buildings with commercial office occupants. In addition to offices, one tenant, SpyGlass Pharma, recently established a research and development laboratory on the first floor of the 27061 building. • No known ASTs or USTs are present at the Subject Property. • A hydraulic elevator is present in each of the Subject Property buildings. The elevators are maintained on a regular basis by Liftech Elevator Services. • Except as noted above, no additional hazardous substances are present at the Subject Property except for janitorial cleaning supplies, building maintenance-related materials, and hydraulic oil for the hydraulic elevator systems. • Utilities are provided by the local municipality, Southern California Edison and SoCal Gas.
• Landscaping services are provided by a contractor, who does not store related materials at the Subject Property.
• No reportable spills or releases have occurred at the Subject Property. 673
9-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
9.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
Farallon conducted a site reconnaissance on December 5, 2024 to observe the Subject Property for physical evidence of recognized environmental conditions. The methodology used for the site reconnaissance and the observations made and limiting conditions encountered are discussed below. Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance are presented in Appendix B.
9.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY
Weather conditions at the time of the reconnaissance were sunny, with a temperature of approximately 55 degrees Fahrenheit. Farallon conducted a walk around the entire perimeter of the Subject Property and inspected interior portions of the Subject Property buildings, including representative areas of first floor offices, the SpyGlass Pharma laboratory (27061 building), AACN warehouse (27081 building), and the janitorial and elevator rooms of each building.
9.1.1 Limiting Conditions
Limiting conditions encountered during this Phase I ESA were the presence of vehicles on exterior portions of the Subject Property that prevented Farallon from observing the entire ground surface of the Subject Property, and the presence of furniture and equipment in the Subject Property buildings that prevented Farallon from observing entire interior floor surfaces. In addition, Farallon did not enter all tenant spaces as noted above.
Based on information obtained from the Subject Property representative, historical sources, and previous environmental reports, these limiting conditions are not expected to affect the conclusions of this Phase I ESA Report.
9.2 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS
Farallon’s comments related to observations of the interior of the Subject Property buildings during the site reconnaissance are provided in Section 9.2.1.
INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS YES NO
Odor(s) X
Heating/Cooling System(s) X
Drain(s) and/or Sump(s) X
674
9-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS YES NO
Staining and/or Corrosion X
Storage Tank(s), Vent Pipe(s), Fuel Port(s), and/or Fill Pipe(s) X
Clarifier(s) X
Drum(s) and/or Other Container(s) X
Pool(s) of Liquid X
Automobile Lift(s) X
Well(s) X
Hazardous Material(s) and/or Petroleum Product(s) X
Hazardous Waste(s) X
Polychlorinated Biphenyl-Containing Item(s) X
9.2.1 Interior Observation Comments
Heating/Cooling System(s)
The Subject Property building is heated by natural gas and electricity, which are provided by SoGal Gas and Southern California Edison, respectively.
Drain(s) and/or Sump(s)
Farallon observed mop sinks in a janitor’s room adjacent to the elevator room in each building, which reportedly discharge to the sanitary sewer system.
Hazardous Material(s) and/or Petroleum Product(s)
Farallon observed minor amounts of hazardous substances, including janitorial cleaning supplies and building maintenance-related products. The substances generally appeared to be stored in labeled containers that were placed in designated areas of the Subject Property building.
A hydraulic elevator is present in each of the Subject Property buildings. The elevators are maintained on a regular basis by Liftech Elevator Services.
SpyGlass Pharma recently built a research and development laboratory on the first floor of the 27061 building. The substances generally appeared to be stored in labeled containers that were placed in designated areas. A list of hazardous substances used by SpyGlass Pharma is attached in Appendix F.
675
9-3
www.farallonconsulting.com
No staining or evidence of release was observed on or around the hazardous substances containers or the elevator hydraulic oil systems.
9.3 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS
Farallon’s comments related to observations of the exterior of the Subject Property during the site reconnaissance are provided in Section 9.3.1.
EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS YES NO
Odor(s) X
Staining and/or Corrosion X
Storage Tank(s), Vent Pipe(s), and/or Fuel Port(s) X
Clarifier(s) X
Drum(s) and/or Other Container(s) X
Pool(s) of Liquid X
Hazardous Material(s) and/or Petroleum Product(s) X
Hazardous Waste(s) X
Pit(s), Pond(s), and/or Lagoon(s) X
Stressed Vegetation X
Solid (Nonhazardous) Waste(s)—Evidence of Dumping X
Wastewater X
Domestic Water X
Well(s) X
Septic/Sewer System(s) X
Stormwater X
Polychlorinated Biphenyl-Containing Item(s) X
Significant Amount of Fill Material X
9.3.1 Exterior Observation Comments
Staining and/or Corrosion
Farallon observed de minimis petroleum staining throughout paved areas of the Subject Property that appeared to be from parked vehicles on the Subject Property. 676
9-4
www.farallonconsulting.com
Domestic Water
Domestic water is supplied to the Subject Property buildings by Moulton Niguel Water District. Additional information regarding the domestic water supply for the Subject Property is included in Section 6.4, Local Drinking Water Authority.
Septic/Sewer System(s)
Sanitary sewage generated at the Subject Property discharges to the municipal sanitary sewer system.
Stormwater
Stormwater on the Subject Property is directed into catch basins in the parking areas and adjoining streets, which discharge to the municipal stormwater system. 677
10-5
www.farallonconsulting.com
10.0 SHALLOW SOIL SAMPLING
At the request of the User, Farallon conducted additional environmental services beyond the scope of services required to satisfy ASTM E1527-21. Farallon conducted a screening level shallow soil sampling survey at the Subject Property to evaluate the potential presence of pesticides and arsenic associated with historical agricultural use at the Subject Property and PCBs and TPH associated with the former on-site transformer spill. This additional service is considered a deviation from ASTM E1527-21.
10.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY AND UTILITY CLEARANCE
Before field work was initiated, a Subject Property-specific Health and Safety Plan was prepared under Section 3202 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (8 CCR 3202) due to the potential for exposure to hazardous substances. Additionally, Farallon contacted Dig Alert for public utility clearance, commissioned a private utility service mark out, and hand-cleared each sample location.
10.2 BORING ADVANCEMENT AND SOIL SAMPLING
Farallon originally attempted to advance three soil borings to 0.5 feet bgs in paved parking areas on the southwestern portion of the Subject Property, but had difficulty advancing hand tooling through the sub-base. Therefore, Farallon moved the boring locations to the landscaped areas adjacent to the parking areas (shown on Figure 2). Farallon advanced 3 shallow soil borings to 1.5 feet bgs, to avoid any potential pesticide use associated with current landscaping.
Additionally, Farallon advanced two soil borings to 1 foot bgs in the vicinity of the western transformer, which was subject to the reported historical spill. Farallon selected areas in the pavement adjacent to the transformer that would be the most likely migration pathway for leaking oil from the transformer (downslope and adjacent to a catch basin).
Farallon used stainless steel hand tools to advance borings and collect soil samples that were decontaminated between samples. The soil samples were visually inspected by a Farallon technician. Physical evidence of soil impacts, including staining and odors, was not observed.
The soil samples were collected into labeled laboratory-supplied jars, placed into an iced cooler, and submitted under standard chain-of-custody protocols to Environmental 678
10-6
www.farallonconsulting.com
Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP)-certified Enthalpy Analytical, Inc. for analysis. The three soil samples collected from the former orchard area were submitted for analysis for the presence of pesticides and arsenic with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8081 and 6010B, respectively. The two soil samples collected from the transformer spill area were submitted for analysis for the presence of PCBs and TPH with EPA Method 8082 and 8015, respectively.
10.3 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The analytical results for arsenic and pesticides detected in soil were compared to the DTSCmodified Regional Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs) developed by the DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office and published in the Human Health Risk Assessment (HRRA) Note 3 in June 2020, Revised May 2022 (HRRA Note 3) and the Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level published in HRRA Note 11 on December 28, 2020 (HRRA Note 11).
Results from this investigation are summarized below:
• Orchard Samples: No pesticides were detected. Arsenic was detected at concentrations ranging from 4.3 to 6.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), below the background screening concentration of 12 mg/kg for arsenic in soil in southern California (Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 11). • Transformer Samples: No PCBs were detected. Trace concentrations of TPH as diesel and oil were detected at concentrations of 9.9 J and 24 mg/kg at SB-4-1’, and TPH as oil was detected at a concentration of 4.5 J mg/kg at SB-5-1’. These concentrations are well below the DTSC-SLs for Residential Soil of 2,400 and 97 mg/kg for TPH (C17-C32) and TPH(C9-C16), respectively. These concentrations were less than regulatory screening levels. The J qualifier indicates an estimated value.
10.4 SHALLOW SOIL SAMPLING CONCLUSIONS
Concentrations of TPH detected at the Subject Property were less than residential screening levels, indicating that no mitigation is not warranted in a residential use scenario. Arsenic was detected at concentrations but less than the accepted background concentration Screening Level for arsenic in soil in Southern California.
The laboratory analytical report is provided in Appendix G. 679
11-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
11.0 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
Farallon performed a Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E1527-21 and the Authorization. Significant findings are identified below.
Four adjoining properties have used diesel, gasoline, or potentially tetrachloroethene. No releases have been reported from these facilities. Based on the regulatory oversight, relative distance, depth to groundwater of over 50 feet bgs, and/or topographic gradient, these sites do not represent recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property at this time.
680
12-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
12.0 CONCLUSIONS
Farallon conducted a Phase I ESA for the property at 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road in Aliso Viejo, California in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E1527-21. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 1.5, Deviations.
This assessment identified no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. Shallow soil sampling conducted at the Subject Property did not identify releases of agricultural chemicals or transformer oil that would warrant further investigation or remediation. Although concentrations of arsenic exceeded screening levels, when the source is naturally occurring, agencies generally do not require any action as long as the detected concentrations are consistent with established background concentrations. Accordingly, the arsenic at the Subject Property is not considered a recognized environmental condition.
681
13-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
13.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California.
Prepared for Aliso Viejo Office Partners LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. April 25.
California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division. No Date.
Well Finder Database Search.
<https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx>. (November 22, 2024.)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStor Database Search. <https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. (November 22, 2024.) ———. 2024. Hazardous Waste Tracking System Database Search. <https://hwts.dtsc.ca.gov/search>. (December 13, 2024.) California Department of Water Resources. No Date. Well Completion Report Map Application.
<https://dwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=181078580a21 4c0986e2da28f8623b37>. (December 10, 2024.)
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2024. GeoTracker Database Search. <http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov>. (November 22, 2024.) ———. 2024. GeoTracker PFAS Map Search.
<https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/pfas_map>. (November 22, 2024.) City of Aliso Viejo. 2024. GIS Viewer.
<https://alisoviejo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ed060c10 92440b6922a6c0119ffbe27>. (December 13, 2024.)
Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS). 2024. Fire Insurance Maps. 27081 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. November 22.
———. 2024. Physical Setting Report. 27081 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656.
November 22.
682
13-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
———. 2024. Topographic Maps. 27081 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656.
November 23.
———. 2024. Historical Aerials. 27081 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656.
November 25.
———. 2024. Database Report. 27081 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656.
November 25.
———. 2024. City Directory. 27081 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. December 4.
Farallon Consulting, L.L.C. (Farallon). 2018. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Pacific Corporate Plaza property at 27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California. Prepared for Harbor Associates, LLC. December 19. ———. 2024. Communication Regarding the Subject Property Between a Representative of Farallon and Christopher Bosley of Cushman & Wakefield, a Representative of the Subject Property Ownership. December 4.
———. 2024. Communication Regarding the Subject Property Between a Representative of Farallon and Robert Keys of Cushman & Wakefield, a Representative of the Subject Property Ownership. December 5.
———. 2024. Communication Regarding Permits for Aboveground and Underground Storage Tanks, Notices of Violations, and Hazardous Spills Between a Representative of Farallon and a Representative of the City of Aliso Viejo. December 6. ———. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment User Questionnaire. Completed by Danielle Prigmore. December 11.
———. 2025. Communication Regarding Permits for Aboveground and Underground Storage Tanks, Notices of Violations, and Hazardous Spills Between a Representative of Farallon and a Representative of Orange County. January 15.
First American Title Insurance Company. 2024. Commitment for Title Insurance.
Commitment No. NCS-1220556-SA1. May 14.
Moulton Niguel Water District. 2023. Water Quality Report. 683
13-3
www.farallonconsulting.com
Shea Homes Limited Partnership. 2024. Shea Homes Project Consultant Agreement Number: 42792 HN. Executed by Danielle Prigmore and Brooke Doi of Shea Homes Limited Partnership and Martin Hamann of Farallon. Effective Date: November 20.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2024. Facility INformation Detail (FIND) Database Search. <https://xappprod.aqmd.gov/find>. (November 22, 2024.) 684
14-1
www.farallonconsulting.com
14.0 LIMITATIONS
14.1 GENERAL LIMITATIONS
The conclusions contained in this report/assessment are based on professional opinions with regard to the subject matter. These opinions have been arrived at in accordance with currently accepted hydrogeologic and engineering standards and practices applicable to this location. The conclusions contained herein are subject to the following inherent limitations:
• Accuracy of Information. Farallon obtained, reviewed, and evaluated certain information used in this report/assessment from sources that were believed to be reliable. Farallon’s conclusions, opinions, and recommendations are based in part on such information. Farallon’s services did not include verification of its accuracy or authenticity. Should the information upon which Farallon relied prove to be inaccurate or unreliable, Farallon reserves the right to amend or revise its conclusions, opinions, and/or recommendations.
• Reconnaissance and/or Characterization. Farallon performed a reconnaissance and/or characterization of the Subject Property that is the subject of this report/assessment to document current conditions. Farallon focused on areas deemed more likely to exhibit hazardous materials conditions. Contamination may exist in other areas of the Subject Property that were not investigated or were inaccessible. Subject Property activities beyond Farallon’s control could change at any time after the completion of this report/assessment.
For the foregoing reasons, Farallon cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that the Subject Property is free of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances or conditions, or that latent or undiscovered conditions will not become evident in the future. Farallon’s observations, findings, and opinions can be considered valid only as of the date of the report.
This report/assessment has been prepared in accordance with the contract for services between Farallon and Shea Homes Limited Partnership, and currently accepted industry standards. No other warranties, representations, or certifications are made. 685
14-2
www.farallonconsulting.com
14.2 LIMITATION ON RELIANCE BY THIRD PARTIES
Reliance by third parties is prohibited. This report/assessment has been prepared for the exclusive use of Shea Homes Limited Partnership to address the unique needs of Shea Homes Limited Partnership at the Subject Property at a specific point in time.
This is not a general grant of reliance. No one other than Shea Homes Limited Partnership may rely on this report unless Farallon agrees in advance to such reliance in writing. Any unauthorized use, interpretation, or reliance on this report/assessment is at the sole risk of that party, and Farallon will have no liability for such unauthorized use, interpretation, or reliance.
686
www.farallonconsulting.com
FIGURES
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
Farallon PN: 2450-009
687
Checked By: JE Disc Reference:
FARALLON PN: 2450-009
³ SUBJECT PROPERTY VICINITY MAP
27061, 27071, AND 27081
ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
Washington
Bellevue | Bellingham | Seattle
Oregon
Portland | Baker City
California
CONSULTING Oakland | Irvine
Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Farallon
Drawn By: aguse Date: 12/16/2024
Q:\Projects\2450 Shea Entities\009 Aliso Creek\Mapfiles\002\Figure-01_SubjectPropertyVicinity.mxd FIGURE 1
REFERENCE: 7.5 MINUTE USGS QUADRANGLE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, DATED 2013 0 2,000
SCALE IN FEET
ALISO
VIEJO
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION
688
Service Layer Credits: Source:
Esri, Maxar, Earthstar
Geographics, and the GIS User
Community
Consulting
Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Farallon
Checked By: KL Disc Reference:
FIGURE 2
FARALLON PN: 2450-009
")
D
")
D
1S" 1S" 1S"
1S"
")T 1S" ")T
")
D
")
D
1S"
1S" 1S"
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
G
PACIFIC PLAZA
CLEANING
27131 ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO
SELF STORAGE
36 JOURNEY
JOURNEY
27121 ALISO
CREEK ROAD
27101 ALISO
CREEK ROAD COMMERCIAL FLEX BUILDINGS
27141 ALISO
CREEK ROAD
27111 ALISO
CREEK ROAD
MEDICAL PLAZA
2 JOURNEY
27081
PAVED PARKING
27061
MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
JOURNEY
G
ESTIMATED
FORMER
ORCHARD
AREA
27071
ALISO VIEJO
LIBRARY
1 JOURNEY
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE
AUTHORITY - STATION 57
57 JOURNEY
SHELL GASOLINE
STATION
27055 ALISO CREEK
ROAD ALISO CREEK ROAD
PACIFIC PARK DRIVE
PONCE RECYCLING
26901 ALISO CREEK ROAD
MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING
26861 ALISO CREEK ROAD
RALPH'S GROCERY
26901 ALISO CREEK ROAD DEL TACO
26951 ALISO
CREEK ROAD
SHOPPING CENTER
BIO-SAFE
CLEANERS
26895 ALISO
CREEK ROAD
CHICK-FIL-A
26861 ALISO
CREEK ROAD
SB-1
SB-2
SB-3
SB-5
SB-4
³ SUBJECT PROPERTY PLAN
AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS
27061, 27071, AND 27081
ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
Washington
Bellevue | Bellingham | Seattle
Oregon
Portland | Baker City
California
Oakland | Irvine
Date: 1/8/2025
0 150
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
!P SAMPLING LOCATION
")
D DUMPSTER
")T PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
1S" STORM DRAIN
SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY
ORANGE COUNTY PARCEL BOUNDARY
Path: Q:\Projects\2450 Shea Entities\009 Aliso Creek\Mapfiles\002\Figure-02_SubjectPropertyPlan_andSamplingLoc.mxd Drawn By: aguse
NOTES:
1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. FIGURES WERE PRODUCED IN COLOR. GRAYSCALE COPIES MAY NOT REPRODUCE ALL ORIGINAL INFORMATION. 689
www.farallonconsulting.com
APPENDIX A
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
Farallon PN: 2450-009
690
Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
JARED EUDELL
Associate Scientist
BS Environmental Science
BS Marine Biology
MS Systems Science
22 years' experience
Jared Eudell has 22 years of experience in the environmental sector, with more than 16 years of experience as a consultant. He has been involved in over 1,500 Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and related due diligence projects across the United States. He has managed and provided technical assistance for numerous Phase II subsurface investigations involving soil, groundwater, soil gas and indoor air impacts, and has supported mitigation and remediation projects to meet client or regulatory cleanup goals. He also has provided regulatory compliance services for public and private clients involving National Pollution Discharge Elimination System compliance; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan preparation; underground storage tank inspections; and solid- and hazardous waste-recycling program development.
KATHY LEHNUS, L.E.P., P.G.
Senior Geologist
BA Geology
BS Environmental Science
MS Applied Geology
28 years' experience
Kathy Lehnus has 28 years of experience in the environmental consulting industry. Her professional experience includes conducting Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, managing investigation and remediation projects led by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and California Regional Water Quality Control Boards, investigating environmental impacts on investment portfolios, and providing oversight for soil and groundwater assessments. Kathy’s key skills include preparation of investigation and remediation work plans, regulatory navigation, and project quality and process improvement, including developing new policies and updating standard operating procedures.
MARTIN HAMANN, P.G., L.G., C.H.G.
Principal Hydrogeologist
BA Geology
MBA
35 years' experience
Martin Hamann has experience in hundreds of environmental health and safety programs, regulatory negotiations, sustainability issues, site investigations, environmental assessments, and remedial actions. He manages and works on numerous large environmental projects at industrial facilities, and has extensive experience with large-scale water development and environmental projects in the United States and developing countries. Martin also serves as a designated technical expert, providing litigation support services on complex soil and groundwater contamination projects and environmental health and safety issues.
~FARALLON
T' CONSULTING
691
www.farallonconsulting.com
APPENDIX B
SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
Farallon PN: 2450-009
692
1 www.farallonconsulting.com
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
Farallon PN: 2450-009
Photograph 1. Subject Property, looking northwest.
Photograph 2. 27061 Aliso Creek Road, looking east.
Photograph 3. SpyGlass laboratory in the 27061 Aliso Creek Road building.
Photograph 4. Elevator machine in 27061 Aliso Creek Road building.
Photograph 5. 27071 Aliso Creek Road, looking north.
Photograph 6. Janitorial supplies in the 27071 Aliso Creek Road building.
Photograph 7. Elevator machine in the 27071 Aliso Creek Road building.
Photograph 8. 27081 Aliso Creek Road, looking west.
Photograph 9. AACN warehouse in the 27081 Aliso Creek Road building.
Photograph 10. Elevator machine in the 27081 Aliso Creek Road building.
Photograph 11. Pad-mounted transformer on the Subject Property.
Photograph 12. Northwest-adjoining fire stations, looking northwest.
Photograph 13. Subject Property northern exterior, looking south.
Photograph 14. Subject Property southern exterior, looking west.
Photograph 15. Subject Property western exterior, looking south.
Photograph 16. Subject Property northwestern exterior, looking east.
Photograph 17. Northern-adjoining shopping center.
Photograph 18. Northeastern-adjoining gasoline station and carwash.
Photograph 19. Eastern-adjoining residential property across Aliso Creek Road.
Photograph 20. Southern-adjoining commercial flex buildings.
Photograph 21. Western-adjoining self-storage facility.
Photograph 22. Western-adjoining medical plaza.
Photograph 23. Western-adjoining library.
~FARALLON T" CONSULTING
693
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
2 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 1. Subject Property, looking northwest.
Photograph 2. 27061 Aliso Creek Road, looking east.
694
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
3 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 3. SpyGlass laboratory in the 27061 Aliso Creek Road building.
Photograph 4. Elevator machine in 27061 Aliso Creek Road building. 695
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
4 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 5. 27071 Aliso Creek Road, looking north.
Photograph 6. Janitorial supplies in the 27071 Aliso Creek Road building. 696
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
5 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 7. Elevator machine in the 27071 Aliso Creek Road building.
Photograph 8. 27081 Aliso Creek Road, looking west.
697
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
6 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 9. AACN warehouse in the 27081 Aliso Creek Road building.
Photograph 10. Elevator machine in the 27081 Aliso Creek Road building. 698
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
7 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 11. Pad-mounted transformer on the Subject Property.
Photograph 12. Northwest-adjoining fire stations, looking northwest. 699
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
8 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 13. Subject Property northern exterior, looking south.
Photograph 14. Subject Property southern exterior, looking west. 700
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
9 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 15. Subject Property western exterior, looking south.
Photograph 16. Subject Property northwestern exterior, looking east. 701
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
10 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 17. Northern-adjoining shopping center.
Photograph 18. Northeastern-adjoining gasoline station and carwash. 702
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
11 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 19. Eastern-adjoining residential property across Aliso Creek Road.
Photograph 20. Southern-adjoining commercial flex buildings. 703
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
12 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 21. Western-adjoining self-storage facility.
Photograph 22. Western-adjoining medical plaza.
704
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
13 www.farallonconsulting.com
Photograph 23. Western-adjoining library.
705
www.farallonconsulting.com
APPENDIX C
USER QUESTIONNAIRE
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
27061, 27071, and 27081 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California
Farallon PN: 2450-009
706