Resolution No. PA2025-
PARKING STRUCTURES
37. The parking structure shall be designed to include pavement treatments/materials or finishing techniques that reduce noise generated by automobile tire squeal. All pavement treatments and materials shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance for any parking structure.
38. Prior to building permit issuance for the parking structure, the Applicant shall confer with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) to identify features consistent with best practices identified in “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Parking Facilities” or other standards acceptable to OCSD that could be incorporated into the parking structure for which a building permit is requested.
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
39. Mechanical equipment, storage, trash areas, and utilities installed at ground level shall be architecturally screened by solid or semi-solid material from public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
The method of screening shall be architecturally compatible in terms of materials, color, shape, and size. The screening design shall blend with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground. For rooftop mechanical equipment, building parapet walls shall be at least as high as the equipment and vents installed on each building. For any roof-top equipment, in lieu of fully screening the equipment, the Applicant may provide a “line of sight” study to the Director that indicates no screening is required given the location of mechanical equipment on the roof of a building relative to one or more viewpoints within the Project (as reasonably determined by the Community Development Director) at finished grade. Roof mounted solar panels are excluded from this requirement so long as the overall height of the equipment is as close to the height of building parapet walls as possible, or where integrated into an accessory building such as a roof top carport.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
40. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or building permit, security instruments shall be posted guaranteeing construction of on-site and off-site improvements in accordance with LHMC Section 10-16.300, and these Conditions of Approval. Security instruments shall include a grading bond and
Resolution No. PA2025-
a landscape bond, unless the latter is waived by the Community Development Director.
41. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared for the Project (Exhibit B).
42. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, the applicant shall pay for all required geotechnical testing services for improvements in the public right-of-way, which shall be invoiced by the City based on time and materials.
These fees will be in addition to all applicable encroachment, grading, subdivision, etc. inspection fees. These fees must be paid in full prior to release of any grading bonds.
43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a grading and erosion control plan for any on-site drive aisle, parking space, sidewalk and/or other hardscape improvements. As applicable, the grading plan shall show the construction of all curb and gutter, asphalt and concrete pavement, sidewalk, storm drain, sewer and water systems (for reference only) and other improvements, and must include a horizontal control plan.
44. Prior to release of any grading bonds, the Project improvements must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes completion of all punch list items, approved mylar as-builts, underground inspections (for storm drain systems, if any), required paperwork (such as soils reports, certifications, etc.). All associated permits will be considered active, until all items (including paperwork) have been completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer. All permits must be current (not expired) at time of bond release. The Applicant is advised that there may be permit renewal fees if said permits have expired prior to completion of all above listed items.
45. AII grading and storm drain plans shall be prepared on City standard ARCH D size sheets by a licensed civil engineer and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. All landscaping plans shall be prepared on City standard ARCH D size sheets by a licensed landscape architect and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. All plans must be in substantial conformance with the approved site/concept plans. Plan check and inspection fees shall be paid by the Applicant in accordance with the City's fee schedule.
46. Prior to the release of any grading bonds, all grading, storm drain, and landscaping plans associated with the Project shall be as-built upon completion
Resolution No. PA2025-
of the Project. Once the as-built drawings are approved, the Applicant shall provide the City with a duplicate mylar of the plans and scanned PDF or TIFF files of all plans.
47. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, all on-site improvement construction (parking lots, sidewalks, ramps, grading) shall be bonded for with the precise grading plan and permit.
48. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, erosion control, demolition, and earth moving work shall be bonded for with the rough or precise grading plan and permit, whichever occurs first.
49. Prior to work in the public right-of-way, an encroachment permit shall first be obtained from the City Engineer. The City Engineer at his sole discretion may require the posting of an encroachment permit bond to guarantee the completion of work in the public right-of-way.
PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN CONDITIONS
50. Grading of the Subject Property shall be in accordance with the City of Laguna Hills Grading Code and Manual and to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any grading required outside of the Project boundaries will require either slope easements or right-of-entry letters from the adjacent property owners.
51. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the following on site (private property) improvements shall be designed in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer in conformance with Laguna Hills Municipal Code Section 10-16.020:
a. All provisions for surface drainage.
b. All necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff. c. AII structural pavement sections for on-site and off-site streets, including all newly constructed or reconstructed parking lots, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. The soils engineer shall submit pavement section recommendations based on "R" Value analysis of the subgrade soils and approved City traffic indices. In no event shall the minimum
Resolution No. PA2025-
pavement sections be less than the City's engineering standard plan minimum pavement sections.
52. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall provide a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) report reviewing existing pathways, sidewalks and access ramps for both on-site access and adjacent to the site access along the accessible pathways for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for approval by the City Engineer and the Building Official. Accessible pathways shall not include a path within any drive aisle, except as necessary to cross a drive aisle at 90° to the drive aisle. The CASp report shall include an implementation plan to correct all deficiencies noted and as reasonably approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official.
53. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, any sidewalk or pathway not in compliance with ADA standards and the CASp report, as approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official, shall be reconstructed to the City's standards.
54. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, a horizontal control plan showing dimensioning of drive aisle, driveway, parking stall, and hardscape improvements shall be prepared for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Minimum dimensions for drive aisles, driveways, and parking stalls shall adhere to City engineering standard plans and the Municipal Code. The City of Laguna Hills has adopted County of Orange Public Works Standard Plans as its engineering standard plans.
55. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer that a corner cut-off area is created at the intersection of each driveway serving the Project and a public street that satisfies the requirements of LHMC Section 9-40.160 or otherwise provides traffic vision clearance meeting the corner vision clearance requirements set forth in the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual or other applicable published public safety standard.
56. Development of the proposed senior housing Project improvements may result in the uses and/or improvements located on the adjacent parcels within the Village at Laguna Hills located at 25250 or 25252 La Paz Road (APNs 620- 211-18 and 620-211-15) becoming nonconforming to, or to increase their nonconformity to, applicable City zoning and development standards. These adjacent parcels are currently owned by the Applicant. Accordingly, prior to
Resolution No. PA2025-
issuance of a grading permit for the Project, the Applicant shall ensure that any such nonconformities, or increases in nonconformity, on these adjacent parcels are eliminated or prevented through approved improvements on said parcels or other means reasonably acceptable to the Community Development Director. Specific examples of said nonconformities, or increases in nonconformities, that will or may result from development of the proposed Project that must be eliminated or prevented prior to the issuance of grading permits include, but may not be limited to, the following:
a. The Project Plans propose to reduce the width of a shared two-way parking aisle straddling the Subject Property and 25252 La Paz Road (currently improved with Better Buzz Coffee) to less than the minimum dimension required for one-way parking aisles within 25252 La Paz Road after the completion of construction. Laguna Hills Municipal Code Section 9-44 requires that one-way drive aisles in parking lots be no less than 14’ wide.
The Applicant’s proposed plan would result in a one-way drive aisle 10’ wide on the Better Buzz Coffee parcel, which is narrower than required by Laguna Hills Municipal Code Section 9-44. Improvements shall be made to the parking lot on the Better Buzz Coffee parcel to ensure this one-way drive aisle is 14’ in width or variance approval obtained. The desired drive-aisle may be able to be achieved through the reduction of the size of the existing planter and possible loss of a parking stall, in conjunction with restriping of the parking lot.
b. The uses located on the two adjacent parcels currently share access to parking spaces with the uses currently located on the Subject Property.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the Project, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director that each of the two adjoining parcels and the uses thereon meet applicable minimum off-site parking requirements. If restriping or other improvements on the adjoining parcels are required to ensure minimum parking requirements are met, such improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit for the Project.
57. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide plans demonstrating compliance with Laguna Hills Municipal Code Section 9-40.200 (Undergrounding of utilities) which states, in pertinent part: “Utilities shall be placed underground. If an above-ground electrical transformer is located outdoors on any site, it shall be screened from view with a solid wall and landscaping and not located in any setback area.”
Resolution No. PA2025-
PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
58. Perimeter fencing shall be installed that has green screen material or approved equal. The fence/screen material shall be properly maintained and be free of rips, tears, fraying, graffiti, and any other damage or vandalism.
59. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Orange County Stormwater Program "Construction Runoff Guidance Manual" during the construction of the Project. The requirements contained in this manual shall be incorporated into the grading plans.
60. All concrete (including sidewalk) that comes in contact with native soils shall contain Type V cement.
61. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, all uplifted, subsided or severely worn curb, gutter and sidewalk that fronts the Project in the public right-of-way along McIntyre Street shall be removed and replaced.
This includes uplifted, subsided or severely worn curb and gutter and sidewalk that was in this condition prior to the start of construction. Limits of removal and replacement will not be marked out until immediately prior to occupancy so that all damage that occurred during construction can be included in the limits of replacement.
62. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, all City Street pavement restorations shall be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer.
63. If any asphalt pavement cuts are made into existing City roadways, the subject roadway shall be ground down and overlaid from the gutter line to the centerline or median of the roadway for any cuts made in that portion of the roadway, and to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer.
64. During the course of the Project construction, no public streets shall be utilized for temporary storage of any construction materials and no vehicles shall be off-loaded of deliveries or filled with materials on any public street.
65. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a haul route plan for all exports/imports from/to the site shall be submitted for review and approval by, and to the reasonable satisfaction of, the City Engineer. The haul route shall
Resolution No. PA2025-
not utilize any arterial highway prior to 9:00 am or after 4:00 pm daily. In addition, a construction vehicle routing plan shall be submitted for review and approval by, and to the reasonable satisfaction of, the City Engineer prior to any demolition or construction work.
66. During the course of Project construction, no construction equipment traffic shall access or depart the site during morning or evening traffic peak periods, which are 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
67. During the course of Project construction, the Applicant shall adhere to Laguna Hills Municipal Code provisions limiting hours of construction. Pursuant to LHMC Section 5-24.070, activities associated with construction or grading that generate noise levels in excess of those set forth in LHMC Chapter 5-24 shall not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.
68. If construction commences during the nesting season (February – September), the Applicant shall cause a pre-construction nesting survey to be conducted within 3 days prior to ground disturbing activities to determine the presence/absence of nesting birds. If an active nest is found on the study area, a qualified biologist will establish a buffer around the nest (up to 500 feet for raptors and 300 feet for passerine birds) and ongoing biological monitoring during construction may be required until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. The buffer will be established by a biologist based on the sensitivity of the species to disturbance and the proximity to project activities. Construction activities may commence outside of the buffer under the discretion of a monitoring biologist. Once the monitoring biologist has determined the nest is no longer active, the buffer can be removed.
69. The Applicant shall implement all of the following measures during construction, as applicable:
a. The project applicant shall comply with all requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust control.
b. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
Resolution No. PA2025-
condition prior to operation. Equipment check documentation should be kept at the construction site and be available for review by the City. c. Low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings.
PUBLIC WORKS DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY CONDITIONS
70. In accordance with Laguna Hills Municipal Code Section 10-16.340, which requires conformance with the Grading Manual, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a hydrology and hydraulic study (including off-site areas affecting the development) shall be prepared by a qualified civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The report shall include detailed drainage studies indicating how the grading, in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding, will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood.
71. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or the approval of improvement plans, a recorded drainage acceptance letter for any concentration or increase of drainage runoff to adjacent properties shall be required.
72. All storm drain systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the County of Orange Local Drainage Manual, Orange County Public Works Standard Plans, and applicable City standard engineering plans.
73. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, any storm drains modified by the Project, if any, shall be inspected by the County of Orange Underground Inspection Team (the City will arrange for the inspection). There will be additional fees for this inspection.
PUBLIC WORKS SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING CONDITIONS
74. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements set forth in Laguna Hills Municipal Code Chapter 5-32.210 and 5-48 (Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Program) and related CalRecycle regulations. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a waste reduction and recycling plan as prescribed by the C&D Compliance Official and submit all applicable fees and security deposits.
Resolution No. PA2025-
75. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide for review and approval by the City Engineer a trash and recycling plan detailing the expected trash and recycled material volume produced by the Project.
Accordingly, all existing and proposed trash bin enclosures shall be sized to accommodate the required number of trash and recycling bins as required by the plan. At a minimum, any trash bin enclosure shall be built according to the City's standard engineering plan, which requires a floor drain connected to the sanitary sewer system and a solid roof to prevent rain water intrusion, and shall accommodate one three-yard trash bin and one three-yard recycling bin (approximate dimensions 40" wide x 82" long) and one organics recycling cart (approximate dimensions 30” wide x 36” long) and enough room for personnel to access the trash bins. No trash bin shall be located outside an enclosure approved by the Community Development Director. If, at any time in the future it is determined by the Public Works Director that the trash enclosure is inadequate, the property owner at its expense shall expand the trash enclosure to accommodate extra bins as evidenced by operations or shall order more frequent trash and recycling bin pick-ups. All trash, storage of cartons, containers, and other discarded items shall be screened from public view at all times. LHMC Section 5-32.040 requires that the storage and collection of mixed solid waste and divertable materials be within enclosures.
76. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, in accordance with Section 5-32.100 of the Laguna Hills Municipal Code, the applicant shall subscribe to the City’s franchise waste hauler’s organics recycling service as required by State Senate Bill 1383. Further information can be found here:
https://www.ci.laguna-hills.ca.us/211/Recycling-For-Businesses
77. Prior to the issuance a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide a will serve letter from the City’s franchise solid waste hauler demonstrating that the site and proposed plan of development will allow the franchise solid waste hauler to service the Project.
PUBLIC WORKS STORM WATER / WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
78. AII projects, in conjunction with a grading permit, require the preparation of an erosion control plan in conformance with the City of Laguna Hills Grading and Excavation Code. All erosion control plans shall incorporate Best Management Practices to the maximum extent possible. In addition, erosion control shall be implemented during construction year-round.
Resolution No. PA2025-
79. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, evidence that proper clearances have been obtained from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board such as the filing of a Notice of Intent to Discharge, shall be provided to the City Engineer. If a permit is required, the Applicant will be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
80. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, "No Dumping - Drains to Ocean" shall be stenciled directly above any inlets or an approved stencil shall be used to paint this message on inlets.
81. Prior to issuance of any precise grading permit, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City Engineer. The WQMP shall be prepared in conformance with the City's WQMP Instructions and Template. The project design and construction shall comply with the requirements of the latest edition of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Copies of the Permit may be downloaded from the Water Board's website at www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego. This order and the City's NPDES Local Implementation Plan (LIP) require the City to classify this Project as a priority project. The Applicant will be responsible for complying with the "priority development project" requirements of this Permit, which requires the Project to incorporate source control BMPs and structural treatment BMPs. The Applicant is advised that there are additional plan check fees for the review of this document.
82. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, all water runoff from the site (including sheet flow), including existing areas, shall be required to be filtered with a water quality device approved by the City Engineer, prior to the discharge of the water to the street gutter or storm drain system. This may require the installation of trench drains the entire width of the entrances to collect and treat sheet flow leaving the site.
83. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, the property owner shall furnish a recorded copy of a Maintenance Agreement outlining post construction Best Management Practices (BMP's) in accordance with the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan Appendix for New Development. The following non-structural BMP's are required to be implemented by the current property owner, and all subsequent property owners to satisfy National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Resolution No. PA2025-
requirements and requirements outlined in the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. A copy of these conditions of approval shall be provided to all subsequent property owners. The following BMP's will be required:
a. Storage and Repair of Motor Vehicles - The property owner shall not allow motor vehicles stored on the premises to be washed on site, unless a car wash facility is proposed that is connected to the sanitary sewer system.
Motor vehicles may be lightly rinsed (with no detergents, soaps, or surfactants) provided that de-ionized water is used sparingly and any runoff is diverted to a landscaped area or collected on-site and disposed of into the sanitary sewer system. Vehicles parked at this facility that show evidence of leaking fluids must be stored with drip pans located to catch the leakage and protected from mixing with stormwater. All hazardous pollutants spilled from stored vehicles shall be cleaned and picked up immediately with an appropriate "dry method" absorbent material and disposed of properly. All spills must be contained and cleaned up on the premises.
b. Litter Control - The property owner will be required to implement trash management and litter control procedures in the common areas aimed at reducing pollution of drainage water. The property owner may contract with their landscape maintenance firm to provide this service with the regularly scheduled maintenance, which should consist of litter patrol, emptying of trash receptacles in common areas, and noting trash disposal violations and reporting the violations to the property owner for investigation. c. Trash Enclosures and Dumpsters - The property owner shall post signs on trash enclosure gates that state "Keep Dumpster Lids Closed." The property owner will monitor dumpster usage such that dumpsters are not overfilled and the dumpster lids can close completely. The property owner shall increase the trash pickup schedule as necessary to prevent dumpsters from overfilling.
d. Landscape Maintenance - Ongoing maintenance must be consistent with the City's adopted water conservation ordinance, plus fertilizer and pesticide usage consistent with the "County Management Guidelines for Use and Fertilizers and Pesticides." Landscaping irrigation systems shall be adjusted and properly maintained to prevent over spray runoffs.
Resolution No. PA2025-
e. Green Waste Disposal - Green waste shall not be blown or swept into, or disposed of, in the street, gutter, public right-of-way, or storm drain catch basins or inlets. Leaf blowers, if used, shall be used to move green waste into piles so they can be swept and picked up and disposed of in green waste recycling containers.
f. Employee Training - The property owner shall prepare a training manual(s) for existing and future employees. The manual should include information on non-point source pollution and how to use proper Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize runoff pollutants. Training shall be provided upon hire and at regular intervals thereafter.
g. Catch Basin/Inlet Inspection - The property owner must inspect all catch basins/inlets on site and clean the catch basins, if necessary, prior to the storm season (no later than October 15 each year).
h. Lot/Street Sweeping - The property owner must sweep outdoor lots regularly (minimum monthly), and prior to the storm season (no later than October 15 each year). Sweeping shall be done with a vacuum-type sweeper. Under no circumstances are outdoor areas/lots to be rinsed or washed with water unless said rinse/wash water is collected and disposed of properly (i.e. into the sewer).
i. Catch Basin Stenciling - All catch basins/inlets/outlets on site must be marked using the City's "No Dumping - Drains to Ocean" curb marker or stenciled using an approved stencil shall be used to paint this message on the top of curb directly above the inlet, and on one side of the curb face.
Labeling for catch basins is to be inspected regularly and maintained so as to be reasonably legible at all times. The inspection and maintenance is to be performed by the property owner. This stencil is to alert the public/employees to the destination of pollutants discharged into the storm water.
j. BMP Maintenance - The property owner shall be responsible for implementation of each non-structural BMP and regularly scheduled cleaning of all BMP structural facilities (catch basin, storm drains, trash enclosures, etc.).
k. Title 22 CCR Compliance - The property owner must comply with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and relevant sections of the California
Resolution No. PA2025-
Health and Safety Code regarding hazardous waste management, which will be enforced by County Environmental Health on behalf of the State. l. Haz-Mat Disclosure Compliance - The property owner shall comply with County and City ordinances.
m. Uniform Fire Code Implementation - The property owner shall comply with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code.
n. Spill Response Plan/Kit- The property owner shall develop a spill response plan and maintain a spill response kit on site. Employees shall be properly trained to use the spill response kit. Owner shall maintain absorbent materials in the spill response kit to adequately contain any spills that can be anticipated (i.e. oil drips, engine coolant, etc.).
84. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the Applicant shall provide plans and supporting documentation for the review and approval of the City Engineer showing that areas requiring regular washing/cleaning (including dumpster areas) are isolated from the storm drain system. No discharge from such areas shall be allowed into the storm drains. This plan may be incorporated into the WQMP.
85. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the design plans shall include a solid roof over any proposed loading dock(s) and any drains within the proposed loading dock(s) shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system as required by the City's Best Management Practices (BMP) Design Manual dated August 31, 2019, and approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region.
86. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, catch basin filters shall be installed on all catch basins which drain the subject site, including any existing catch basins. Specification sheets shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to the installation of the filters.
PUBLIC WORKS WATER, SEWER, AND UTILITIES CONDITIONS
87. The Applicant shall complete all improvements and comply with requirements of the Moulton-Niguel Water District, as set forth in its letter dated February 29, 2024, and/or any subsequent analysis performed by the Water District (Exhibit C). Prior to the issuance of any building permit or grading permit, Applicant
Resolution No. PA2025-
shall provide evidence to the City of the Water District’s concurrence that all of its requirements to provide water and sewer service to the Project have been satisfied. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, water and sewer improvement plans shall be approved by the appropriate water district and the City Engineer. All water and sewer facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate agency's specifications, with all incidental fees paid by the Applicant. These facilities shall be dedicated to the appropriate water district by the Applicant to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer.
88. On-site water and sewer facilities that will not be maintained by Moulton-Niguel Water District shall be plan checked and inspected by the City's Building Department. All fees shall be paid in accordance with the City's fee schedule.
89. Any above ground valve assemblies or back-flow devices shall be placed on private property and an easement dedicated to Moulton-Niguel Water District.
90. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, any damage, either structural or aesthetic, to any public and/or private streets as a result of utility connections to service the Project shall be repaired by the Applicant to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements will not be accepted by the City until the necessary repairs are completed.
91. Any above ground utility cabinets shall be placed on private property and an easement dedicated to the appropriate utility company (if required).
92. No above ground utility structures, cabinets, pipes, or valves shall be constructed within the public right-of-way.
PUBLIC WORKS LANDSCAPING-RELATED CONDITIONS
93. The maintenance of any landscaping between the curb and the right-of-way line of any street abutting the parcel shall be the responsibility of the owner of that parcel, unless a recognized association or district has assumed responsibility for said maintenance.
94. All landscape plans shall reflect all improvements shown on the final approved grading plans and building plans including, but not limited to, improvements such as ramps, walkways, driveways, planter areas, fire access lanes, ingress and egress to buildings, and appurtenances constructed to support the use of any improvements such as gates, handrails, fences, or walls.
Resolution No. PA2025-
TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONDITIONS
95. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, a plan for the placement and installation of traffic signing, pavement delineation, and other traffic devices on the subject property shall be prepared for review and approval by the City Engineer. Parking stalls shall be sized and striped according to City engineering standard plans and the Municipal Code, and stop signs along with stop legend bar shall be provided at all locations as specified by the City Engineer. The City of Laguna Hills has adopted County of Orange Public Works Standard Plans as its engineering standard plans.
96. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide a construction management plan that demonstrates how existing tenants in La Paz Village during project construction will maintain access to adequate parking and parking lot circulation in addition to vehicle and pedestrian access.
The plan shall ensure each building maintains the following: 1) adequate site access (vehicular and pedestrian); 2) adequate parking; 3) access to public and private transportation facilities; 4) utility services; and 5) access to adjoining properties that are in existence. In approving the plan, the Public Works Director and Community Development Director may consider the historical vehicular and pedestrian connections between the Subject Property and adjacent properties, and the location of existing driveway entrances/exits. The Applicant shall ensure improvements to remain, or any new improvements required in the approved plan, are maintained in a safe condition for the use of vehicles and pedestrians for as long as the improvements are needed to serve affected buildings until the Project is completed. Prior to City approval of the construction management plan, the Applicant shall obtain approval of the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and provide proof of OCFA approval to the Community Development Director. As reasonably determined by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director, the plan shall be implemented and periodically updated prior to commencement of any project phasing.
97. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a Parking Management Plan to update the reciprocal parking approval granted by the County of Orange as part of UP-3891 (which approved reciprocal parking on the following parcels: APN 620-211-18, 25250 La Paz Road; APN 620-211-15, 25252 La Paz Road; and 25254 and 25260 La Paz Road, APN 620-211-17) to demonstrate that, as a result of the proposed development, APN 620-211-18,
Resolution No. PA2025-
25250 La Paz Road, and APN 620-211-15, 25252 La Paz Road meet current parking requirements in Laguna Hills Municipal Code Section 9-44. The Parking Management Plan shall be subject to review and reasonable approval by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. The Parking Management Plan shall include the following measures to be enforced by the property owner, management company, and/or operator:
a. Senior Living Resident and Guest Parking:
i. Parking within the residential parking structure for the Project shall be limited to residents of the residential building, their guests, and employees serving the residential building.
ii. All residents shall be assigned or granted access to parking spaces within the on-site residential parking structure.
iii. Guests of the tenants senior living facility shall be directed to park in appropriately assigned and signed parking spaces within the parking structure.
iv. All residents of residential building, their guests, and employees serving the residential building shall be directed to utilize the available parking within the residential parking structure and that use of parking spaces within the adjacent commercial parcels that are intended to serve the employees, patrons, and guests of the uses on such adjacent parcels for routine or overnight vehicle parking or storage by residents and guests of the residential building is strictly prohibited. These requirements shall be enforced through lease terms, rules, signage, and/or other mechanisms.
b. Enforcement: The applicant shall implement and maintain an effective enforcement strategy that outlines measures for monitoring, compliance, and enforcement of the parking requirements which may include but is not limited to:
i. Issuance of parking permits;
ii. Towing policies for unauthorized vehicles;
iii. Periodic parking audits;
Resolution No. PA2025-
iv. Signage in compliance with California Vehicle Code Section 22658 notifying the public that public parking is prohibited, and that vehicles parked in violation of the posted parking requirements will be towed at the vehicle owner's expense. Posted signage will make clear that occupants and visitors of residential buildings are prohibited from parking in commercial spaces.
c. Ongoing Compliance and Reporting: The Parking Management Plan shall include a description of how each strategy will be implemented, and include details describing when and how the strategies will be implemented including days of the week, time of day, locations, equipment and/or personnel to be included, permanent and temporary fixtures, and any other information determined by the Community Development Director to be necessary. Ongoing compliance shall be subject to monitoring, and the City may require periodic updates or documentation demonstrating continued adherence to this condition.
98. The Parking Management Plan shall include a description of how each strategy will be implemented and include details describing when and how the strategies will be implemented including days of the week, time of day, locations, equipment and/or personnel to be included, permanent and temporary fixtures, and any other information determined by the Community Development Director to be necessary.
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
99. During construction of the Project, the Applicant shall maintain adequate site vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress for customers of adjacent commercial uses and utilize temporary directional signage in the public rightof-way as needed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director. Required directional signage shall comply with City standards and specifications, including but not limited to, the CalTrans design manual, the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and/or as recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Required private directional signage shall be provided as appropriate at the reasonable discretion of the Community Development Director.
100. During any construction, adequate emergency access for police, fire, and paramedic vehicles, to the standards of, and approval of, the OCFA, shall be maintained on the Subject Property at all times.
Resolution No. PA2025-
101. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, building or other permit within a District, the Applicant shall submit a construction staging plan to the Community Development Director identifying areas to be used for equipment and material storage, placement of construction trailers, portable restrooms, delivery areas for loading and unloading of materials and equipment, construction waste diversion processing, and construction employee parking.
The Applicant shall periodically submit an updated construction staging plan, as needed and/or when reasonably requested by the Community Development Director. Appropriate pedestrian and vehicular safety barriers shall be installed in all areas as required by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of permits. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits within a District, an on-site pedestrian and vehicle parking circulation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the Public Services Director and Community Development Director identifying pedestrian and vehicle access, including temporary parking for disabled patrons for businesses that will remain open during construction.
102. During the course of construction, the Applicant shall immediately respond to requests made by a City inspector to reasonably resolve any public safety or access issues identified during the work. Modifications to an approved construction staging plan shall be made when requested by a City inspector within 48 hours, or as soon as possible as determined by the Community Development Director.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATIONS
103. Applicant has offered to, and shall, (1) limit occupancy of all units in the Project to senior citizens and qualified members of their household, as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.11 of the Civil Code, and (2) reserve at least eighteen (18), or ten percent (10%), of the apartment units in the project for rental and occupancy by very low-income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, (the “affordable units”) for a minimum period of 55 years from issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 104. In order to enable the City to adequately enforce the proposed age restrictions of all units and the continued affordability of all affordable rental units, prior to issuance of a building permit for any structure in the Project, the property owner(s) shall enter into and record an affordable housing regulatory
Resolution No. PA2025-
agreement (“regulatory agreement”) with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Manager. The City Manager shall be authorized to enter into and implement the regulatory agreement on behalf of the City. The regulatory agreement shall be prepared by the City at the Applicant’s expense, and the Applicant shall reimburse the City for the actual fees and costs incurred by the City in conjunction with negotiation and preparation of the regulatory agreement and review of the initial marketing plan and management plan required as part of the regulatory agreement. Prior to the City commencing preparation of a regulatory agreement, the Applicant shall execute a reimbursement agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, and provide a deposit in an amount equal to the estimated reasonable cost to be incurred by the City for negotiation and preparation of the regulatory agreement and review of the initial marketing plan and management plan, as determined by the City Manager in his or her reasonable discretion. Unless otherwise provided by State law or determined by the City Manager, the regulatory agreement shall include provisions addressing or providing for the following:
a. Limiting occupancy of all units in the Project to qualified residents and qualified permanent residents, as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.11 of the Civil Code.
b. The number of affordable units of each bedroom count and model type shall be generally proportionate to the mix of units in the Project overall.
Accordingly, a minimum of seven (7) two-bedroom units, nine (9) one onebedroom units, and two (2) studio units shall be reserved and allocated as very low-income affordable units at all times; provided, however, that the property owner may substitute a larger unit for a smaller unit. c. The affordable units shall be “floating” units that are not permanently designated and shall, at all times, be distributed throughout the development and not congregated within a certain area of the Project, unless the Applicant provides substantial evidence to the City that complying with this requirement would make provision of the affordable units infeasible.
d. The affordable units shall be constructed concurrently with the market rate units.
e. The affordable units shall be constructed and maintained with the same exterior appearance and interior features, fixtures, and amenities and shall
Resolution No. PA2025-
use the same type and quality of materials as provided for market rate units.
Finishes and features shall be durable, of good quality, and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing.
f. Occupants of the affordable units shall have the same access to the common entrances of the building as the occupants of market rate units and shall be provided or have access to the same amenities as the occupants of market rate units.
g. The owner shall verify and certify, prior to the initial occupancy, and annually thereafter, that each tenant household occupying each affordable unit meets the applicable income and eligibility requirements established for the affordable unit, and to annually prepare a compliance report and certify that the affordable units are in compliance with the regulatory agreement. h. The owner shall be required to maintain or cause to be maintained the interior and exterior of the project and the site in a decent, safe and sanitary manner, and in accordance with the standard of maintenance of first class multifamily rental senior apartment complexes within Orange County. i. The owner shall be required to maintain, tenant leases, income certifications, and other books, documents, and records related to the sale or rental of the affordable units and operation of the project for a period of not less than five (5) years after creation of each such record; to allow the City to inspect any such books, documents, or records and to conduct an independent audit or inspection of such records at a location that is reasonably acceptable to the City Manager upon prior written notice; and to permit the City and its authorized agents and representatives to access the property and examine the housing units and to interview owners, occupants, tenants and employees for the purpose of verifying compliance with the regulatory agreement.
j. The regulatory agreement shall contain uniform provisions regarding property management and management responsibilities and shall require the owner to prepare and obtain the City's approval of a marketing and management plan for the project prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for any portion of the Project. The marketing and management plan shall address in detail, without limitation, the following matters: (i) how the owner plans to market the affordable units to prospective tenant households; (ii) procedures for the selection of tenants
Resolution No. PA2025-
of affordable units, including a description of how the owner plans to certify the eligibility of tenant households; (iii) procedures for annually verifying income and recertifying the eligibility of tenants of affordable units; (iv) the standard form(s) of rental agreement(s) the owner proposes to enter into with tenants of affordable units; (v) procedures for the collection of rent; (vi) procedures for eviction of tenants; (vii) procedures for ensuring that the required number and unit size mix of affordable units is maintained and that affordable units do not become congregated to a certain area of the building or project; (viii) procedures for complying with the owner's monitoring and recordkeeping obligations; (ix) the owner's property management duties; (x) the owner's plan to manage and maintain the project and the affordable units; (xi) the rules and regulations of the property and manner of enforcement; and (xii) and a program addressing security and crime prevention at the project.
k. The regulatory agreement shall contain a provision requiring the owner to pay the City an annual administration fee to reimburse the City for the estimated reasonable costs incurred by the City in monitoring the owner’s compliance with, and otherwise administering, the regulatory agreement, including, but not limited to, the City’s review of annual compliance reports and conduct of inspections and/or audits.
l. The regulatory agreement shall require the owner, at its expense, to defend (with counsel acceptable to City and subject to approval by owner), indemnify, and hold harmless City, and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from any and all losses, liabilities, claims, lawsuits, causes of action, judgments, settlements, court costs, attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and other legal expenses, costs of evidence of title, costs of evidence of value, and other damages of whatsoever nature arising out of or in connection with owner’s failure to perform its obligations under the agreement, the owner’s ownership or operation of the site, or the development of the project, except for such liability arising from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of City.
m. The regulatory agreement shall remain a senior, non-subordinate covenant and as an encumbrance running with the land for the full term thereof. In no event shall the regulatory agreement be made junior or subordinate to any deed of trust or other documents providing financing for the construction or operation of the project, or any other lien or encumbrance whatsoever for the entire term of the required covenants.
Resolution No. PA2025-
PROTECTION OF TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
105. The statutory infill housing exemption established by AB 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66) became effective on June 30, 2025. Prior to that date, the City had engaged in tribal consultation regarding the project pursuant to AB
52. Tribal cultural resources mitigation measures were identified and tribal consultation was closed. The Applicant has taken the position that further tribal consultation under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 is not required because tribal consultation was conducted pursuant to AB 52. The Applicant shall thus comply with the following enforceable agreement reached between the City and the tribes that participated in the tribal consultation for this Project pursuant to AB 52 from January 23, 2025 to May 12, 2025, as follows:
a. The Applicant shall retain Native American Monitors from the following Native American tribes that consulted during the AB 52 process for the Project: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California; and Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation. The monitors shall be retained prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity for the subject Project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the Project description/definition and/or required in connection with the Project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreements shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence ground-disturbing activity.
c. The Applicant shall require the monitors to complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the tribes. Monitoring logs will identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCRs), including, but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, and places of significance, as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. The
Resolution No. PA2025-
Applicant shall require that copies of monitoring logs will be provided to the City upon written request to the tribes.
d. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon either of the following: (1) written confirmation to the Tribes from a designated point of contact for the Applicant that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the Project site or in connection with the Project are complete or (2) a determination and written notification by the tribes or designee that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the Project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs.
e. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Native American Monitors. The tribes will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the tribes deem appropriate, in the tribes’ sole discretion, for any purpose the tribes deem appropriate, and for any purposes, including for educational, cultural, and/or historic purposes.
f. Native American human remains are defined in Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98(d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then PRC Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per PRC Sections 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
106. The Applicant has taken the position that the statutory infill housing exemption in AB 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66) applies to the Project.
The Applicant shall thus comply with the following applicable conditions required by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66:
Resolution No. PA2025-
a. Each tribe shall designate its own monitor.
b. The Applicant shall require that any tribal monitor designated by the tribe comply with Applicant’s site access and workplace safety requirements. c. The Applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, as determined by the California Native American tribe, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resources monitoring, taking into account such factors as the scope and duration of the project. d. The Applicant shall avoid all tribal cultural resources where feasible in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21084.3(a). In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the Applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use tribal cultural resources and landscapes. e. All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, consistent with Public Resources Code § 21083.9.
f. The Applicant shall apply tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the project as applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the project.
g. The Applicant shall comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe.
h. The Applicant shall complete a California Historical Resources Information System archeological records search and a tribal cultural records search shall be completed for the project site.
i. The Applicant shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American Heritage Commission.
Resolution No. PA2025-
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
107. The Applicant and Project shall be subject to the following required Conditions pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code:
a. The Applicant shall complete a phase I environmental assessment, as defined in Section 78090 of the Health and Safety Code. b. If a recognized environmental condition is found, the Applicant shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in Health & Safety Code Section 78095, prepared by a qualified environmental assessor to determine the existing of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine if the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity. c. If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the Project site, no Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be issued until the Applicant provides satisfactory evidence to the City that the release has been removed or any effects of the release have been mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards. d. If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, no Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be issued until the Applicant provides satisfactory evidence to the City that the effects of the potential exposure have been mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards. 108. Applicant has provided the City with a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by BBG Assessments, LLC in 2021 (Exhibit D) and a Phase II ESA prepared by Wies Environmental in 2022 (Exhibit E). According to the Phase I ESA completed by BBG, different dry cleaners occupied 25260 La Paz Road, Suite M, on the project site from the 1970s to 2017 (BBG 2021). The Phase II ESA conducted by Weis Environmental in 2022 confirmed that tetrachloroethene (PCE) was released from the former cleaner’s operation at the Project site, resulting in contamination in soil vapor beneath the former cleaner’s space (Weis 2022). VOC contamination was not identified in soil samples, indicating that contamination at the site is likely limited to soil vapor; however, PCE could be present in soils beneath the existing two-story retail building, as these were not investigated as part of the Phase II ESA. Soil vapor impacts were generally limited to the southwest corner of the retail strip,
Resolution No. PA2025-
beneath the former cleaner’s operations. The release is not considered to be a threat to underlying groundwater resources (Weis 2022). However, if not properly managed, contaminated soil and soil vapor could be released during construction, and, during operation, vapor intrusion into new residential buildings could occur. Therefore, the Project shall be subject to the following Conditions:
a. Prior to commencement of any demolition or construction activities, Applicant shall prepare and obtain City approval of a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan (HMCP) that addresses potential impacts in soil and soil vapor from chemical releases on or near the project site. The HMCP shall include training procedures for identification of contamination, and shall describe procedures for assessment, characterization, management, and disposal of hazardous constituents, materials, and wastes in accordance with all applicable state and local regulations. Contaminated soils and/or groundwater shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with local and state regulations. The HMCP shall include health and safety measures, which may include but are not limited to periodic work breathing zone monitoring and monitoring for volatile organic compounds using a handheld organic vapor analyzer in the event impacted soils and/or soil vapor are encountered during excavation activities. Air monitoring will also comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules. The Applicant and/or its designee shall implement the HMCP during construction activities for the Project.
b. Applicant shall implement the recommendations set forth in the Phase II ESA to mitigate the PCE condition at the Site, by completing the following:
i. Upon demolition of the Site building in the area of the former cleaners, Applicant shall retain a qualified professional to conduct relatively shallow supplemental soil sampling and analysis in the rear area of the former cleaners tenant space. Results of this sampling shall be provided to the City before any grading or excavation activity is commenced.
ii. If hot spots of PCE are identified in soil, Applicant shall excavate any shallow impacted soils and remove such soil to a landfill facility for disposal in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local statutory and regulatory requirements.
Resolution No. PA2025-
iii. Upon demolition of the Site building and other paving in the area of the former cleaners, Applicant shall retain a qualified professional environmental assessor to conduct additional soil gas sampling and analysis to evaluate the potential off-gassing of the vapor cloud condition at the Site. The results of said sampling and analysis shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. iv. The Applicant shall implement all recommendations of the environmental assessor and implement all mitigation deemed warranted by the assessor, DTSC, and/or the Orange County Department of Environmental Health prior to issuance of a grading permit.
109. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding demolition and renovation of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) and LeadBased Pains (LBP), including but not limited to California Code of Regulations, Title 8; California Business and Professions Code, Division 3; California Health and Safety Code sections 25915-25919.7; and South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1403 as may be amended. Demolition or renovation plans and contract specifications shall incorporate appropriate abatement procedures for the removal of ACM and LBP. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City upon request.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of September, 2025. ________________________________
JOSHUA SWEENEY, CHAIR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
JENNIFER LEE, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. PA2025-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS )
I, Jennifer Lee, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Hills, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. ____________ adopted by the Planning Agency of the City of Laguna Hills, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of September, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
JENNIFER LEE, CITY CLERK
Exhibit A
OCFA Service Request SR #25002065
August 28, 2025 Letter
O R A N G E C O U N T Y FI R E A U T H O R I T Y
F i r e P r e v e n t i o n D e p a r t m e n t
P. O. Box 57115, Irvine, CA 92619-7115 • 1 Fire Authority Road, Irvine, CA 92602 Planning and Development Services www.ocfa.org (714) 573-6100 / Fax (714) 368-8843 Serving the Cities of: Aliso Viejo • Buena Park • Cypress • Dana Point • Garden Grove • Irvine • Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel • Laguna Woods Lake Forest • La Palma • Los Alamitos • Mission Viejo • Rancho Santa Margarita •San Clemente • San Juan Capistrano • Santa Ana Seal Beach • Stanton • Tustin • Villa Park • Westminster • Yorba Linda • and Unincorporated Areas of Orange County Date: August 28, 2025 Page 1 of 2
To: Jay Wuu
City of Laguna Hills
From: Rich Swanson, Fire Prevention Analyst
Subject: City Reference #CUS-0147-2023
OCFA Service Request SR #25002065
La Paz Village
25254 La Paz Road
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Service Code: PR105 Site Development Review
The applicant must address the comments, corrections, and/or concerns listed below before conditions can be issued for this project. If you need additional information or clarification, please contact me by phone or email: (714) 573-6123, [email protected].
1. The results of the flow test provided by Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) indicates that maximum available fire flow is 3,750 gallons per minute (GPM) based on the maximum velocity (or 3,791 GPM calculated at 20 psi). The proposed sprinklered building has 195,433 square feet of Type V-A Construction, which requires minimum fire flow of 4,000 GPM. Based on the available fire flow, the maximum size of a Type V-A sprinklered building is 179,400 square feet. The size of the building must be reduced, or the construction type must be upgraded. For example, a Type III-A sprinklered building requires a fire flow of 3,000 GPM, which is available at this site.
2. Provide an analysis of the building, to include (1) the allowable building height above grade plane demonstrating compliance with CBC 504.3, (2) the allowable number of stories above grade plane demonstrating compliance with CBC 504.4, and (3) the allowable area demonstrating compliance with CBC 506. Provide an exhibit to demonstrate which areas are being considered frontage for the purpose of increasing the allowable area.
3. Show the location of every ground laddering pad located under every required rescue opening. See OCFA Guideline B-01, Section 6.5, for laddering pad setback and size requirements. CBC 1031.1.
4. The proposed emergency access roadway includes areas on at least four other adjacent properties. Provide a recorded copy of the emergency access easement from each
SR #25002065 Page 2 of 2
La Paz Village
property own. The easement(s) shall identify the adjacent property owners as the GRANTOR and the City of Laguna Hills as the GRANTEE.
5. Provide an exhibit to demonstrate the aerial laddering areas, as described in OCFA Guideline B-01, which is available at www.ocfa.org. Include a roof level plan that shows which roof surfaces are contiguous. Each contiguous roof surface shall be provided with aerial laddering on opposite sides of each contiguous roof section, at a minimum. The nearest edge of the fire lane shall be 20-40 feet from the edge of the roof line. Include elevation details of each side of the building.
6. Provide a letter of intent from the business owner who will operate this facility. Include the intended use and level of care, including whether or not memory care will be included, and whether or not this will be a state licensed facility. If it will be licensed, identify the category it will be licensed as.
Exhibit B
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com May 26, 2023 Project No. 22023-01
Mr. Nick Buchanan
La Paz Village Investors, LLC
c/o Cape Point Development, LLC
1010 South El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Clemente, California 92672
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed La Paz Village – Senior Living Development, La Paz Road, Laguna Hills, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed redevelopment for the La Paz Village – Senior Living development to be located at the property located at the southeast corner of La Paz Road and Mackenzie Street in Laguna Hills, California. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the existing onsite geotechnical conditions and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed development.
Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully Submitted,
LGC Geotechnical, Inc.
Brad Zellmer, GE 2618 Kevin B. Colson, CEG 2210
Project Engineer Vice President
BTZ/KBC/amm
Distribution: (5) Addressee (4 wet-signed copies and 1 electronic copy)
Project No. 22023‐01 Page i May 26, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................8
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ............................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 10
1.4 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation ............................................................................................... 10
1.5 Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................................................. 10
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................12
2.1 Regional Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Site-Specific Geology ............................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Generalized Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................. 12
2.4 Oversized Material .................................................................................................................................. 12
2.5 Groundwater .............................................................................................................................................. 13
2.6 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 13
2.7 Faulting ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
2.7.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement .............................................................................. 16
2.7.2 Lateral Spreading ...................................................................................................................... 16
3.0 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................17
4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................18
4.1 Site Earthwork .......................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 Site Preparation ......................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Removal Depths and Limits ................................................................................................... 19
4.1.3 Temporary Excavations ......................................................................................................... 20
4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation ................................................................ 20
4.1.5 Material for Fill .......................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills .................................................................................... 21
4.1.7 Trench and Retaining/Basement Wall Backfill and Compaction ........................... 22
4.2 Foundation Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Preliminary Conventional Foundation Design Parameters .................................... 23
4.2.2 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters ................................ 23
4.2.3 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance ............................................... 24
4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines ............................................................................................ 25
4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance ................................................................................................ 25
4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Basement/Retaining Walls Design ......................................... 26
4.5 Temporary Shoring................................................................................................................................. 29
4.6 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control .......................................................................... 30
4.7 Subsurface Water Infiltration .............................................................................................................. 30
4.8 Preliminary Pavement Sections ........................................................................................................ 31
4.9 Soil Corrosivity .......................................................................................................................................... 32
4.10 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork ...................................................................................................... 32
4.11 Boreholes for Temporary Shoring..................................................................................................... 33
4.12 Geotechnical Plan Review ..................................................................................................................... 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Project No. 22023‐01 Page ii May 26, 2023
4.13 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction ................................................. 34
5.0 LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................................35
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map (Page 2)
Figure 2 – Boring Location Map (Rear of Text)
Figure 3 – Basement Subterranean Structure Backfill/Subdrain Detail (Rear of Text) Figure 4 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail (Rear of Text) Tables
Table 1 – Seismic Design Parameters (Page 14)
Table 2 – Provisional Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Foundation Slab Design (Page 25) Table 3 – Allowable Soil Bearing Pressures (Page 26)
Table 4A – Lateral Earth Pressures – Cut Condition (Page 27) Table 4B – Lateral Earth Pressures – Conventional Backfilled Basement/Retaining Wall (Page 28) Table 5 – Asphalt Concrete Paving Section Options (Page 31) Table 6 – Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork for Expansive Soils (Page 33) Appendices
Appendix A – References
Appendix B – Field Exploration Logs
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 8 May 26, 2023
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services
This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed senior living facility to be located at the property at the southeast corner of La Paz Road and Mackenzie Street in Laguna Hills, California. Refer to the Site Location Map (Figure 1).
The purpose of our study was to perform a preliminary geotechnical evaluation relative to the proposed development. As part of our scope of work, we have: 1) reviewed available in-house geologic maps pertinent to the site (Appendix A); 2) performed a limited subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site consisting of the excavation of four hollow-stem auger borings; 3) performed laboratory testing of select soil samples; and 4) prepared this preliminary geotechnical report presenting our findings, preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the development of the proposed project.
1.2 Project Description
The relatively flat, site is approximately 2.4 acres and bound in the northerly direction by existing buildings and parking followed by La Paz Road, in the westerly direction existing parking and a commercial building followed by MacKenzie Street, and in easterly direction by existing parking and commercial building followed by McIntyre Street and in the southerly direction by existing commercial building and associated parking. Existing site elevations range from approximately 475 feet in the northeasterly direction to 482 feet in the southwesterly direction.
We understand that a portion of the property is to be redeveloped as senior living, podium-type structure, including four stories of above grade residential units over one story of at-grade parking over one-story of below-grade parking (WHA, 2022). The majority of the building footprint will include basement structure approximately 10 feet below grade, however, a portion of the building will be at grade in the easterly portion of the site. Building loads were not available at the time of this report. However, based on previous projects we have estimated maximum (dead plus live) column and wall loads of 350 kips and 10 kips/ft, respectively for the basement parking structure. The at-grade portion is estimated at maximum (dead plus live) column and wall loads of 150 kips and 6 kips/ft, respectively.
The recommendations given in this report are based upon the estimated structural loads and grading/layout information as indicated above. LGC Geotechnical should be provided with structural loads and any updated project information, when they become available, in order to either confirm or modify the recommendations provided herein.
Approximate Site Location
FIGURE 1
Site Location Map
DATE May 2023
ENG. / GEOL.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT NAME
SCALE
BTZ/KBC
Not to Scale
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 10 May 26, 2023
1.3 Background
Review of historical aerial photos indicate that the subject site consisted primarily of vacant land until at least 1972 (Historic Aerials, 2023). Between 1972 and 1980, the existing buildings were constructed. In the 1980 aerial photo, the existing buildings have been constructed the adjacent off-site building in the northwesterly corner appears to be under construction.
Previous site geotechnical reports were not available.
1.4 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation
A geotechnical field evaluation was performed by LGC Geotechnical consisting of excavation of four hollow stem auger borings. The hollow stem auger borings (HS-1 through HS-4) were drilled to depths of approximately 60 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical representative observed the drilling operations, logged the borings, and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. The borings were performed using a track-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inchdiameter, hollow stem augers. Bulk samples of the near-surface soils were logged and collected for laboratory testing from select borings. Driven soil samples were collected by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California Drive (MCD) sampler generally obtained at 5-foot vertical increments. The MCD is a split-barrel sampler with a tapered cutting tip and lined with a series of 1-inch-tall brass rings. The SPT sampler (1.4-inch ID) and MCD sampler (2.4-inch ID, 3.0-inch OD) were driven using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches to advance the sampler a total depth of 18 inches or until refusal. The raw blow counts for each 6-inch increment of penetration were recorded on the boring logs. In select borings, after removal of the augers the depth of the boring due to caving was measured and is noted on the boring logs. At the completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and capped with AC Aquaphalt. Some settlement of the backfilled borings should be expected.
Boring logs are presented in Appendix B and approximate locations are depicted on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2).
1.5 Laboratory Testing
Representative bulk and driven (relatively undisturbed) samples were obtained for laboratory testing during our field evaluation. Laboratory testing included in-situ moisture content and insitu dry density, Atterberg Limits, fines content, expansion potential, direct shear, consolidation and corrosion (soluble sulfate, chloride, pH and minimum resistivity).
The following is a summary of the laboratory test results:
Dry density of the samples collected ranged from approximately 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 126 pcf, with an average of 103 pcf. Field moisture contents ranged from approximately 2 to 27 percent, with an average of 18 percent. Four Atterberg Limit (liquid limit and plastic limit) tests were performed. Results indicated Plasticity Index (PI) values ranging from 17 to 22.
Seven fines content/gradation tests were performed and indicated a fines content (passing No. 200 sieve) ranging from approximately 14 to 70 percent. Based on the Unified Soils
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 11 May 26, 2023
Classification System (USCS), five of the tested samples would be classified as “fine-grained.” Two Expansion Index (EI) tests indicated EI values of 64 and 68 corresponding to “Medium” expansion potential.
A direct shear test was performed. The plot is provided in Appendix C. Five consolidation tests were performed. The load versus deformation plots are provided in Appendix C.
Corrosion testing indicated soluble sulfate content values of 0.08 percent or less, chloride content of 80 parts per million (ppm), pH of 7.3 and minimum resistivity of 1,840 ohm-cm.
A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Appendix C. The moisture and dry density results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 12 May 26, 2023
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
2.1 Regional Geology
The site is located on the southwestern border of the Peninsular Ranges at the southwesternmost portion of the Los Angeles Basin. Specifically, the site lies in the sedimentary basin known as the Capistrano Embayment, an early Cenozoic Seaway, which trended northerly between the Peninsular Ranges and a hypothetical Catalina uplift off the Southern California coast. Locally, the Capistrano Embayment refers to the flat-bottomed structural trough formed by the downward displacement along the west side of the Cristianitos Fault and down-warping along the east side of the San Joaquin Hills. The embayment was subsequently in-filled with marine siltstone and clayey, siltstone bedrock of the late Miocene to early Pliocene (approximately 5 to 15 million years old) Capistrano Formation. This sedimentary unit, in excess of 3,000 feet thick near the center of the embayment, was uplifted, folded, and eroded in Pliocene and post-Pliocene times (approximately 2 to 3 million years ago) producing the low, rolling ridges observed today. More recently, the local geology has also been influenced by a rapid drop in sea level resulting in a series of wave-cut marine platforms along the coast and causing extensive erosion, which in turn, created numerous steep-sided drainage channels, and over-steepening of slopes.
2.2 Site‐Specific Geology
The subject site is comprised of bedrock of the Tertiary Niguel Formation and/or the Tertiary Capistrano Formation, Sandstone Facies. The Niguel Formation is known to overly the Capistrano Formation in a horizontal to gently-dipping unconformable contact. The bedrock material was generally observed to be interbedded dense sandstone and siltstone. Soil moisture content within the bedrock units varied with depth and generally ranged from slightly moist to moist.
Minor fill may locally be present in portions of the site overlying the bedrock materials.
2.3 Generalized Subsurface Conditions
The field explorations (borings) indicate primarily stiff to hard sandy clays and sandy silts with layers of dense to very dense silty sands and clayey sands to the maximum explored depth of approximately 60 feet below existing grade. Moisture contents were generally above optimum.
It should be noted that the explorations performed are only representative of the location and time where/when they are performed and varying subsurface conditions may exist outside of the performed location. In addition, subsurface conditions can change over time. The soil descriptions provided above should not be construed to mean that the subsurface profile is uniform, and that soil is homogeneous within the project area. For details on the stratigraphy at the exploration locations, refer to Appendix B.
2.4 Oversized Material
Generation of a surplus of oversized material (material greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension) is generally not anticipated during site grading. However, some oversized material
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 13 May 26, 2023
may be encountered, which may result in excavation difficulty for narrow excavations.
Recommendations are provided for appropriate handling of oversized materials in Appendix D.
2.5 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during our recent field evaluation to the maximum explored depth of approximately 60 feet below existing grade. Based on the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle (CDMG, 2001a), no depth to historic high groundwater is indicated in the vicinity of the site. Groundwater is anticipated to be greater than 60 feet below exiting grade and not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project.
Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater elevations should be expected over time. In general, groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater may be present due to local seepage caused by irrigation and/or recent precipitation. Local perched groundwater conditions or surface seepage may develop once site development is completed.
2.6 Seismic Design Criteria
The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and applicable portions of ASCE 7-16 which has been adopted by the CBC. Please note that the following seismic parameters are only applicable for code-based acceleration response spectra and are not applicable for where sitespecific ground motion procedures are required by ASCE 7-16. Representative site coordinates of latitude 33.5948 degrees north and longitude -117.6804 degrees west were utilized in our analyses. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class C are provided in Table 1 on the following page. The structural designer should contact the geotechnical consultant if structural conditions (e.g., number of stories, seismically isolated structures, etc.) require site-specific ground motions.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 14 May 26, 2023
TABLE 1
Seismic Design Parameters
Selected Parameters from 2022 CBC,
Section 1613 ‐ Earthquake Loads
Seismic
Design
Values
Notes/Exceptions
Distance to applicable faults classifies the site as a
“Near-Fault” site. Section 11.4.1 of ASCE 7
Site Class C Chapter 20 of ASCE 7
Ss (Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration
for Short Periods) 1.199g From SEAOC, 2023
S1 (Risk-Targeted Spectral
Accelerations for 1-Second Periods) 0.433g From SEAOC, 2023 Fa (per Table 1613.2.3(1)) 1.2
For Simplified Design Procedure
of Section 12.14 of ASCE 7, Fa
shall be taken as 1.4 (Section
12.14.8.1)
Fv (per Table 1613.2.3(2)) 1.5 -
SMS for Site Class C
[Note: SMS = FaSS] 1.438g -
SM1 for Site Class C
[Note: SM1 = FvS1] 0.649g -
SDS for Site Class C
[Note: SDS = (2/3) SMS] 0.959g -
SD1 for Site Class C
[Note: SD1 = (2/3) SM1] 0.433g -
CRS (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec) 0.937 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 CR1(Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec) 0.934 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period (MCE) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.65 at a distance of approximately 10.61 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion. A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 475-year average return period (Design Earthquake) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.58 at a distance of approximately 20.76 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2014).
Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for liquefaction potential. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.604g (SEAOC, 2023). The design PGA is equal to 0.403g (2/3 of PGAM).
2.7 Faulting
California is located on the boundary between the Pacific and North American Lithospheric Plates. The average motion along this boundary is on the order of 50-mm/yr in a right-lateral
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 15 May 26, 2023
sense. The majority of the motion is expressed at the surface along the northwest trending San Andreas Fault Zone with lesser amounts of motion accommodated by sub-parallel faults located predominantly west of the San Andreas including the Elsinore, Newport-Inglewood, Rose Canyon, and Coronado Bank Faults. Within Southern California, a large bend in the San Andreas Fault north of the San Gabriel Mountains has resulted in a transfer of a portion of the right-lateral motion between the plates into left-lateral displacement and vertical uplift.
Compression south and west of the bend has resulted in folding, left-lateral, reverse thrust faulting, and regional uplift creating the east-west trending Transverse Ranges and several east-west trending faults. Further south within the Los Angeles Basin, “blind thrust” faults are believed to have developed below the surface also as a result of this compression, which have resulted in earthquakes such as the 1994 Northridge event along faults with little to no surface expression.
Prompted by damaging earthquakes in Northern and Southern California, State legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults have been developed. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was implemented in 1972 to prevent the construction of urban developments across the trace of active faults. California Geologic Survey Special Publication 42 was created to provide guidance for following and implementing the law requirements. Special Publication 42 was most recently revised in 2018 (CGS, 2018).
According to the State Geologist, an “active” fault is defined as one which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (roughly the last 11,700 years). Regulatory Earthquake Fault Zones have been delineated to encompass traces of known, Holocene-active faults to address hazards associated with surface fault rupture within California. Where developments for human occupation are proposed within these zones, the state requires detailed fault evaluations be performed so that engineering-geologists can identify the locations of active faults and recommend setbacks from locations of possible surface fault rupture.
The subject site is not located within a Fault Rupture Hazard Zone and there are no active or potentially active faults mapped on the site. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture, as a result of faulting, is considered very low since active faults are not known to cross the site.
Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region include soil liquefaction, dynamic settlement, ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, and seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout portions of the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. Parameters for seismic design are included in the sections below. The major active nearby faults that could produce these secondary effects include the onshore and offshore segments of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, located over ten miles west of the site and the Elsinore Fault Zone located over ten miles east of the site. The presence of a blind thrust fault has been interpolated from limited data, to exist at a depth of approximately eight miles below the uplifted local hills; however, the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault does not have a known location of surface rupture. A discussion of these secondary effects and their potential impact on the site is provided in the following sections.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 16 May 26, 2023
2.7.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density noncohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose near-surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction, depending on their plasticity and moisture content (Bray & Sancio, 2006).
Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry loose sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event.
The site is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone (CDMG, 2001b) for liquefaction potential. Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum explored depth of approximately 60 feet below existing ground surface during our recent field evaluation and anticipated to be greater than 60 feet below existing ground surface.
Based on the absence of a shallow groundwater table the potential for liquefaction is considered very low.
2.7.2 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures.
Due to the very low potential for liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 17 May 26, 2023
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the geotechnical recommendations and parameters provided herein are incorporated into the project design, grading and construction project.
The following is a summary of the primary geotechnical factors that may affect future development of the site:
In general, our borings indicate primarily stiff to hard sandy clays and sandy silts with layers of dense to very dense silty sands and clayey sands to the maximum explored depth of approximately 60 feet below existing grade. Moisture contents were generally above optimum. Upper near-surface soils are not considered suitable for support of the planned building structure in their present condition (refer to Section 4.1). Upper soils will be removed for construction of the planned basement portion; however, removals will be required for the at-grade portion of the building structure.
Due to the depth and proximity of the proposed basement level with property lines, and existing improvements, temporary shoring is anticipated to be required in portions of the site. The temporary shoring will be adjacent to an existing off-site structure in a portion of the site. From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils are suitable material for use as general fill, provided that they are relatively free from rocks (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and significant organic material.
Groundwater was not encountered to maximum explored depth of approximately 60 feet below existing grade. Historic high groundwater is anticipated to be over 60 feet below existing ground surface.
The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The subject site will likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life. The site is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone (CDMG, 2001b) for liquefaction potential. Due to the absence of groundwater the potential for earthquake induced liquefaction and dynamic settlement is considered very low. Soils exposed near proposed foundation level are anticipated to have “Medium” expansion potential (Expansion Index of 90 or less). Mitigation measures are required for foundations and site improvements like concrete flatwork to minimize the impacts of expansive soils. Final design expansion potential must be determined at the completion of earthwork grading. Pre-soaking of the subgrade for at-grade building slabs and flatwork will be required due to site expansive soils. The duration of this process varies greatly based on the chosen method and is also dependent on factors such as soil type and weather conditions. Time duration for presoaking should be accounted for in the construction schedule (typically, approximately three weeks for high expansion). Additional time at the completion of presoaking may be necessary for the surface soils of the pad to dry back sufficiently to be capable of supporting trenching equipment. The site contains soils that are not suitable for basement/retaining wall backfill due to their fines (i.e., silt and clay) content, therefore or import of sandy soils will be required by the contractor for obtaining suitable backfill soil for planned site basement/retaining walls. Based on our experience in the area, site soils should be considered corrosive.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 18 May 26, 2023
4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are to be considered preliminary and should be confirmed upon completion of grading and earthwork operations. In addition, they should be considered minimal from a geotechnical viewpoint, as there may be more restrictive requirements from the architect, structural engineer, building codes, governing agencies, or the owner.
It should be noted that the following geotechnical recommendations are intended to provide sufficient information to develop the site in general accordance with the 2022 CBC requirements. With regard to the potential occurrence of potentially catastrophic geotechnical hazards such as fault rupture, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, etc. the following geotechnical recommendations should provide adequate protection for the proposed development to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to an “acceptable level.” The “acceptable level” of risk is defined by the California Code of Regulations as “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project” [Section 3721(a)].
Therefore, repair and remedial work of the proposed improvements may be required after a significant seismic event. With regards to the potential for less significant geologic hazards to the proposed development, the recommendations contained herein are intended as a reasonable protection against the potential damaging effects of geotechnical phenomena such as expansive soils, fill settlement, groundwater seepage, etc. It should be understood, however, that although our recommendations are intended to maintain the structural integrity of the proposed development and structures given the site geotechnical conditions, they cannot preclude the potential for some cosmetic distress or nuisance issues to develop as a result of the site geotechnical conditions.
The geotechnical recommendations contained herein must be confirmed to be suitable or modified based on the actual as-graded conditions.
4.1 Site Earthwork
We anticipate that earthwork at the site will generally consist of excavation for the basement structure, remedial removals, foundation construction, basement wall and utility line installation and backfill. We recommend that earthwork onsite be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, future grading plan review report(s), the 2022 CBC/City of Laguna Hills grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included in Appendix D. The following recommendations should be considered preliminary and may be revised within the future grading plan review report or based on the actual conditions encountered during site grading.
4.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered improvements, the areas should be cleared of existing surface obstructions and demolition debris. Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions, which extend below proposed finish grades, should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Any abandoned sewer or storm drain lines
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 19 May 26, 2023
should be completely removed and replaced with properly placed compacted fill. Deeper demolition may be required in order to remove existing foundations.
If cesspools or septic systems are encountered, they should be removed in their entirety.
The resulting excavation should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. As an alternative, cesspools can be backfilled with lean sand-cement slurry. Any encountered wells should be properly abandoned in accordance with regulatory requirements. At the conclusion of the clearing operations, a representative of LGC Geotechnical should observe and accept the site prior to further grading.
4.1.2 Removal Depths and Limits
In order to provide a relatively uniform bearing condition for the planned improvements, upper loose/compressible soils are to be removed and replaced as properly compacted fills. For preliminary planning purposes, the depth of required removals may be estimated as indicated below. It should be noted that updated recommendations may be required based on additional field evaluation, changes to building layouts and/or structural loads.
Basement Structure at least 10 feet below Existing Grade: Excavations on the order of about 12 feet are anticipated for construction of the basement structure. It is anticipated that soils will be suitable (i.e., firm and relatively unyielding) materials at this depth for foundation construction. However, if soft or yielding soils are encountered, they should be completely removed and replaced with properly compacted fill. If a bedrock/fill transition is created, over-excavation is recommended as outlined below.
Interior Ramp Retaining Walls: Footings for retaining walls should be founded on suitable native soils or properly placed compacted fill. Any undocumented fill or unsuitable soils should be removed within a 1:1 projection from the bottom edge of the footing to suitable native soils and replaced with properly placed compacted fill.
At-Grade Portion of Building Structure: Removals should extend a minimum depth of 5 feet below existing grade or 2 feet below the proposed footings, whichever is greater. In general, the envelope for removals should extend laterally a minimum horizontal distance of 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed improvements.
At-Grade Retaining Walls and Free-Standing Walls: Removals should extend a minimum of 3 feet below existing grade, or 2 feet below proposed footings, whichever is deeper. In general, the envelope for over-excavation should extend laterally a minimum horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the edges of the footings.
Bedrock/Fill Transitions: Structural footings and Mat foundations should not be placed on a bedrock and fill transition. In order to provide a uniform bearing, the bedrock portion of the bedrock/fill transition should be over-excavated a minimum of 2-foot below the bottom of proposed foundation and where practical extend 3 feet laterally beyond the edges of the proposed footings/foundation.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 20 May 26, 2023
Pavement and Hardscape Areas: Where not achieved by planned grading or remedial grading, we recommend that proposed pavement and hardscape areas be over-excavated to at least 2 feet below existing grade or so that they are underlain by at least 1-foot of compacted fill below the proposed finished subgrade (i.e., below planned aggregate base/asphalt concrete), whichever is greater. In general, the envelope for pavement and hardscape over-excavation should extend laterally a minimum lateral distance of 2 feet beyond the edges of the proposed improvements.
Local conditions may be encountered during excavation that could require additional over-excavation beyond the above noted minimum in order to obtain an acceptable removal bottom. The actual depths and lateral extents of grading will be determined by the geotechnical consultant, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading.
Removal areas should be accurately staked in the field by the Project Surveyor.
4.1.3 Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations up to approximately 15 feet are anticipated for construction of the basement. Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Excavations should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel or equipment are allowed to enter. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor.
Excavations should be sloped back to 1:1 or flatter or be properly shored. Vehicular traffic, stockpiles, and equipment storage should be set back from the perimeter of excavations a distance equivalent to a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation or 5 feet, whichever is greater. Once an excavation has been initiated, it should be backfilled as soon as practical. Prolonged exposure of temporary excavations may result in some localized instability. Excavations should be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to shore/fill them prior to weekends, holidays, or forecasted rain.
It should be noted that any excavation that extends below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection of an existing foundation will remove existing support of the structure foundation. Temporary shoring parameters are provided in Section 4.5.
4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation
In general, over-excavated removal bottoms and areas to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to a near-optimum moisture condition, and re-compacted per project recommendations.
Removal bottoms and areas to receive fill should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 21 May 26, 2023
4.1.5 Material for Fill
From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally considered suitable for use as general compacted fill (not retaining/basement wall backfill), provided they are screened of organic materials, construction debris and oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension).
From a geotechnical viewpoint, any required import soils for general fill (i.e., nonretaining wall backfill) should consist of clean, granular soils of “Very Low” to “Low” expansion potential (expansion index 50 or less based on American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] D 4829), and free of organic materials, construction debris and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Import for basement/retaining wall backfill should meet the criteria outlined in the following paragraph. Source samples should be provided to the geotechnical consultant for laboratory testing a minimum of four working days prior to any planned importation.
Basement/retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) per ASTM Test Method D1140 (or ASTM D6913/D422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829).
Soils should also be screened of organic materials, construction debris, and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The site contains soils that are not suitable for retaining wall backfill due to their fines content, therefore import or potentially select grading and stockpiling of site soils will be required by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. The contractor should assume imports will be required for backfill of retaining walls.
Aggregate base (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) should conform to the requirements of Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for untreated base materials (except processed miscellaneous base) or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base.
4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills
Material to be placed as fill should be brought to above optimum moisture content (generally about 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to achieve adequate compaction. The soils encountered in our borings were generally above optimum moisture content. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Each lift should be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts. Generally, placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances and with observation and testing performed by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material as previously defined should be removed from site fills.
During backfill of excavations, the fill should be properly benched into firm and competent soils of temporary backcut slopes as it is placed in lifts.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 22 May 26, 2023
Aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557 at or slightly above optimum moisture content.
If gap-graded ¾-inch rock is used for backfill (around storm drain storage chambers, retaining wall backfill, etc.) it will require compaction. Rock shall be placed in thin lifts (typically not exceeding 6 inches) and mechanically compacted with observation by geotechnical consultant. Backfill rock shall meet the requirements of ASTM D2321. Gapgraded rock is required to be wrapped in filter fabric to prevent the migration of fines into the rock backfill.
4.1.7 Trench and Retaining/Basement Wall Backfill and Compaction Bedding material used within the pipe zone should conform to the requirements of the current Greenbook and the pipe manufacturer. Where applicable, sand having a sand equivalent (SE) of 20 or greater (per Caltrans Test Method [CTM] 217) may be used to bed and shade the pipes within the bedding zone. Sand backfill should be densified by jetting or flooding and then tamped to ensure adequate compaction. Bedding sand should be from a natural source, manufactured sand from recycled material is not suitable for jetting. The onsite soils may generally be considered suitable as trench backfill (zone defined as 12 inches above the pipe to subgrade), provided the soils are screened of rocks greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension, construction debris and organic material.
Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (as outlined in Section “Material for Fill”) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557).
If gap-graded rock is used for trench backfill, refer to Section 4.1.6.
Basement/retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils meeting the criteria outlined in above Section 4.1.5. For basement/subterranean walls the select zone meeting the criteria outlined above should extend a minimum of a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward projection from the bottom of the basement wall subdrain, refer to Figure 3. For conventional retaining walls the limits of select backfill zone outlined above should extend at minimum ½ the height of the retaining wall or the width of the heel (if applicable), whichever is greater, refer to Figure 4. Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Jetting or flooding of retaining wall backfill materials should not be permitted.
In backfill areas where mechanical compaction of soil backfill is impractical due to space constraints, typically sand-cement slurry may be substituted for compacted backfill. The slurry should contain about one sack of cement per cubic yard. When set, such a mix typically has the consistency of compacted soil. Sand cement slurry placed near the surface within landscape areas should be evaluated for potential impacts on planned improvements.
A representative from LGC Geotechnical should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project recommendations.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 23 May 26, 2023
4.2 Foundation Recommendations
The site contains soils with an expansion index greater than 20 therefore mitigation measures will be required for planned foundations to minimize the impacts of expansive soils. Typical methods for design of foundations to resist expansive soils include the Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) procedure for conventional foundations and the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) method for post-tensioned foundations as referenced in Chapter 18 of the 2022 CBC. Other types of stiff slabs may be used in place of the WRI/ PTI methods provided that, in the opinion of the foundation structural designer, the alternative type of slab is at least as stiff and strong as that designed by the WRI/ PTI method to resist expansive soils.
Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion of project plans (i.e., foundation, grading and site layout plans) as well as completion of earthwork.
4.2.1 Preliminary Conventional Foundation Design Parameters Given that the onsite soils are expansive, the foundation systems shall be designed for effects of expansive soil. Conventional foundations may be designed in accordance with Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) procedure for slab-on-ground foundations per Section 1808 of the 2022 CBC to resist expansive soils. The following preliminary soil parameters may be used:
Effective Plasticity Index: 30
Climatic Rating: Cw = 15
Reinforcement: Per structural designer.
Minimum Perimeter Embedment Depth: 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Moisture condition at-grade slab subgrade soils to 120% of optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches prior to trenching for footings. (Not required for basement foundations.)
The recommended moisture content should be maintained up to the time of concrete placement.
4.2.2 Provisional Post‐Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters The geotechnical parameters provided herein may be used for post-tensioned slab foundations. These parameters have been determined in general accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI, 2012) Standard Requirements (PTI DC 10.5), referenced in Chapter 18 of the 2022 CBC. In utilizing these parameters, the foundation engineer should design the foundation system in accordance with the allowable deflection criteria of applicable codes and the requirements of the structural designer/architect.
Our design parameters are based on our experience with similar projects and the anticipated nature of the soil (with respect to expansion potential). Please note that implementation of our recommendations will not eliminate foundation movement (and related distress) should the moisture content of the subgrade soils fluctuate. It is the
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 24 May 26, 2023
intent of these recommendations to help maintain the integrity of the proposed structures and reduce (not eliminate) movement, based upon the anticipated site soil conditions. Should future owners not properly maintain the areas surrounding the foundation, for example by overwatering, then we anticipate for highly expansive soils the maximum differential movement of the perimeter of the foundation to the center of the foundation to be on the order of a couple of inches. Soils of lower expansion potential are anticipated to show less movement.
4.2.3 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance
The recommendations specific to anticipated site soil conditions are presented in Table
2. The subgrade moisture condition of the building pad soils should be maintained at the recommended moisture content up to the time of concrete placement. This moisture content should be maintained around the immediate perimeter of the slab during construction and up to occupancy of the building structures.
The geotechnical parameters provided herein assume that if the areas adjacent to the foundation are planted and irrigated, these areas will be designed with proper drainage and adequately maintained so that ponding, which causes significant moisture changes below the foundation, does not occur. Our recommendations do not account for excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape design. Plants should only be provided with sufficient irrigation for life and not overwatered to saturate subgrade soils. Sunken planters placed adjacent to the foundation should either be designed with an efficient drainage system or liners to prevent moisture infiltration below the foundation. Some lifting of the perimeter foundation beam should be expected even with properly constructed planters.
In addition to the factors mentioned above, roots that extend near the vicinity of foundations can cause distress to foundations. Trees/large shrubs should not be planted closer to the foundations than a distance equal to half the mature height of the tree or 20 feet, whichever is more conservative unless specifically provided with root barriers to prevent root growth below the building foundation.
The owner must perform periodic maintenance during hot and dry periods to ensure that adequate watering has been provided to keep soil from separating or pulling back from the foundation. It is critical to maintain a constant level of soil-moisture. The owner and any property management personnel should be aware of the potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing potentially expansive soils to become too dry. Expansive soils can undergo shrinkage during drying, and swelling during the rainy winter season, or when irrigation is resumed. This can result in distress to building structures and hardscape improvements.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 25 May 26, 2023
TABLE 2
Provisional Geotechnical Parameters for Post‐Tensioned Foundation Slab Design1 Parameter PT Slab with Perimeter
Embedment/Footing
Center Lift
Edge moisture variation distance, em
Center lift, ym
9.0 feet
0.50 inch
Edge Lift
Edge moisture variation distance, em
Edge lift, ym
4.7 feet
1.1 inch
Minimum Perimeter footing/thickened edge embedment
below finish grade 18 inches
1. For preliminary design purposes. Confirmation and further evaluation is needed at the completion of grading.
4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines
The following is for informational purposes only since slab underlayment (e.g., moisture retarder, sand or gravel layers for concrete curing and/or capillary break) is unrelated to the geotechnical performance of the foundation and thereby not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. Post-construction moisture migration should be expected below the foundation. The foundation engineer/architect should determine whether the use of a capillary break (sand or gravel layer), in conjunction with the vapor retarder, is necessary or required by code. Sand layer thickness and location (above and/or below vapor retarder) should also be determined by the foundation engineer/architect.
4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance
The following minimum footing widths and embedments are recommended for the corresponding allowable bearing pressures for both continuous wall and column spread footings. These net bearing pressures (exclusive of the weight of the footings) are for dead plus live loads and may be increased one-third for short-term, transient, wind and seismic loading.
For any bearing pressures less than 2,000 psf, a minimum footing width of 1.5 feet and embedment depth of 1.5 feet below lowest adjacent grade should be used. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5 horizontal feet to 1-foot vertical) conditions only.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 26 May 26, 2023
TABLE 3
Allowable Soil Bearing Pressures
Location
Static Bearing
Pressure
(psf)
Minimum Footing
Width
(feet)
Minimum Footing
Embedment**
(feet)
Basement
Level *
3,500 3 2
3,000 2 2
2,500 1.5 1.5
At-Grade
3,000 3 2
2,500 2 1.5
2,000 1.5 1.5
*Basement level at a minimum of 10 feet below existing grade. **Refers to minimum depth below lowest adjacent grade.
Soil settlement is a function of footing dimensions and applied soil bearing pressure. In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity, assumed structural loads, and provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, foundation settlement due to structural loads is anticipated to be on the order of 1-inch. Differential settlement should be anticipated between nearby columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. Settlement estimates should be evaluated by LGC Geotechnical when foundation plans are available.
Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. For concrete/soil frictional resistance, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be assumed with dead-load forces. For concrete/soil frictional resistance with a keyway extended below the retaining wall base, an increased allowable coefficient of friction of
0.35 may be assumed with dead-load forces. An allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 240 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,400 psf may be used for the sides of footings poured against properly compacted fill. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 320 pcf (maximum of 3,200 psf) for short duration seismic loading. This passive pressure is applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be used in combination without reduction. We recommend that the upper foot of passive resistance be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete or asphalt. The provided allowable passive pressures are based on a factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, respectively.
4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Basement/Retaining Walls Design Basement walls up to about 10 feet in height are anticipated for the site. Lateral earth pressures for approved native soils in a cut condition and approved sandy soils meeting indicated project requirements are provided below. Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf per foot of depth (or pcf). These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the retaining wall designer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 27 May 26, 2023
weight of soil over the wall footing.
If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for “active” pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized, and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for “atrest” conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the “passive” resistance. The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions and a drainage system will be installed and maintained to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures. Typically, a basement wall constructed directly against temporary shoring is provided with a composite drainage mat (e.g., Miradrain, etc.) placed over the lagging and collected at the wall bottom by a manifold pipe system properly outletted to a suitable discharge point. Basement walls not requiring shoring due to adequate horizontal distance for temporary slopes are subsequently backfilled with sandy soils and a subdrain pipe is wrapped in drainage aggregate and filter fabric (e.g., “burrito” subdrain) and properly outletted to a suitable discharge point (Refer to Figures 3 and 4). If a sump pump is required to outlet accumulated water behind retaining/basement walls, the owner and any subsequent owners must be made aware that it will be their responsibility to ensure the sump pump continues to perform properly for the life of the project. Basement/retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. Please note that waterproofing and specification of the drainage mat and outlet system are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical consultant. Refer to Figures 3 and 4.
The following lateral earth pressures are presented on Table 4A for design of site basement/retaining walls constructed against the shoring wall (i.e., cut condition not requiring backfill).
TABLE 4A
Lateral Earth Pressures – Cut Condition
Condition
Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cut Condition w/Shoring Wall
Level Backfill
Active 50
At-Rest 75
The following lateral earth pressures are presented on Table 4B are for backfilled basement/retaining walls using approved select granular soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve per ASTM D-421/422) and a maximum Expansion Index of 20 (per ASTM D-4829). The retaining wall designer should clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans the required sandy soil backfill criteria. If the limits of select sandy backfill indicated on Figures 3 and 4 cannot be extended due to property line constraints, the lateral earth pressures provided in Table 4A should be used.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 28 May 26, 2023
TABLE 4B
Lateral Earth Pressures – Conventional Backfilled
Basement/Retaining Wall
Condition
Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight
(pcf)
Approved Sandy Backfill
Material
Level Backfill
Active 35
At-Rest 55
Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the basement/retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward projection from the bottom of the proposed basement/retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining structure. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, basement/retaining walls adjacent to streets should be designed to resist vehicular traffic if applicable. Uniform surcharges may be estimated using the applicable coefficient of lateral earth pressure using a rectangular distribution. A factor of 0.3 and 0.5 may be used for the active and at-rest conditions, respectively. The vertical traffic surcharge may be determined by the structural designer. The retaining/basement wall designer should contact the geotechnical consultant for any required geotechnical input in estimating any applicable surcharge loads.
If required, the basement/retaining wall designer may use a seismic lateral earth pressure increment of 10 pcf for a level backfill. This increment should be applied in addition to the provided static lateral earth pressure using a triangular distribution with the resultant acting at H/3 in relation to the base of the retaining structure (where H is the retained height). Per Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC, the seismic lateral earth pressure is applicable to structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D through F for retaining wall structures supporting more than 6 feet of backfill height. For the restrained, at-rest condition, the seismic increment may be added to the applicable active lateral earth pressure (in lieu of the at-rest lateral earth pressure) when analyzing short duration seismic loading. It should be noted that the provided seismic lateral earth pressures are for a maximum basement/retaining wall of 14 feet in height. While not anticipated at this time, if a basement/retaining wall greater than 14 feet in height is proposed, the retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical consultant for specific seismic lateral earth pressure increments based on the configuration of the planned retaining wall structures. Seismic lateral earth pressures are estimated using the procedure outlined by the Structural Engineers Association of California (Lew, et al, 2010) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2011).
Soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) are provided in Section 4.3. Earthwork considerations (temporary backcuts, backfill, compaction, etc.) for basement/retaining walls are provided in Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 29 May 26, 2023
4.5 Temporary Shoring
Temporary shoring up to about 12 feet in height is anticipated to be required in portions of the site for construction of the basement. The provided lateral earth pressures for temporary shoring assume a fully drained condition and do not include any hydrostatic pressures. Typical cantilever temporary shoring, where deflection of the shoring will not impact the performance of adjacent structures, may be designed using the active equivalent fluid pressures of 35 pounds per square foot (psf) per foot of depth (or pcf) for a level backfill. Braced shoring may be used in areas where the shoring will be located close to existing structures in order to limit shoring defections or required due to the proposed depth of excavation. Braced shoring with a level backfill may be designed using a uniform soil pressure of 23H in pounds per square foot (psf), where H is equal to the depth in feet of the excavation being shored. These lateral earth pressures do not include any hydrostatic pressures and any slopes above the temporary shoring will increase the above-noted lateral earth pressures and can be provided on a case-bycase basis.
Any building, equipment or traffic loads located within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection from the base of the shoring should be added to the applicable lateral earth pressure. Refer to the discussion provided in above section “Lateral Earth Pressures for Basement/Retaining Wall Design.” The shoring designer should contact the geotechnical consultant for any required geotechnical input in estimating any applicable lateral surcharge loads.
For piles generally spaced a minimum of 2.5 pile diameters on-center, an allowable passive pressure of 550 pcf may be used for passive resistance below the excavation. The provided passive pressure includes an arching factor of 2 (e.g., 275 pcf x 2) and should be limited to a maximum of 12 times the value provided above (e.g., 550 pcf to a maximum of 6,600 psf). The passive pressure is only applicable for level (5 horizontal feet to 1-foot vertical or flatter) soil conditions. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be made to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavation below the excavated level should be of adequate strength to transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils. The structural designer should incorporate the appropriate factor of safety and/or load factor in the design. The provided allowable passive pressure is based on a factor of safety of 1.3.
Continuous lagging should be provided between the soldier piles. Lagging should be placed in a timely manner during excavation in order to minimize potential spalling and sloughing. Careful installation of the lagging will be necessary to achieve bearing against the retained earth. The backfill of the lagging should consist of sand-cement slurry. Means and methods are per the contractor in order to ultimately ensure full bearing (direct contact) of retained earth to the lagging. The soldier piles should be designed for the full anticipated lateral earth pressure; however, the pressure on the lagging will be less due to soil arching between the piles. We recommend that the lagging be designed for the recommended earth pressure but may be limited to a maximum value of 400 psf if surcharge loads are not present. Lagging placed behind the solider piles will negate the soil arching effect.
It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of the shored embankment. It should be realized, however, that some deflection will occur. The shoring should be designed to limit deflection to within tolerable limits. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary. In areas where less deflection is desired, such as adjacent
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 30 May 26, 2023
to existing settlement sensitive improvements, the shoring should be designed for higher lateral earth pressures.
During construction, monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of the soldier piles as determined by the shoring designer. It would also be prudent to perform a detailed survey of any improvements to be supported above the planned shoring prior to and during the shoring installation. The survey should include topographic data and documentation of the condition of the existing improvements, including cracks or signs of distress.
The contractor should evaluate the potential drilling conditions when planning the installation methods, refer to Section “Boreholes for Temporary Shoring” (Section 4.11) and the boring logs (Appendix B).
4.6 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control
From a geotechnical perspective, we recommend that compacted finished grade soils adjacent to proposed structure be sloped away from the proposed structure and towards an approved drainage device or unobstructed swale. Drainage swales, wherever feasible, should not be constructed within 5 feet of buildings. Where lot and building geometry necessitates that the drainage swales be routed closer than 5 feet to structural foundations, we recommend the use of area drains together with drainage swales. Drainage swales used in conjunction with area drains should be designed by the project civil engineer so that a properly constructed and maintained system will prevent ponding within 5 feet of the foundation. Code compliance of grades is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant.
Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Overwatering must be avoided.
4.7 Subsurface Water Infiltration
Recent regulatory changes have occurred that mandate that stormwater be infiltrated below grade rather than collected in a conventional storm drain system. Typically, a combination of methods are implemented to reduce surface water runoff and increase infiltration including; permeable pavements/pavers for roadways and walkways, directing surface water runoff to grass-lined swales, retention areas, and/or drywells, etc.
It should be noted that collecting and concentrating surface water for the purpose of intentionally infiltrating it below grade, conflicts with the geotechnical engineering objective of directing surface water away from slopes, structures and other improvements. The geotechnical stability and integrity of a site is reliant upon appropriately handling surface water. In general, the vast majority of geotechnical distress issues are directly related to improper drainage. In general, distress in the form of movement of improvements could occur as a result of soil saturation and loss of soil support, expansion, internal soil erosion, collapse and/or settlement.
Our field evaluation of the site indicates that significant amounts of fine-grained silts and clays
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 31 May 26, 2023
would be expected to have very low rates of infiltration. We do not recommend that surface water be intentionally infiltrated into subsurface soils at this site.
4.8 Preliminary Pavement Sections
The following preliminary minimum asphalt concrete (AC) pavement sections are provided in Table 5 based on an assumed R-value of 5 and assumed Traffic Index (TI) values. These recommendations must be confirmed with R-value testing of representative near-surface soils at the completion of grading and after underground utilities have been installed and backfilled. A traffic study has not been conducted by or provided to our firm for this project and our opinion regarding the applicability of the assumed traffic indices is judgmental. Determination of the TI is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. Final pavement sections should be confirmed by the project civil/transportation engineer based upon the final design Traffic Index. If requested, LGC Geotechnical will provide sections for alternate TI values.
TABLE 5
Asphalt Concrete Pavement Section Options
Pavement Area
Assumed
Traffic
Index*
Section Thickness
(inches)
Asphalt
Concrete
Aggregate
Base
Auto Parking 4.5 4.0 5.5
Circulation Drives (little to no truck traffic) 5.0 4.0 7.5 Truck Driveways (limited truck traffic) 6.0 5.0 9.5
*Determination of the Traffic Index is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant Typically, pavers for vehicular traffic are 80 mm (approximately 3 and 1/8 inches) thick. Based on a TI of 5.0, concrete pavers should be underlain with a minimum of 11 inches of compacted aggregate base. A herringbone pattern is recommended for pavers subject to vehicular traffic.
Manufacturer’s specific recommendations regarding the pavers (required bedding and jointing sand, fabric, edge restraint, etc.) should be implemented during design and construction. It should be noted that pavers are typically installed on 1-inch of bedding sand that is placed on the compacted aggregate base. For a design TI other than 5.0, alternate aggregate base thickness underling the pavers can be provided.
The thicknesses shown are for minimum thicknesses. Increasing the thickness of any or all of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement/pavers experiencing distress during its service life. The above recommendations are based on the assumption that proper maintenance and irrigation of the areas adjacent to the roadway will occur throughout the design life of the pavement/pavers. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement/pavers.
Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in the previous section “Site Earthwork” and the related sub-sections of this report.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 32 May 26, 2023
4.9 Soil Corrosivity
Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the corrosion potential of soils to buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the results of our testing with regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessary.
Corrosion testing indicated soluble sulfate content values of 0.08 percent or less, chloride content of 80 parts per million (ppm), pH of 7.3 and minimum resistivity of 1,840 ohm-cm. Based on Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (2021), soils are considered corrosive if the pH is 5.5 or less, or the chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater, or the sulfate concentration is 1,500 ppm (0.15 percent) or greater.
Based on our experience in the area, the near-surface soils should be considered to have an exposure class of “S2” per ACI 318-19, Table 19.3.1.1 with respect to sulfates. This must be verified based on as-graded conditions.
4.10 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork
Nonstructural concrete flatwork (such as walkways, patio slabs, etc.) has a potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete may be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 6 on the following page. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along control joints; but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 33 May 26, 2023
TABLE 6
Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork for Expansive Soils
Flatwork City Sidewalk
Curb and Gutters
Minimum
Thickness (in.) 5 City/Agency
Standard
Presoaking Presoak to 12
inches
City/Agency
Standard
Reinforcement
No. 3 at 24
inches on
centers
City/Agency
Standard
Thickened Edge
(in.) City/Agency
Standard
Crack Control
Joints
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint
to a minimum
of 1/3 the
concrete
thickness
City/Agency
Standard
Maximum Joint
Spacing 6 feet City/Agency
Standard
Aggregate Base
Thickness (in.) City/Agency
Standard
4.11 Boreholes for Temporary Shoring
Boreholes for temporary shoring should be plumb and free of loose or softened material.
Extreme care in drilling, placement of reinforcement steel, and the pouring of concrete will be essential to avoid excessive disturbance of borehole walls. Immediately after drilling the soldier pile steel section should be installed and the concrete pumped. Where applicable, concrete placement by pumping or tremie tube to the bottom of borehole excavation is recommended. No pier borehole should be left open overnight. We recommend that pier boreholes not be drilled immediately adjacent to another pier until the concrete in the other pier has attained its initial set. A representative from LGC Geotechnical should be onsite during the drilling of piers to verify the assumptions made during the design stages.
Our borings encountered zones of sands with relatively low fines content (i.e., minimal silts and clays) and these soils are very susceptible to caving. Difficult drilling, caving of drilled holes and encountering oversized material should be anticipated. The contractor should anticipate that any borehole left open for any extended period of time will likely experience additional caving and potential perched groundwater typically from local irrigation.
The contractor should carefully evaluate the onsite geotechnical conditions as it relates to selecting an appropriate construction technique (including, but not limited to, auger type, construction sequence, etc.) for installation of temporary shoring. Refer to the boring logs provided in Appendix B.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 34 May 26, 2023
4.12 Geotechnical Plan Review
When available, grading, retaining wall and foundation plans should be reviewed by LGC Geotechnical in order to verify our geotechnical recommendations are implemented. Updated recommendations and/or additional fieldwork may be necessary.
4.13 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC Geotechnical. Geotechnical observation and testing is required per Section 1705 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC).
Geotechnical observation and/or testing should be performed by LGC Geotechnical at the following stages:
During temporary shoring installation;
During grading (e.g., subgrade, removal bottoms, fill placement, etc); During basement and retaining wall backfill and compaction; During utility trench backfill and compaction;
After presoaking concrete-flatwork subgrades prior to placement of aggregate base or concrete;
Preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base; After building and wall footing excavation and prior to placing reinforcement and/or concrete; and
When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent to issuance of this report.
Project No. 22023‐01 Page 35 May 26, 2023
5.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.
This report is based on data obtained from limited observations of the site, which have been extrapolated to characterize the site. While the scope of services performed is considered suitable to adequately characterize the site geotechnical conditions relative to the proposed development, no practical evaluation can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the anticipated geotechnical conditions in connection with a subject site. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during grading and construction.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the other consultants (at a minimum the civil engineer, structural engineer, landscape architect) and incorporated into their plans. The contractor should properly implement the recommendations during construction and notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe, or unsuitable.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if LGC Geotechnical has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client, any use of or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk.
In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and modification.
HS-2
T.D. = 61.4'
HS-1
T.D. = 61.5'
HS-3
HS-4
T.D. = 60.4'
T.D. = 61.5'
LEGEND
Approximate Location of Hollow Stem
Auger Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With
Total Depth in Feet
Approximate Limits of This Report
HS-4
T.D. = 60.4'
LA PAZ ROAD
FIGURE 2
Boring Location Map ENG. / GEOL.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT NAME
SCALE
DATE
1" = 50'
May 2023
Cape Point - La Paz Village
BTZ/KBC
22023-01 LGC Geotechnical, Inc.
131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200
San Clemente, CA 92672
TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142
Minimum 4" Diameter Schedule 40
Perforated PVC Pipe to Flow to Drainage
Device or Sump Pump per Project Civil
Engineer
Proposed Building Structure by Others
Backcut/Shoring per OSHA
1:1 (H:V) or flatter slope
Earthwork Per Soils Report, Slab Underlay Per
Foundation Engineer/Architect
Compacted Native Soil Cap
Select Granular Backfill (Expansion Index £ 20, maximum 35% fines) Minimum 90% Relative Compaction (ASTM D1557)
NOTE : Granular backfill may be substituted with 3/4 inch crushed compacted rock wrapped in filter fabric.
Geotechnical drainage detail will not prevent water seepage into structure, it is only to prevent build up of water pressure against wall.
EXTENT OF SELECT BACKFILL ZONE
Minimum 1 Cubic Foot Per Linear Foot Burrito Type
Subdrain, Consisting of 3
4 Inch Crushed Rock Wrapped
in Mirafi 140N or Approved Equivalent
1 foot min.
Common Backfill
Minimum 90% Relative Compaction (ASTM D1557)
Waterproofing by Waterproofing
Engineer/Architect or Design
Engineer to be Protected During
Backfill by Contractor
(12" Minimum / 18" Maximum)
1 foot min.
1 1
FIGURE 3
Basement Subterranean
Structure Backfill/Subdrain
Detail
DATE May 2023
ENG. / GEOL.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT NAME
SCALE
BTZ / KBC
Not to Scale
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED
PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE PER
PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER
SAND BACKFILL
(EXPANSION INDEX £ 20,
MAXIMUM 35% FINES)
NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED
TO MINIMUM 90% RELATIVE
COMPACTION PER ASTM1557-D
MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT
BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF
3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN
MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT
FOOTING/WALL PER DESIGN ENGINEER
WATER PROOFING PER DESIGN ENGINEER
12" MINIMUM
18" MAXIMUM
BACKCUT PER OSHA
EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM
HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER WALL HEIGHT, H
NOTE:
PLACEMENT OF SUBDRAIN
AT BASE OF WALL WILL NOT
PREVENT SATURATION OF SOILS
BELOW AND / OR IN FRONT OF WALL
FIGURE 4
Retaining Wall
Backfill Detail
DATE May 2023
ENG. / GEOL.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT NAME
SCALE
BTZ / KBC
Not to Scale
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Appendix A
References
Project No. 22023‐01 A‐1 May 26, 2023
APPENDIX A
References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D420 – D5876.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2019, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318- 19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19), June 2019.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2017.
_________, 2018, Standard 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Supplement 1, effective: December 12, 2018.
California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Volumes 1 and 2, dated July 2022.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS), (Previously California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG]), 2001a, Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the San Juan Capistrano 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Open File Report 053, dated 2001. _________, 2001b, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle, Official Map, Released December 21, 2001.
_________, 2008, California Geological Society Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.
_________, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018. _________, 2023, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, web application, retrieved May 2023, from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZapp/
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2021, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, dated May 2021.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2011, LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Transportation Geotechnical Features and Structural Foundation, Reference Manual, Publication No. FHWA11-032, August, 2011.
Grant, Lisa B., Mueller, Karl J., Gath, Eldon M., Cheng, Hai, Edwards, R. Lawrence, Munro, Rosalind, Kennedy, George L., 1999, Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California, Geology, volume 27, no. 11, pgs.: 1031-1034, dated November 1999.
Historical Aerials, 2023, viewed May 22, 2022, Aerial photos viewed from: 1938, 1946, 1952, 1967, 1972, 1980, 1985, 1995, 2000, 2010, 2018, and 2020, https://www.historicaerials.com/
Project No. 22023‐01 A‐2 May 26, 2023
Lew, et al, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Basements, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Convention Proceedings.
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI), 2012, Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow PostTensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils, PTI DC10.5-12.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2023, Seismic Design Maps, Retrieved May 2, 2023, from https://seismicmaps.org/
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update) (v4.2.0), Retrieved May 2, 2023, from:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
WHA, 2022, Concept Plan – Podium Senior Living, La Paz Village, Laguna Hills, CA, dated November 30, 2022.
Wire Reinforcement Institute, Inc., 1996, Design of Slab-On-Ground Foundations (August 1981), Update March 1996.
Appendix B
Field Exploration Logs
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL SO4 SULFATE CONTENT -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
475
470
465
460
455
450
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
4/27/2023
~479' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
@ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete, 3" Aggregate Base
R-1 7
27 37
107.8 24.4 CL @ 2.5' - Sandy CLAY: olive gray, very moist, hard SPT-1 3
5 10
22.7 ML @ 5' - Sandy SILT: olive gray, very moist, very stiff R-2 6
15 18
98.1 26.8 CL-ML @ 7.5' - Silty CLAY: olive gray, very moist, very stiff DS SPT-2 4
7 10
21.8 CL @ 10' - Sandy CLAY: olive gray, very moist, very stiff -#200 R-3 10
23 33
103.1 23.0 ML @ 15' - SILT: olive gray, very moist, hard CN SPT-3 7
12 18
22.6 CL @ 20' - Sandy CLAY: olive, very moist, hard -#200 R-4 12
27 47
103.4 22.8 @ 25' - CLAY: olive gray, very moist, hard B-1 Last Edited: 5/1/2023 EI
SO4
-#200
AL
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
445
440
435
430
425
420
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
4/27/2023
~479' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
SPT-4 8
18 43
18.9 SC @ 30' - Clayey SAND: olive, very moist, very dense -#200 R-5 47
50/5" 109.5 4.2 SM @ 35' - Silty SAND: very light brown, slightly moist, very dense
SPT-5 13
34 48
10.6 SM @ 40' - Silty SAND: gray, moist, very dense -#200 R-6 30
50/5" 96.5 3.9 @ 45' - Silty SAND: grayish brown, slightly moist, very dense
SPT-6 14
26 40
4.3 @ 50' - Silty SAND: olive yellow, slightly moist, very dense
R-7 50/5" 102.6 5.8 @ 55' - Silty SAND: light yellowish gray, slightly moist, very dense
90 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
85 80
75 70
65 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Drive Weight:
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Drilling Company:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Date:
60 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
415
410
405
400
395
390
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
4/27/2023
~479' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
SPT-7 11
21 36
22.6 ML @ 60' - Sandy SILT: grayish brown, very moist, hard Total Depth = 61.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Aquaphalt
on 4/27/2023
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
475
470
465
460
455
450
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2
4/27/2023
~477' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
@ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete, 4" Aggregate Base
SPT-1 3
5 10
24.6 CL @ 2.5' - CLAY: gray, very moist, very stiff
R-1 8
18 31
103.2 22.5 ML @ 5' - Sandy SILT: gray, very moist, hard SPT-2 3
7 12
23.7 CL @ 7.5' - CLAY: gray, very moist, very stiff
R-2 7
18 27
99.7 24.8 @ 10' - CLAY: Olive gray, very moist, hard AL SPT-3 7
27 35
19.7 ML @ 15' - Sandy SILT: grayish brown, very moist, hard R-3 13
27 40
103.7 21.9 @ 20' - Sandy SILT: pale brown, very moist, hard SPT-4 4
6 13
23.3 @ 25' - CLAY: grayish brown, very moist, very stiff B-1 Last Edited: 5/1/2023 CN
CL
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
445
440
435
430
425
420
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2
4/27/2023
~477' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
R-4 10
34 50/5"
106.7 18.9 SM @ 30' - Silty SAND: grayish brown, very moist, very dense
SPT-5 16
30 23
18.6 SC @ 35' - Clayey SAND: grayish brown, very moist, very dense
R-5 16
50/5" 103.9 21.0 ML @ 40' - Sandy SILT: olive, very moist, hard SPT-6 15
34 24
11.2 SC @ 45' - Clayey SAND: light yellowish brown, moist, very dense
R-6 35
50/4" 95.6 4.4 SM @ 50' - Silty SAND: grayish yellow, slightly moist, very dense
SPT-7 50/5" 9.7 GC @ 55' - Clayey Gravel with SAND: olive brown, moist, very dense
90 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
85 80
75 70
65 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Drive Weight:
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Drilling Company:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Date:
60 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
415
410
405
400
395
390
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2
4/27/2023
~477' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
R-7 15
32 50/5"
100.3 23.7 CL-ML @ 60' - Silty CLAY: olive brown, very moist, very stiff Total Depth = 61.4'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Caving: Hole Measured Approximately 37' After
Removal of the Augers
Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Aquaphalt
on 4/27/2023
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
475
470
465
460
455
450
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3
4/27/2023
~476' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
@ 0' - 4" Asphalt Concrete, 3" Aggregate Base
R-1 14
21 29
102.4 22.2 CL @ 2.5' - Sandy CLAY: olive, very moist, hard SPT-1 3
8 14
23.4 @ 5' - Sandy CLAY: olive, very moist, very stiff -#200 R-2 13
25 32
104.6 21.9 ML @ 7.5' - Sandy SILT: olive gray, very moist, hard SPT-2 4
8 12
22.4 @ 10' - Sandy SILT: olive, very moist, very stiff -#200 R-3 11
23 45
104.9 21.6 CL @ 15' - CLAY: olive gray, very moist, hard AL CN
SPT-3 5
15 26
18.6 @ 20' - Sandy CLAY: brownish gray, very moist, hard R-4 22
50/5" 111.7 16.3 SM @ 25' - Silty SAND: brownish gray, very moist, very dense B-1 Last Edited: 5/1/2023
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
445
440
435
430
425
420
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3
4/27/2023
~476' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
SPT-4 11
26 30
10.3 SM @ 30' - Silty SAND: grayish brown, moist, very dense R-5 40
50/5" 90.3 6.0 @ 35' - Silty SAND: yellowish brown, slightly moist, very dense
SPT-5 13
14 24
22.1 ML @ 40' - Silt with SAND: olive gray, very moist, hard R-6 15
50/5" 100.5 24.4 CL-SM @ 45' - CLAY transitioning to Silty SAND: grayish brown, very moist, hard/very dense
SPT-6 15
17 19
20.9 SC @ 50' - Clayey SAND: brown, very moist, dense
R-7 19
30 48
100.7 24.5 ML @ 55' - Sandy SILT: grayish brown, very moist, hard
90 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
85 80
75 70
65 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Drive Weight:
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Drilling Company:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Date:
60 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
415
410
405
400
395
390
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3
4/27/2023
~476' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
SPT-7 11
15 18
22.6 ML @ 60' - Sandy SILT: grayish brown, very moist, hard Total Depth = 61.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Caving: Hole Measured Approximately 37' After
Removal of the Augers
Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Aquaphalt
on 4/27/2023
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
470
465
460
455
450
445
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4
4/27/2023
~473' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
@ 0' - 4" Asphalt Concrete, 3" Aggregate Base EI
CR
SPT-1 3
5 7
24.4 CL @ 2.5' - Sandy CLAY: grayish brown, very moist, stiff R-1 7
13 19
102.7 22.3 @ 5' - CLAY: olive gray, very moist, very stiff AL CN
SPT-2 3
6 8
24.7 @ 7.5' - Sandy CLAY: grayish brown, very moist, very stiff
R-2 7
18 25
99.7 25.4 CL-ML @ 10' - Silty CLAY: olive gray, very moist, hard CN SPT-3 5
7 10
25.4 CL @ 15' - CLAY: gray, very moist, hard
R-3 5
23 37
101.1 24.4 @ 20' - CLAY: gray, very moist, hard
SPT-4 5
13 18
21.7 ML @ 25' - Sandy SILT: grayish brown, very moist, hard B-1 Last Edited: 5/1/2023
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
440
435
430
425
420
415
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4
4/27/2023
~473' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
R-4 18
50/5" 103.4 10.6 SM @ 30' - Silty SAND: light brown, moist, very dense SPT-5 12
20 50/5"
17.5 SC @ 35' - Clayey SAND: yellowish brown, moist, very dense
R-5 35
50/5" 110.5 3.9 SP-SC @ 40' - SAND with Clay: yellowish brown, slightly moist, very dense
SPT-6 15
40 50/5"
8.5 @ 45' - SAND with Clay: yellowish brown, moist, very dense
R-6 50/5" 126.0 2.0 SP-SM @ 50' - SAND with Silt: light yellowish brown, slightly moist, very dense
SPT-7 50/5" 3.3 @ 55' - SAND with Silt: pale brown, slightly moist, very dense
90 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
85 80
75 70
65 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Drive Weight:
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Drilling Company:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Date:
60 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
410
405
400
395
390
385
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4
4/27/2023
~473' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Cape Point - La Paz Village
22023-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By BTZ/KBC
R-7 50/5" 91.3 11.0 SM @ 60' - Silty SAND: grayish brown, moist, very dense Total Depth = 60.4'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Caving: Hole Measured Approximately 37' After
Removal of the Augers
Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Aquaphalt
on 4/27/2023
Appendix C
Laboratory Test Results
Project No. 22023‐01 C‐1 May, 2023
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results.
Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on driven samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs.
Atterberg Limits: The liquid and plastic limits (“Atterberg Limits”) were determined per ASTM D4318 for engineering classification of fine-grained material and presented in the table below. The USCS soil classification indicated in the table below is based on the portion of sample passing the No. 40 sieve and may not necessarily be representative of the entire sample. The plots are provided in this Appendix.
Sample Location Liquid Limit
(%)
Plastic Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index (%)
USCS
Soil
Classification
HS-1 @ 10 ft 42 22 20 CL
HS-2 @ 10 ft 42 25 17 CL
HS-3 @ 15 ft 42 23 19 CL
HS-4 @ 5 ft 44 22 22 CL
Grain Size Distribution/Fines Content: Representative samples were dried, weighed, and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140). Where applicable, the portion retained on the No. 200 sieve was dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D6913 (sieve).
Sample Location Description % Passing #
200 Sieve
HS-1 @ 5 ft Sandy Silt 70
HS-1 @ 10 ft Sandy Clay 67
HS-1 @ 20 ft Sandy Clay 55
HS-1 @ 30 ft Clayey Sand 41
HS-1 @ 40 ft Silty Sand 14
HS-3 @ 5 ft Sandy Clay 61
HS-3 @ 10 ft Sandy Silt 55
APPENDIX C (Cont’d)
Laboratory Test Results
Project No. 22023‐01 C‐2 May, 2022
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected representative samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test per ASTM D4829. The results are presented in the table below.
Sample
Location
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential*
HS-1 @ 0-5 ft 64 Medium
HS-4 @ 0-5 ft 68 Medium
* Per ASTM D4829
Direct Shear: A direct shear test was performed on a driven samples, which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. The samples were tested under various normal loads using a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus (ASTM D3080). The plot is provided in this Appendix.
Consolidation: Consolidation tests were performed per ASTM D2435. Samples (2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height) were placed in a consolidometer and increasing loads were applied. The samples were allowed to consolidate under “double drainage” and total deformation for each loading step was recorded. The percent consolidation for each load step was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height.
The consolidation pressure curves are provided in this Appendix.
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The test results are presented in the table below.
Sample Location Sulfate Content
(ppm)
Sulfate Content
( %)
HS-1 @ 0-5 ft 753 0.08
HS-4 @ 0-5 ft 95 0.01
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested per CTM 422. The results are presented below.
Sample Location Chloride Content
(ppm)
HS-4 @ 0-5 ft 80
APPENDIX C (Cont’d)
Laboratory Test Results
Project No. 22023‐01 C‐3 May, 2022
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with CTM 643 and standard geochemical methods. The results are presented in the table below.
Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity
(ohm‐cm)
HS-4 @ 0-5 ft 7.3 1,840
HS-1 SPT-2 10' 67 42 22 20 CL
HS-2 R-2 10' - 42 25 17 CL
HS-3 R-3 15' - 42 23 19 CL
HS-4 R-1 5' - 44 22 22 CL
Passing No.
200 Sieve
(%)
Depth (ft)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
(ASTM D 4318) La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
Project Number:
Plasticity
Index (%) PI
22023-01
Date: May-23
Symbol Location.: Sample No.: USCS Plastic Limit
(%) PL
Liquid Limit
(%) LL
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 20 40 60 80 100
Plasticity Index (P.I.)
Liquid Limit (L.L.)
PLASTICITY CHART - CLASSIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
HS-4 B-1 0-5' 12.9 100.3 27.9 68 Medium
EXPANSION INDEX
(ASTM D 4829)
Project Number:
Date:
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
22023-01
May-23
Location Sample
No. Depth (ft)
Molding
Moisture
Content (%)
Initial Dry
Density (pcf)
Final
Moisture
Content (%)
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Classification1
HS-1 B-1 0-5' 12.6 100.4 27.8 64 Medium
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
05-23
Project No.: 22023-01
Sample Type:
Ring
Olive gray silty clay (CL-ML)
99.0 1.0012
30.5 La Paz Village, Laguna Hills DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
101.5
0.9821
28.9 0.500
0.934
0.522
0.0017
1.000
2.415
1.000
2.415
1.000
1.220
0.817
0.0017
2.000
1.889
1.506
0.0017
101.0
0.9918
29.6 Soil Identification: 26.76
98.3 26.76
97.5 98.5
1.000
2.415
26.76 Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
HS-1
R-2
7.5 0.00
0.50 1.00
1.50 2.00
2.50 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS HS-1, R-2 @ 7.5 Page 231 of 1981
Tested Sample:
HS-1 at 7.5 ft
32.7 Degrees 33.5 Degrees
0.60 ksf 0.18 ksf
Peak: At 0.30" Displacement:
DIRECT SHEAR PLOT
Project Number: 22023-01
Date: May-23
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
0 1
2 3
0123
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak At 0.30" Displacement
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 05/03/23
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 05/16/23
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):
Sample No.: Sample Type:
Soil Identification:
Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 197.80
Weight of Ring (g): 45.24
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9784
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 190.43
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 165.19
Weight of Container (g): 55.55
Initial Moisture Content (%) 23.0
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 103.1
Initial Saturation (%): 96
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0131
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 236.86
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 208.85
Weight of Container (g): 39.50
Final Moisture Content (%) 22.57
Final Dry Density (pcf): 105.5
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0388
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.73
Water Density (pcf): 62.43
0.10 0.0136 0.9995 0.00 0.05 0.652 0.05
0.25 0.0181 0.9950 0.05 0.50 0.645 0.45
0.50 0.0215 0.9917 0.12 0.83 0.641 0.71
1.00 0.0261 0.9870 0.22 1.30 0.635 1.08
2.00 0.0312 0.9820 0.35 1.81 0.628 1.46
2.00 0.0301 0.9830 0.35 1.70 0.630 1.35
4.00 0.0349 0.9782 0.49 2.18 0.625 1.69
8.00 0.0449 0.9683 0.65 3.17 0.611 2.52
16.00 0.0590 0.9541 0.82 4.59 0.590 3.77
4.00 0.0525 0.9606 0.68 3.94 0.599 3.26
1.00 0.0430 0.9701 0.52 2.99 0.612 2.47
0.25 0.0388 0.9743 0.41 2.57 0.617 2.16
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
22023-01
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive gray silt (ML)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)
15.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
HS-1
R-3
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)
0.580
0.590
0.600
0.610
0.620
0.630
0.640
0.650
0.660
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol HS-1, R-3 @ 15 Page 233 of 1981
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
HS-1 R-3 23.0 22.6 105.5
Olive gray silt (ML)
Project No.:
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
05-23
22023-01
Time Readings
103.1 0.617 96 100
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)
0.653
Void Ratio
15 0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 05/04/23
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 05/16/23
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):
Sample No.: Sample Type:
Soil Identification:
Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 198.25
Weight of Ring (g): 47.23
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9684
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 179.29
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 155.25
Weight of Container (g): 58.12
Initial Moisture Content (%) 24.8
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 100.7
Initial Saturation (%): 94
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0379
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 252.56
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 222.31
Weight of Container (g): 55.53
Final Moisture Content (%) 25.30
Final Dry Density (pcf): 102.7
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0724
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.81
Water Density (pcf): 62.43
0.10 0.0390 0.9989 0.00 0.11 0.741 0.11
0.25 0.0448 0.9931 0.04 0.69 0.731 0.65
0.50 0.0479 0.9900 0.09 1.00 0.727 0.91
1.00 0.0536 0.9844 0.15 1.56 0.718 1.41
1.00 0.0512 0.9867 0.15 1.33 0.722 1.18
2.00 0.0544 0.9835 0.25 1.65 0.718 1.40
4.00 0.0630 0.9749 0.37 2.51 0.705 2.14
8.00 0.0757 0.9622 0.49 3.78 0.685 3.29
16.00 0.0934 0.9445 0.65 5.55 0.657 4.90
4.00 0.0872 0.9507 0.51 4.93 0.665 4.42
1.00 0.0770 0.9609 0.39 3.91 0.681 3.52
0.25 0.0724 0.9656 0.28 3.45 0.687 3.17
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
22023-01
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive gray clay (CL)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)
10.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
HS-2
R-2
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)
0.640
0.660
0.680
0.700
0.720
0.740
0.760
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol HS-2, R-2 @ 10 Page 235 of 1981
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
HS-2 R-2 24.8 25.3 102.7
Olive gray clay (CL)
Project No.:
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
05-23
22023-01
Time Readings
100.7 0.687 94 100
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)
0.742
Void Ratio
10 0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
0.00 1.00
2.00 3.00
4.00 5.00
6.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 05/03/23
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 05/16/23
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):
Sample No.: Sample Type:
Soil Identification:
Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 198.44
Weight of Ring (g): 45.18
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9775
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 175.80
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 154.75
Weight of Container (g): 57.10
Initial Moisture Content (%) 21.6
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 104.9
Initial Saturation (%): 93
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0411
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 256.65
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 228.97
Weight of Container (g): 58.12
Final Moisture Content (%) 22.03
Final Dry Density (pcf): 106.9
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0670
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.75
Water Density (pcf): 62.43
0.10 0.0419 0.9992 0.00 0.08 0.636 0.08
0.25 0.0484 0.9927 0.04 0.73 0.626 0.69
0.50 0.0530 0.9882 0.09 1.19 0.619 1.10
1.00 0.0587 0.9824 0.16 1.76 0.611 1.60
2.00 0.0641 0.9771 0.24 2.30 0.604 2.06
2.00 0.0621 0.9790 0.24 2.10 0.607 1.86
4.00 0.0659 0.9752 0.33 2.48 0.602 2.15
8.00 0.0741 0.9670 0.45 3.30 0.591 2.85
16.00 0.0888 0.9523 0.57 4.77 0.569 4.20
4.00 0.0826 0.9585 0.47 4.15 0.577 3.68
1.00 0.0719 0.9692 0.40 3.08 0.593 2.68
0.25 0.0670 0.9741 0.34 2.59 0.600 2.25
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
22023-01
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive gray clay (CL)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)
15.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
HS-3
R-3
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)
0.560
0.570
0.580
0.590
0.600
0.610
0.620
0.630
0.640
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol HS-3, R-3 @ 15 Page 237 of 1981
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
HS-3 R-3 21.6 22.0 106.9
Olive gray clay (CL)
Project No.:
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
05-23
22023-01
Time Readings
104.9 0.600 93 100
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)
0.637
Void Ratio
15 0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4.00 4.50
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 05/04/23
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 05/16/23
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):
Sample No.: Sample Type:
Soil Identification:
Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 196.07
Weight of Ring (g): 45.05
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9711
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 184.12
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 157.71
Weight of Container (g): 39.49
Initial Moisture Content (%) 22.3
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 102.7
Initial Saturation (%): 91
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1156
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 232.43
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 203.99
Weight of Container (g): 36.57
Final Moisture Content (%) 23.24
Final Dry Density (pcf): 104.8
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1476
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.75
Water Density (pcf): 62.43
0.10 0.1170 0.9987 0.00 0.13 0.670 0.13
0.25 0.1220 0.9936 0.05 0.64 0.662 0.59
0.50 0.1263 0.9893 0.11 1.07 0.656 0.96
1.00 0.1329 0.9827 0.19 1.73 0.647 1.54
1.00 0.1308 0.9848 0.19 1.52 0.650 1.33
2.00 0.1356 0.9800 0.29 2.00 0.644 1.71
4.00 0.1453 0.9703 0.43 2.97 0.630 2.54
8.00 0.1570 0.9586 0.58 4.14 0.613 3.56
16.00 0.1729 0.9427 0.76 5.73 0.589 4.97
4.00 0.1659 0.9498 0.58 5.03 0.598 4.45
1.00 0.1536 0.9620 0.41 3.80 0.616 3.39
0.25 0.1476 0.9680 0.31 3.20 0.624 2.89
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
22023-01
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive gray clay (CL)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)
5.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
HS-4
R-1
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)
0.580
0.590
0.600
0.610
0.620
0.630
0.640
0.650
0.660
0.670
0.680
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol HS-4, R-1 @ 5 Page 239 of 1981
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
HS-4 R-1 22.3 23.2 104.8
Olive gray clay (CL)
Project No.:
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
05-23
22023-01
Time Readings
102.7 0.624 91 100
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)
0.672
Void Ratio
5 0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
0.00 1.00
2.00 3.00
4.00 5.00
6.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 05/04/23
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 05/16/23
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):
Sample No.: Sample Type:
Soil Identification:
Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 195.13
Weight of Ring (g): 44.76
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9773
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 190.53
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 163.25
Weight of Container (g): 56.00
Initial Moisture Content (%) 25.4
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 99.7
Initial Saturation (%): 99
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1193
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 251.90
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 223.24
Weight of Container (g): 57.11
Final Moisture Content (%) 23.61
Final Dry Density (pcf): 103.3
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1449
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.71
Water Density (pcf): 62.43
0.10 0.1195 0.9998 0.00 0.02 0.697 0.02
0.25 0.1237 0.9956 0.04 0.44 0.690 0.40
0.50 0.1266 0.9927 0.09 0.73 0.686 0.64
1.00 0.1317 0.9876 0.16 1.24 0.679 1.08
1.00 0.1297 0.9896 0.16 1.04 0.682 0.88
2.00 0.1330 0.9863 0.25 1.37 0.678 1.12
4.00 0.1410 0.9783 0.38 2.17 0.667 1.79
8.00 0.1516 0.9677 0.51 3.23 0.651 2.72
16.00 0.1669 0.9524 0.66 4.76 0.627 4.10
4.00 0.1608 0.9585 0.52 4.15 0.635 3.63
1.00 0.1507 0.9686 0.38 3.14 0.650 2.76
0.25 0.1449 0.9745 0.28 2.56 0.658 2.28
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
22023-01
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive gray silty clay (CL-ML)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)
10.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
HS-4
R-2
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)
0.620
0.630
0.640
0.650
0.660
0.670
0.680
0.690
0.700
0.710
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol HS-4, R-2 @ 10 Page 241 of 1981
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
HS-4 R-2 25.4 23.6 103.3
Olive gray silty clay (CL-ML)
Project No.:
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills
05-23
22023-01
Time Readings
99.7 0.658 99 100
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)
0.697
Void Ratio
10 0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4.00 4.50
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
Project Name: La Paz Village, Laguna Hills Tested By : G. Berdy Date: 05/03/23 Project No. : 22023-01 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 05/16/23 Boring No. HS-4
Sample No. B-1
Sample Depth (ft) 0-5
0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00
100.41
61 4
860
7:30/8:15
45 21.6302
21.6279
0.0023
94.64 95
ml of Extract For Titration (B) 15
ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C) 0.6
PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 80
PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 80
7.28 20.6
Moisture Content (%)
Beaker No.
CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422
Wt. of Crucible (g)
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)
Temperature °C
pH Value
Duration of Combustion (min)
Soil Identification:
Time In / Time Out
pH TEST, DOT California Test 643
Furnace Temperature (°C)
Weight of Container (g)
Crucible No.
Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Olive CL
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
Project Name: Tested By : Date:
Project No. : Checked By: J. Ward Date:
Boring No.: Depth (ft.) :
Sample No. : B-1
Container No.
Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
Box Constant
Olive CL
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)
30.69 Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
La Paz Village, Laguna Hills 05/08/23
05/16/23
0-5
22023-01
HS-4
G. Berdy
SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
pH Temp. (°C)
Soil pH
1900
2100
0.00 1.00
MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
1840 32.5 95 80 7.28 20.6
4 40
3 50 38.36 2100 130.33
1900
Min. Resistivity
DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 643 (%) (ppm) (ppm)
DOT CA Test 643
1.000
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)
Moisture Content Sulfate Content
5 1
2 Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
30 Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
3300
Soil Identification:*
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.
23.02 3300 Wt. of Container (g)
0.00 0.00
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Specimen
No.
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Moisture Content (%)
Project Name: La Paz Village, Laguna Hills Tested By : G. Berdy Date: 05/03/23 Project No. : 22023-01 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 05/16/23 Boring No. HS-1
Sample No. B-1
Sample Depth (ft) 0-5
0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00
100.34
4 2
860
7:30/8:15
45 28.7368
28.7185
0.0183
753.04
753
ml of Extract For Titration (B)
ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C)
PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B
PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis N/A
N/A
Moisture Content (%)
Beaker No.
CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422
Wt. of Crucible (g)
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)
Temperature °C
pH Value
Duration of Combustion (min)
Soil Identification:
Time In / Time Out
pH TEST, DOT California Test 643
Furnace Temperature (°C)
Weight of Container (g)
Crucible No.
Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Olive CL
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
Appendix D
General Earthwork & Grading Specifications
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading
1.0 General
1.1 Intent
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (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.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moistureconditioning 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 project 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 “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 1
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 personnel will be available for observation and testing. 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. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction.
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). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor.
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 over-excavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 2
2.3 Over-excavation
In addition to removals and over-excavations 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 over-excavated 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 over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 3
3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of the geotechnical consultant. 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).
4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.
4.5 Compaction Testing
Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify 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).
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 4
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only.
The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.
7.2 All 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 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 5
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 6 the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.5 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.
Exhibit C
MNWD Engineering Feasibility Letter
February 29, 2024
Sean Myers
[email protected]
RE: Proposed Development located at La Paz Road 25260 Laguna Hills- La Paz Village Sr Housing (180 units)
Dear Customer:
Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) has investigated the proposed development at the above referenced location. A Will Serve Letter will be sent to the City of Laguna Hills, once Development plans have been reviewed and approved, and all required permitting steps are complete with MNWD Engineering. This letter is not to be interpreted as MNWD’s approval for a municipal Grading or Building permit.
Moulton Niguel Water District will service the above-mentioned project for water, recycled, and wastewater service, and preliminary review suggests available water supply and sewer capacity to support the project. This project is completely within MNWD's boundaries. The availability of water service is subject to the suppliers of water to Moulton Niguel Water District continuing to honor their contractual obligation relative to the amount of water to be supplied. Moulton Niguel Water District can make no representations as to the future intention of said suppliers in this regard.
This indication of MNWD’s ability to serve the above-referenced project is conditional upon the following MNWD Permitting requirements:
Improvement Plans
Available capacity in the existing infrastructure will be determined once this development has received an Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Water Availability Form with required fire flows identified, and have this form submitted to the MNWD for processing. This will be used to assess whether water system upgrades/upsizing is required. Water main upsizing and looping is anticipated for this location, sewer main upsizing is not anticipated for this location. Additional items required for submittal from the developer or project manager are:
• Recycled water shall be required for landscape irrigation. The development of the project is within an existing recycled water use site which spans over several different parcels/owners. Each owner will require a separate/dedicated irrigation meter. Each irrigation system will require a separate review and ultimately approval by the MNWD.
• The development impacts MNWD’s existing 650 PZ water easement and facilities within the private property limits. Once new points of services are known, existing easements shall be quitclaimed and new easements shall be dedicated to the MNWD for operations and maintenance.
• There are other existing customers served off the water easement as mentioned above. Outages to existing customers is not allowed and must be addressed prior to demolishing the existing water lines.
• Fire flow requirements need to be addressed for the existing customers and the future development.
• The proposed development will need to upsize the water main along McIntyre Street, between La Paz Road and a point of connection approximately 400-ft south of the intersection. The new water pipeline shall be a minimum 12-inch diameter along the abovementioned limits.
• Confirm how the development will drain sanitary sewer. The proposed project shall not impede on-site sewer flows from the neighboring parcels. Provide on the next submittal the on-site private sanitary sewer layout to confirm. • Confirm if the proposed project will be constructing a communal kitchen and if so MNWD will need to review for FOG (Fats Oils & Grease) compliance. • Completed Application for Water/Sewer Service
• Complete Insurance and Bonding Requirements per MNWD requirements. • Provide site plans showing locations of proposed potable water connections for domestic use and fire suppression, recycled water connections for dedicated irrigation use, wastewater connections, and grading over existing facilities. • Engineer’s Estimate – materials and construction cost for facilities to be built and dedicated to the MNWD. This will be used to determine Plancheck and Inspection fees, and used for construction performance bonding if required. • The plumbing system water demand (fixture unit count or gallons-per-minute calculation) from this project’s licensed plumber or utility engineer. This information is utilized to assure that meters are properly sized to support the plumbing systems at the property. • Provide plumbing plans.
• The fire suppression/sprinkler system water demand (gallons-per-minute calculation) from this project’s Fire Suppression/Sprinkler System designer. • Backflow installation on fire suppression lines and domestic services. • Easement documents, and Title Report if applicable (if any facilities to be dedicated to the MNWD will be located on private property). Easement Encroachment Agreement required if any surface improvements are proposed within the MNWD easement. • Irrigation plans. The proposed project will utilize recycled water in the landscaping. • Completion of an OCFA Water Availability Form, and Proof of OCFA Review and Approval.
• Any proposed pool/spa shall have no direct connection to the wastewater system. • All plans to be submitted to MNWD via PDF format.
Fee Schedule
The fee schedule and applicable costs that may be required are as follows:
• Commercial, Residential, Irrigation
Meter Size Water Capacity Fee Wastewater Capacity Fee
¾” $2,405 $1,597
1” $2,405 $1,597
1.5” $4,810 $3,195
2” $7,695 $5,112
2.5” $12,265 $8,147
3” $16,834 $11,182
4” $30,301 $20,128
6” $67,335 $44,730
8” $115,432 $76,680
10” $182,767 $121,410
• Potable Irrigation- Residential Development $1,479 per 1000 sq. ft. irrigated NonResidential Development $1,210 per 1000 sq, ft. irrigated • Plan check and Inspection Fees- project will require an initial deposit outlined in Resolution 18-13.
• Construction Costs (both onsite and off-site improvements) • The use of recycled water will be required for construction.
Fees are subject to change.
Record Drawings
As-Built Drawings of existing facilities will be provided once project design commences. Design Engineer or Project Manager may request these drawings on the District Website, at http://mnwd.com/engineering/.
MNWD will approve the plans after all remaining concerns have been addressed, easements are executed for facilities to be located on private property and after all applicable fees for this project are paid in full.
If you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate in contacting Sheldon Yu ([email protected]) at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT
Mark H. Mountford, P.E.
Engineering Manager
Exhibit D
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
La Paz Village
25250 La Paz Road
Laguna Hills, California 92653
BBG Project: 0521012916
Prepared For
Southco Properties c/o Boardwalk Development, Inc.
9810 Scripps Lake Dr, Suite D
San Diego, California 92131
Report Date
December 7, 2021
Prepared By
BBG Assessments, LLC
Locations Nationwide
BBG Main Contact
Richard P. Morgan | [email protected] | 303.420.1052 x3328 Evans Howell | [email protected] |650.303.3856
Project Summary Table
BBG has prepared this Phase I ESA of the property located at 25250 La Paz Road, Laguna Hills, California (the "Property") at the request of Southco Properties c/o Boardwalk Development, Inc.. The purpose of the ESA is to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) and Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs) and de minimis conditions as defined by ASTM E1527-13.
Report Section NFA REC CREC HREC
de
minimis BER Comment
6.2 Environmental
Records Summary
Former on-site dry cleaners with
known contamination and possible
VIC
7.13 Historical Use
Summary
See comment above
8.3 Visual
Observations
Summary
9.1 Asbestos
Containing
Materials (ACM)
Based on date of construction, ACM
may be present
9.2 Radon
9.3 Lead-Based Paint
(LBP)
Based on date of construction, LBP
may be present
9.4 Drinking Water
9.5 Microbial Growth
9.6 Flood Zone and
Wetlands
December 7, 2021
Southco Properties c/o Boardwalk Development, Inc.
9810 Scripps Lake Dr, Suite D
San Diego, California 92131
Re: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of
La Paz Village
25250 La Paz Road
Laguna Hills, California 92653
BBG Project: 0521012916
To Whom It May Concern:
BBG Assessments, LLC (BBG) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the above referenced property in accordance with the ASTM International (ASTM) E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process and generally accepted industry standards.
This report was prepared solely for the use of Southco Properties c/o Boardwalk Development, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Client” or “User”) and any party specifically referenced in Section 2.6 of this report. No other party shall have the right to rely on this report or the findings herein, without the prior written consent of BBG.
Please contact me at [email protected] or 303.420.1052 x3328 should you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
BBG ASSESSMENTS, LLC
Richard P. Morgan
Managing Director
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Property Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Findings, Opinions and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Significant Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Limiting Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Special Terms and Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6 Reliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 Property Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Utility and Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Adjoining Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.0 PHYSICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Surface Water Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3 Geology and Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4 Minerals Exploration and Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.0 INTERVIEWS, RECORDS AND MUNICIPAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1 User Provided Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2 Owners, Operators and/or Neighboring Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3 Municipal/Government Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1 Environmental Records Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
i BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
6.2 Environmental Records Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.0 HISTORICAL USES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1 Aerial Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.2 Fire Insurance Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.3 Property Tax Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.4 Recorded Land Title Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.5 Environmental Lien and Activity Use Limitations (AULs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.6 Historical USGS Topographic Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.7 Local Street Directories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.8 Building Department Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.9 Zoning/Land Use Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.10 Previous Assessment/Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.11 Other Historical Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.12 Data Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.13 Historical Use Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8.0 PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE AND INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.2 Visual Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.3 Visual Observations Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.0 ASTM NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.1 Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.2 Radon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9.3 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9.4 Drinking Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9.5 Microbial Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9.6 Flood Zone and Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9.7 ASTM Non-Scope Consideration Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
ii BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
10.1 Findings, Opinions and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
11.0 DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
12.0 DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 APPENDIX 1 Property Maps
APPENDIX 2 Photographs
APPENDIX 3 Supporting Documentation
APPENDIX 4 Regulatory Database Report
APPENDIX 5 Historical Documentation
APPENDIX 6 Personnel Qualifications
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
iii BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Property Description
The Property consists of an irregular-shaped parcel of land totaling approximately 4.30 acres improved with five multitenant retail buildings totaling 40,658 square feet (NRA). The buildings, which were constructed circa 1972 to 2014, are of masonry and stucco exterior wall construction with a combination of low-slope, built-up and clay tile roofing systems. The buildings are constructed on reinforced concrete slab-on-grade foundation systems and do not contain habitable sub-grade areas. Additional improvements include paved drive aisles and parking areas, concrete sidewalks, and landscaped areas. At the time of the assessment, the Property was developed for use as a retail shopping center.
A Property Location Map, Property Layout Map and photographs of the Property are appended to this report.
1.2 Findings, Opinions and Conclusions
BBG has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527 of 25250 La Paz Road, Laguna Hills, California, the Property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 11 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs/CRECs in connection with the Property except for the following:
• The Property, addressed as 25260 La Paz Road, was identified on the DRYCLEANER, Cleanup Program Sites (CPS-SLIC) and EDR Hist Cleaner databases. Super Cleaners, Yes Cleaners, La Paz Cleaners and OC Cleaners were identified on the DRYCLEANER databases. Boardwalk Development (Super Cleaners) was identified on the DRYCLEANER and CPS-SLIC databases. La Paz Cleaners was identified on the EDR Hist Cleaner database. According to street directory and property management records, these dry cleaners occupied Suite M in the west end of Building 25260 from the 1970s to 2017. EDR records indicate that perchlorethylene (perc) dry cleaning solvent was used and that a vapor recovery unit was employed to recover solvent for reuse from the ventilation system. BBG was provided a Report for Expanded Phase II Environmental Site Assessment/Remedial Investigation (Revised) dated October 30, 1996, and La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
1 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
prepared by Ninyo & Moore. According to this report PCE, a dry cleaning solvent, was released to the subsurface at this tenant space on the Property; PCE was detected in soil at concentrations that range up to 840 ug/kg; groundwater was not encountered at the Property to the total depth explored of 71.5 feet; the primary zone of affected soil extended to a depth of approximately 20 feet below ground surface (bgs); the maximum depth that PCE was detected in the soil was 35 feet bgs; PCE was not detected in samples collected from 40 to 60 feet bgs; the estimated cleanup levels for PCE in the soil range from 399 ug/kg at 10 feet bgs to 176 ug/kg at 35 feet bgs; the maximum concentrations of PCE detected in the soil at depths of 20 and 35 feet bgs are below the estimated cleanup levels; the maximum concentrations of PCE detected in the soil at depths of 10 and 15 feet bgs are above the estimated cleanup levels; and the residual concentration of PCE in the soil at the site does not pose a significant threat to groundwater quality. Ninyo & Moore recommended that the results of the investigation be presented to the San Diego region of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for consideration and evaluation of the need for soil remediation. The EDR database report identifies the former Super Cleaners as a SLIC site with a file (Phase II) opened in 1996 with a closed status; however, the state's GeoTracker website (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/) does not depict this facility. It has not been confirmed if the RWQCB issued closure to the case. Regardless, the results of the PCE impacts to soil are high and widespread and there may be a vapor intrusion concern (VIC). Additionally, this dry cleaner likely used perc subsequent to the investigation until 2006 when petroleum-based solvents were noted to be used. Based on the known soil contamination with a possible VIC, this is considered a REC to the Property.
This assessment has revealed no evidence of de minimis conditions.
The assessment has revealed no evidence of HRECs in connection with the Property.
No significant data gaps were identified that would affect the ability of the environmental professional to identify RECs at the Property.
This assessment has revealed no evidence of BERs associated with the standard ASTM scope considerations.
This assessment has revealed no evidence of BERs relating to ASTM non-scope considerations, except for the following:
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
2 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
• ACM may be present based on the date of construction. The suspect materials observed were in good condition.
• LBP may be present based on the date of construction. The painted surfaces observed were in good condition.
1.3 Recommendations
BBG recommends a vapor intrusion assessment to determine if historical on-site operations have impacted the Property.
ACM typically do not release measurable amounts of asbestos fibers unless the materials are disturbed or damaged. Based on the condition of the materials observed BBG recommends that these materials be managed under an asbestos operations and maintenance (O&M) program until such time as renovation or demolition activities necessitate their abatement, or analytical testing proves the material to be non-ACM. The O&M program should follow the USEPA Guidance Document: Managing Asbestos in Place – A Building Owner’s Guide to Operation and Maintenance Programs for Asbestos-Containing Materials. The objective of the O&M program is to implement a practical management approach to controlling ACM at the Property, by monitoring its condition, controlling any activities that might impact the ACM, and responding promptly should the material be damaged.
NESHAP regulations require sampling of potential ACM prior to any renovation or demolition activities likely to disturb the material, regardless of the date of construction.
If such activities are planned, an asbestos survey of the entire facility, or the portion slated for the renovation or demolition activities, is warranted prior to initiating these activities.
No survey was conducted as part of this assessment. The survey should be conducted by a licensed firm and should include an assessment of all suspect ACM including those which are not normally accessible. Any material found to be ACM should be handled in accordance with applicable regulations.
Given the good condition of the painted surfaces and the non-residential usage of the Property, no further action or study with regard to LBP at the Property is recommended at this time. The paint should, however, be sampled prior to any actions likely to impact the painted surfaces, such as sanding, scraping or heat-gun removal; otherwise the paint should be assumed to be LBP. Any proven or assumed LBP should be removed and handled in a La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
3 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
controlled manner in accordance with applicable regulations. State and local regulations may apply to LBP in association with building demolition or renovation and in association with worker or occupant protection.
BBG recognizes that there may be various options for dealing with the conditions identified. The options provided by BBG are not necessarily the only acceptable alternatives for dealing with a particular concern. Factors such as planned changes to property use, planned renovations, capital restraints or other variables may change what would be considered the most appropriate or prudent alternative. BBG provides these options solely as guidance for further action.
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
4 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of the ESA is to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) and Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs) and de minimis conditions as defined by ASTM E1527-13.
The term REC is defined as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.” The term CREC is defined as “a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.” The term HREC is defined as “a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls.”
The term de minimis condition is defined as “a condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.
Conditions determined to be de minimis are not RECs or CRECs.” The term Business Environmental Risk (BER) is defined as a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated as defined by ASTM.
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
5 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
2.2 Scope of Work
The ESA was conducted in accordance with ASTM E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (Standard Practice), the scope of work provided by the Client, and generally accepted industry standards, and is designed to meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 312.
Additionally, BBG addressed certain ASTM non-scope considerations. These non-scope considerations include asbestos-containing materials (ACM), radon, lead-based paint (LBP), microbial growth, drinking water quality, flood zones, and wetlands.
A more detailed scope of work is provided in Section 13.
2.3 Significant Assumptions
• BBG assumes the Property has been correctly identified by the User, designated representative of the User, property owner or operator, and/or the designated representative of the property owner or operator.
• BBG assumes that the User, designated representative of the User, property owner or operator, and/or the designated representative of the property owner or operator used good faith in answering questions about and providing information for the Property. • BBG assumes the direction of groundwater is consistent with the contours depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map covering the Property, unless otherwise specified by actual well data for the Property or properties in the area, or BBG’s experience and knowledge of the area.
2.4 Limiting Conditions
• The scope of work completed was designed solely to meet the needs of BBG’s Client.
BBG shall not be liable for any unintended usage of this report by another party.
Additionally, based on the ASTM Standard Practice, the ESA is only valid if completed within 180 days of an acquisition or the transaction necessitating the ESA, unless updated in accordance with terms outlined within the Standard Practice.
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
6 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
• No ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with a property. This ESA was designed to reduce but not eliminate uncertainty regarding the existence of such conditions in a manner that recognizes reasonable limits of time and cost. BBG has completed this ESA in accordance with generally accepted consulting practices, and makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the character and nature of such services or product.
• An ESA is intended to be a non-intrusive investigation and generally does not include sampling or testing of air, soil, water, or building materials. No destructive testing was completed and concealed areas, such as behind walls or within machinery, were not accessed. Any testing, including that for ACM, LBP and radon, is designed solely to meet the needs of the Client, not to meet any local, state or federal regulations and should not be utilized as such. Any test results obtained are for the personal use of Client only and are not intended for submittal to any regulatory agency. • Information needed to complete the ESA is based on personal interviews, government records, published resources, and various historical documents. Accuracy and completeness of information varies among information sources and is often inaccurate or incomplete. An environmental professional is not required by the ASTM Standard Practice to verify independently the information provided but may rely on information provided unless the environmental professional has actual knowledge that certain information is incorrect or unless it is obvious that certain information is incorrect based on other information obtained by or otherwise actually known to the environmental professional.
• BBG shall have no on-going obligation to obtain and include information that was not reasonably ascertainable, practically reviewable, or provided to BBG in a reasonable timeframe to formulate an opinion and complete the assessment by the agreed upon due date.
• An ESA includes some information that may be relevant to regulatory compliance, but is not intended and shall not be construed as a compliance audit and cannot be considered a verification of regulatory compliance. Depending on its past, present or future intended use, the property under review may or may not be subject to regulation and permitting under environmental and health and safety laws, such as, but not limited to, La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
7 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and other federal, state and local regulations. BBG assumes no responsibility or liability respecting regulatory permitting or compliance issues.
2.5 Special Terms and Conditions
There are no special terms and conditions associated with this ESA.
2.6 Reliance
This investigation was conducted on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Southco Properties c/o Boardwalk Development, Inc. (Client). This report, and the findings contained herein, shall not, in whole or part, be disseminated or conveyed to or used by any other party without the prior written consent of BBG. Any unauthorized party using or relying upon the Report shall be liable to BBG for equitable compensation and appropriate punitive damages, and shall be responsible to reimburse BBG for and indemnify, defend and hold BBG harmless from and against any and all costs, claims, liabilities, expenses, lost profits and damages arising as a direct or indirect result of such unauthorized use or reliance.
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
8 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
3.1 Property Details
Property Size 4.30 acres
Property Size Source Google Earth
Parcel ID Number(s) 620-211-18, 620-211-15, 620-211-9, 620-211-17 Parcel ID Source Orange County Plat Map
Property Usage Retail
Number of Buildings Five
Date of Construction 1972 to 2014
Date of Construction Source Aerial photographs and Phil Ladman, Property Manager Building Size 40,658 square feet (NRA)
Building Size Source Phil Ladman, Property Manager
Numberof Units 25 retail suites
Legal Description The legal description is included in the appendices.
Tenants The Property is occupied by the following tenants:
Tattoo parlor, yoga studio, optometrist, two nail salons, hair salon, natural living store, dentist, message studio, ballroom dance studio, gym, bakery, deli, five restaurants, convenience store, kitchen supply outlet
3.2 Utility and Service Providers
Electricity San Diego Gas & Electric
Natural Gas San Diego Gas & Electric
Potable Water Moulton Niguel Water District
Sanitary Sewer Moulton Niguel Water District
Stormwater Moulton Niguel Water District
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
9 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
3.3 Adjoining Properties
The ASTM Standard Practice defines adjoining properties as “any real property or properties the border of which is contiguous or partially contiguous with that of the property, or that would be contiguous or partially contiguous with that of the property but for a street, road, or other public thoroughfare separating them.” The following adjoining properties were noted.
Direction Description
North La Paz Road, across which are single-family residences East McIntyre Street, across which is a retail shopping center South Church and single-family residences
West Orange County Board of Realtors
BBG’s observations of the adjoining properties did not identify evidence that would indicate the potential presence of a REC, such as fueling facilities, dry cleaning operations, improperly stored or leaking drums, or significantly stained surfaces.
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
10 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
4.0 PHYSICAL SETTING
Information regarding topography, geology and hydrology are used to evaluate the likelihood of hazardous substances and petroleum products to migrate onto, within or from the Property. BBG attempted to determine the general physical setting of the Property using one or more of the physical setting sources outlined in Section 8.2.4 of the ASTM Standard Practice.
4.1 Topography
Property Elevation Approximately 472 feet above mean sea level (MSL) Topography The Property is relatively flat with gentle descending gradient to the east. The areas surrounding the Property slope sharply to the east.
Source Property elevation and topography are based on observations made during BBG's November 30, 2021 site visit and upon review of the applicable United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map. The relevant portion of the topographic map is appended to this report.
4.2 Surface Water Bodies
On-Site Water Bodies There are no surface water bodies on or bordering the Property.
Nearest Surface Water
Body
The nearest off-site surface water body is an unnamed drainage feature approximately 0.33-mile east of the Property.
4.3 Geology and Hydrology
Geology and Soils Upper Pliocene marine geology; Alo clay soils Source Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet,
1965;http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm Depth to Groundwater Greater than 70 feet below grade
Anticipated Flow Direction East
Basis of Flow Direction The USEPA Ground Water Handbook, Vol.1 Ground Water and Contamination, September 1990, states that the water table typically conforms to surface topography. This means the direction of flow for shallow groundwater is generally from higher elevations to lower elevations. Localized flow direction may vary as a result of tide, rainfall, development, geologic characteristics, nearby surface water La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
11 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
bodies, underground utilities such as storm drains, septic systems and sewers, or other influences such as the presence of high-volume wells.
4.4 Minerals Exploration and Production
Oil and Gas Wells No oil or gas wells or oil and gas production equipment were observed at the Property. No wells were depicted on the USGS topographic map. According to the California Geologic Energy Management Division's (CalGEM) online mapping application, there are no oil or gas wells on the Property.
Pipelines No petroleum pipelines were observed on or adjoining the Property.
No pipelines were depicted on the USGS topographic map.
According to the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) online map, there are no pipelines on the Property.
Mining Activities No mining activities were observed on or adjoining the Property. No mining activities were depicted on the USGS topographic map.
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
12 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
5.0 INTERVIEWS, RECORDS AND MUNICIPAL INFORMATION
5.1 User Provided Information
User provided information is intended to help identify the possibility of RECs in connection with the Property. According to the ASTM Standard Practice and EPA's AAI Rule, the following items should be researched by the prospective landowner or grantee, and the results of such inquiries may be provided to the environmental professional. The responsibility for qualifying for Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) by conducting the following inquiries ultimately rests with the User, and providing the following information to the environmental professional would be prudent if such information is available. The AAI rule does not require submission of this information to the environmental professional.
User Provided Information
User
Provided
Issue
Identified Comments
Recorded Land Title
Records
No N/A User did not provide BBG the results of a
search of recorded land title records for
the purpose of identifying environmental
liens filed or recorded against the
Property or activity and use limitations
(AULs) in place at the Property under
federal, tribal, state or local law.
Specialized or Actual
Knowledge or Experience
No N/A User did not inform BBG of specialized
knowledge of conditions indicative of
releases or threatened releases at the
Subject Property or at adjoining
properties which could impact the
Subject Property. User did not inform
BBG of actual knowledge of
environmental liens or AULs
encumbering the Subject Property or in
connection with the Subject Property.
Significantly Lower
Purchase Price
No N/A User did not provide information to BBG
indicating the purchase price of the
Subject Property was below the fair
market price for a comparable property,
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
13 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
User Provided Information
User
Provided
Issue
Identified Comments
or that any difference in price was likely
the result of the presence of hazardous
substances or petroleum products.
Commonly Known or
Reasonably Ascertainable
Information
Yes N/A User informed BBG that a dry cleaning
facility operated on the Property until
March 2017.
Degree of Obviousness No N/A User did not indicate any reason to suspect or have knowledge of the
obvious presence or likely presence of
releases or threatened releases at the
Property.
Reason for Performing the
Phase I ESA
No No User indicated the reason for conducting
the ESA was to assist in their internal
decision making process, and not to
qualify for a landowner liability
protection (LLP) to CERCLA liability.
5.2 Owners, Operators and/or Neighboring Properties
Key Site Manager
Key Site Manager Phil Ladman, Property Manager
Telephone/Email [email protected]
Pertinent Information Mr. Ladman has been associated with the Property for 10 years. He stated that hehad no records or recollection of any releases, likely releases or imminent threat of releases of hazardous substances or petroleum products at the Property. He was not aware of environmental liens filed against the Property or any AULs filed or recorded against the Property, or any past, threatened or pending lawsuits or administrative proceedings related to environmental issues. Mr. Ladman was not aware of underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) on the Property, or of any concerns relating to water infiltration or microbial growth.
BBG requested copies of any previous environmental assessments La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
14 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
or asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP) or radon testing. No such documents were provided to BBG by Mr.
Ladman. Mr. Ladmanadvised that he was not familiar with the historical uses other than retail shopping center.
5.3 Municipal/Government Agencies
Department Name Orange County Fire Authority
Contact Online information
Telephone/Email/Website orangecounty.nextrequest.com
Pertinent Information BBG facilitated a California Public Records Act Request for fire department files pertaining to USTs, ASTs, reported incidents of hazardous material releases, or other similar circumstances that could be of environmental concern at the Property. A response has not been received as of the date of this report. Based on the other information obtained during this assessment, the lack of a response is not considered significant in the identification of RECs associated with the Property.
Department Name Orange County Development Services
Contact Online information
Telephone/Email/Website orangecounty.nextrequest.com
Pertinent Information BBG facilitated a California Public Records Act Request to obtain obtain certificates of occupancy, permits for the installation or removal of tanks, or other similar circumstances that could be of environmental concern at the Property. The department responded that it maintains no relevant records and directed BBG to the individual utility providers.
Department Name Orange County Public Health Services
Contact Online information
Telephone/Email/Website orangecounty.nextrequest.com
Pertinent Information BBG facilitated a California Public Records Act Request for health department files pertaining to USTs, ASTs, reported incidents of hazardous material releases, or other similar circumstances that La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
15 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
could be of environmental concern at the Property. The
Environmental Health Department provided records pertaining to hazardous materials inspections of the former dry cleaner facility on the Property, and also permitting materials associated with the Verizon Wireless cellular telephone antenna facility on the second floor of the 25260 La Paz Road address. With regard to the former dry cleaner, this tenant was located at the west end of Building 25260 in Suite M. According to an Inspection Report dated January 21, 2015, hazardous waste inside the tenant space was properly stored, labeled and dated. No violations were noted at that time.
According to an Inspection Report dated February 5, 2018, the dry cleaner facility was closed and no hazardous waste was left onsite.
With regard to the Verizon Wireless cellular telephone antenna facility, lead-acid batteries are associated with this facility and noviolations or enforcement actions have been taken against the facility.
Department Name California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Contact Daniel Knight
Telephone/Email/Website [email protected]
Pertinent Information BBG facilitated a California Public Records Act Request for files pertaining to USTs, ASTs, reported incidents of hazardous material releases, or other similar circumstances that could be of environmental concern at the Property. A response has not been received as of the date of this report. Based on the other information obtained during this assessment, the lack of a response is not considered significant in the identification of RECs associated with the Property.
Department Name California Regional Water Quality Control Board Contact Online information
Telephone/Email/Website [email protected]
Pertinent Information BBG facilitated an e-mail request to obtain copies of any documents associated with Boardwalk Development Inc at 25260 east La Paz Road identified on the Property. This facility was identified as a Cleanup Program Site (CPS)-Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
16 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
Cleanups (SLIC) site. A response has not been received as of the date of this report. Based on the other information obtained during this assessment, the lack of a response is not considered significant in the identification of RECs associated with the Property.
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
17 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
BBG obtained a commercially-available regulatory records database report containing the standard environmental record sources identified in ASTM 1527-13 as well as any additional environmental record source determined to be: 1) reasonably ascertainable; 2) sufficiently useful, accurate and complete; and 3) generally obtained, pursuant to local good commercial or customary practice in initial ESAs in the type of commercial real estate transaction involved. A detailed description of the records reviewed and a listing of all of the identified sites are appended to this report. Accuracy and completeness of record information varies among information sources and is often inaccurate or incomplete. BBG cannot warrant the accuracy of the information, but has made reasonable efforts to compensate for mistakes or insufficiencies in the information reviewed that are obvious in light of other information of which BBG has actual knowledge. BBG reviewed the environmental record sources to identify sites involved in the storage, use, generation, disposal, or release of petroleum products and/or hazardous substance and has evaluated the potential for releases at the Property or the migration of contaminants onto the Property from off-site sources via soil, groundwater, or vapor. The potential for a vapor encroachment condition (VEC) will be evaluated following ASTM E2600-15 Standard guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions.
6.1 Environmental Records Sources
Anticipated groundwater flow direction: East
The groundwater flow direction is used to determine whether sites are located up-, crossor down-gradient of the Property, which provides an indication of their potential to impact the Property.
Environmental Record Sources
Approximate
Minimum
Search
Distance
Property
Listings
Off-Site
Properties
Federal NPL 1.0 mile No No
Federal Delisted NPL 0.5 mile No No
Federal SEMS/CERCLIS 0.5 mile No No
Federal SEMS Archive/CERCLIS NFRAP 0.5 mile No No
Federal RCRA CORRACTS 1.0 mile No No
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
18 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
Environmental Record Sources
Approximate
Minimum
Search
Distance
Property
Listings
Off-Site
Properties
Federal RCRA TSD 0.5 mile No No
Federal RCRA generators Property and
adjoining
No Yes
Federal institutional/engineering controls Property
only
No No
Federal ERNS Property
only
No Not
Applicable
State and tribal-equivalent NPL 1.0 mile No No
State and tribal-equivalent CERCLIS 0.5 mile No Yes
State and tribal landfill and solid waste 0.5 mile No No State and tribal leaking storage tanks 0.5 mile No Yes
State and tribal registered storage tanks Property and
adjoining
No Yes
State and tribal institutional/engineering controls Property only
No No
State and tribal voluntary cleanup 0.5 mile No No
State and tribal Brownfield 0.5 mile No No
Additional environmental record sources Various Yes Yes EDR exclusive records Various Yes No
Property
The Property, addressed as 25260 La Paz Road, was identified on the DRYCLEANER, Cleanup Program Sites (CPS-SLIC) and EDR Hist Cleaner databases. Super Cleaners, Yes Cleaners, La Paz Cleaners and OC Cleaners were identified on the DRYCLEANER databases. Boardwalk Development (Super Cleaners) was identified on the DRYCLEANER and CPS-SLIC databases. La Paz Cleaners was identified on the EDR Hist Cleaner database. According to street directory and property management records, these dry cleaners occupied Suite M in the west end of Building 25260 from the 1970s to 2017. EDR records indicate that perc dry cleaning solvent was used and that a vapor recovery unit was employed to recover solvent for reuse from the ventilation system. BBG La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
19 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
was provided a Report for Expanded Phase II Environmental Site Assessment/Remedial Investigation (Revised) dated October 30, 1996, and prepared by Ninyo & Moore.
According to this report PCE, a dry cleaning solvent, was released to the subsurface at this tenant space on the Property; PCE was detected in soil at concentrations that range up to 840 ug/kg; groundwater was not encountered at the Property to the total depth explored of 71.5 feet; the primary zone of affected soil extended to a depth of approximately 20 feet bgs; the maximum depth that PCE was detected in the soil was 35 feet bgs; PCE was not detected in samples collected from 40 to 60 feet bgs; the estimated cleanup levels for PCE in the soil range from 399 ug/kg at 10 feet bgs to 176 ug/kg at 35 feet bgs; the maximum concentrations of PCE detected in the soil at depths of 20 and 35 feet bgs are below the estimated cleanup levels; the maximum concentrations of PCE detected in the soil at depths of 10 and 15 feet bgs are above the estimated cleanup levels; and the residual concentration of PCE in the soil at the site does not pose a significant threat to groundwater quality. Ninyo & Moore recommended that the results of the investigation be presented to the San Diego region of the RWQCB for consideration and evaluation of the need for soil remediation.
The EDR database report identifies the former Super Cleaners as a SLIC site with a file (Phase II) opened in 1996 with a closed status; however, the state's GeoTracker website (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/) does not depict this facility. The RWQCB may have issued closure to the case. Regardless, the results of the PCE impacts to soil are high and widespread and there may be a VIC. Additionally, this dry cleaner likely used perc subsequent to the investigation until 2006 when petroleum-based solvents were noted to be used. Based on the known soil contamination with a possible VIC, this is considered a REC to the Property.
Adjoining Properties
The following adjoining properties were noted:
• The site located at 25216 Pike Road was identified to the north across La Paz Road under the name Richard Sarner. This site was listed on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act non-generator (RCRA-NonGen) database. RCRA-NonGen sites are facilities that no longer generate hazardous wastes. No violations are noted for the facility. No visual indications of concern were noted during the reconnaissance. Based on the lack of noted violations or enforcement actions, lack of visual indication of La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
20 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
concern noted during the reconnaissance and the fact the facility is not listed on a database of sites with suspected or confirmed releases, this facility is not considered a REC in connection with the Property and additional file review is not warranted. • The site located at 25292 McIntyre Street was identified to the east across McIntyre Street under the names Ace Cleaners, Tropical Den Cleaner and Royale Cleaners. This site is bulding is located over 175 feet east-southeast and topographically down-gradient of the Property. No violations are noted for the facilities. No visual indications of concern were noted during the reconnaissance. Based on the distance and down-gradient location, lack of noted violations or enforcement actions, and the fact the facilities are not listed on a database of sites with suspected or confirmed releases, these facilities are not considered a REC in connection with the Property and additional file review is not warranted.
Other Properties Warranting Discussion
While the regulatory records database report provided a list of identified sites using the radii established by the ASTM Standard, most sites do not pose a concern due to distance, groundwater gradient, nature of the listing, information provided in the database or a combination thereof. BBG reviewed the listed sites and determined no sites of concern were noted.
6.2 Environmental Records Summary
The Property, addressed as 25260 La Paz Road, was identified on the DRYCLEANER, Cleanup Program Sites (CPS-SLIC) and EDR Hist Cleaner databases. Super Cleaners, Yes Cleaners, La Paz Cleaners and OC Cleaners were identified on the DRYCLEANER databases. Boardwalk Development (Super Cleaners) was identified on the DRYCLEANER and CPS-SLIC databases. La Paz Cleaners was identified on the EDR Hist Cleaner database. According to street directory and property management records, these dry cleaners occupied Suite M in the west end of Building 25260 from the 1970s to 2017. EDR records indicate that perc dry cleaning solvent was used and that a vapor recovery unit was employed to recover solvent for reuse from the ventilation system. BBG was provided a Report for Expanded Phase II Environmental Site Assessment/Remedial Investigation (Revised) dated October 30, 1996, and prepared by Ninyo & Moore.
According to this report PCE, a dry cleaning solvent, was released to the subsurface at this tenant space on the Property; PCE was detected in soil at concentrations that range up to La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
21 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
840 ug/kg; groundwater was not encountered at the Property to the total depth explored of 71.5 feet; the primary zone of affected soil extended to a depth of approximately 20 feet bgs; the maximum depth that PCE was detected in the soil was 35 feet bgs; PCE was not detected in samples collected from 40 to 60 feet bgs; the estimated cleanup levels for PCE in the soil range from 399 ug/kg at 10 feet bgs to 176 ug/kg at 35 feet bgs; the maximum concentrations of PCE detected in the soil at depths of 20 and 35 feet bgs are below the estimated cleanup levels; the maximum concentrations of PCE detected in the soil at depths of 10 and 15 feet bgs are above the estimated cleanup levels; and the residual concentration of PCE in the soil at the site does not pose a significant threat to groundwater quality. Ninyo & Moore recommended that the results of the investigation be presented to the San Diego region of the RWQCB for consideration and evaluation of the need for soil remediation.
The EDR database report identifies the former Super Cleaners as a SLIC site with a file (Phase II) opened in 1996 with a closed status; however, the state's GeoTracker website (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/) does not depict this facility. The RWQCB may have issued closure to the case. Regardless, the results of the PCE impacts to soil are high and widespread and there may be a VIC. Additionally, this dry cleaner likely used perc subsequent to the investigation until 2006 when petroleum-based solvents were noted to be used. Based on the known soil contamination with a possible VIC, this is considered a REC to the Property.
BBG did not identify environmental records indicating a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products from neighboring properties likely to migrate onto the Property via soil, groundwater or vapor pathways that would be considered a REC or a VEC in connection with the Property.
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
22 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
7.0 HISTORICAL USES
BBG attempted to develop a history of the previous uses of the Property and surrounding area in order to help identify the likelihood of past uses having led to RECs in connection with the Property. Efforts were made to identify the uses of the Property back to the Property’s first use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier. BBG relied upon the standard historical sources listed in Section 8.3.4 of the ASTM Standard Practice. Only the sources deemed both reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful were used.
Historical Resources Reviewed
Historical Resource Years Reviewed Report Section
Aerial Photographs 1938 - 2016 Section 7.1
Fire Insurance Maps No Coverage Section 7.2
Property Tax Files 2021 Section 7.3
Recorded Land Title
Records
Not Provided Section 7.4
Historical USGS
Topographic Maps
Not Researched Section 7.5
Local Street Directories 1973 - 2014 Section 7.6
Building Department
Records
Not Available Section 7.7
Zoning/Land Use Records Not Researched Section 7.8
Previous Assessment/
Reports
Not Provided Section 7.9
Other Historical Sources Not Researched Section 7.10
7.1 Aerial Photographs
Aerial photographs, which are of a sufficient resolution to allow identification of development and activities of areas encompassing the Property, can be used in documenting the historical usage of a property. BBG reviewed the following aerial photographs, copies of which are included in Appendix 5:
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
23 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
Year(s) Property Description Adjoining Property Description 1938
1946
1949
1952
1963
Undeveloped North: Undeveloped
East: Undeveloped
South: Undeveloped
West: Undeveloped
1967 Scarification of land, apparently in
anticipation of development; La Paz Road
appears newly constructed
North: Scarification of land
East: Undeveloped
South: Undeveloped
West: Undeveloped
1972 Single structure (present 25732 La Paz Rd)
at northwest corner of Property
North: Residences north of La Paz Rd
East: Grading underway
South: Apparent foundation for
present-day church
West: Undeveloped; residences beyond
1974 At least three structures present
consistent with present-day buildings
(photo is indistinct)
North: Residences north of La Paz Rd
East: Present-day retail center
South: Apparent present-day church and
residences
West: Present-day office building and
parking to rear
1980
1989
1990
1994
2002
2005
2009
2012
2016
Present-day structures all evident North: Residences north of La Paz Rd East: Present-day retail center
South: Present-day church and residences;
church expansion to property line
beginning in 2009
West: Present-day office building and
parking to rear
7.2 Fire Insurance Maps
Historically maps were produced which showed the location and use of structures on a property at a given point in time. These maps were widely available for areas that were significantly developed during the late 1800s through the 1950s, though coverage exists La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
24 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916
for some areas through the 1990s. BBG attempted to obtain historical maps from EDR, Inc. covering the Property. No historical Sanborn maps were identified. The “no coverage” notification is appended to this report.
7.3 Property Tax Files
Tax files are files kept for property tax purposes by the local jurisdiction where the property is located and may include records of past ownership, appraisals, maps, sketches, photographs. BBG reviewed the property tax files for the Property as available at the Orange County Treasurer website. Based on these records, the Property is taxed at an amount consistent with its retail use.
7.4 Recorded Land Title Records
Land title records are records of historical fee ownership, which may include leases, land contracts and AULs on or of the property recorded in the place where land title records are, by law or custom, recorded for the local jurisdiction in which the property is located, often such records are kept by a municipal or county recorder or clerk. Such records may be obtained from title companies or directly from the local government agency. A chain-of-title was not provided to BBG for review.
7.5 Environmental Lien and Activity Use Limitations (AULs) A review of available records and regulatory information cited in Section 6.0 did not identify environmental liens or AULs associated with the Property.
7.6 Historical USGS Topographic Maps
Historical topographic maps can indicate whether an area is undeveloped, lightly developed or heavily developed and can also indicate if roads, railroad tracks, quarrying operations or water bodies were previously or near a property. No historical topographic maps were reviewed as part of this assessment due to the sufficient prior use history obtained through the other standard historical sources.
7.7 Local Street Directories
Local street directories identify the name of the individual or company located at a given address. BBG ordered a local street directory search from EDR. The following local street directories were reviewed:
La Paz Village
Laguna Hills, California
25 BBG PROJECT: 0521012916