Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Locality
Number
Location Formation Taxa Depth Distance to
Project Area
LACM 2373 Upper Oso Reservoir Vaqueros Formation Bird (Chendytes milleri) Unknown Within 3-miles LACM 2374 Upper Oso Reservoir Vaqueros Formation Bird (Oceanodroma) Unknown Within 3-miles LACM 2543 Upper Oso Reservoir Vaqueros Formation Bird (Mancallinae) Unknown Within 3-miles LACM 2385 Upper Oso Reservoir Topanga Canyon Bird (Chendytes milleri) Unknown Within 3-miles Key: VP-Vertebrate Paleontology; IP-Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs-below ground surface
CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
Erika McMullin, MCC Archaeologist and Cross-Trained Paleontologist, conducted the cultural and paleontological survey of the Project Area on September 17, 2020. During fieldwork, overall survey conditions were fair, and ground visibility varied throughout the Project Area due to present structures and dense vegetation. The entirety of the Project Area is encompassed by multiple structures, including two residential houses, a barn, a garden, a corral, and equestrian facilities (Figures 10-16). Therefore, the entire Project Area has been subjected to intense surface and subsurface modification from construction of the buildings, landscaping, and use. Some areas of the Project Area were inaccessible due to dense vegetation, steep slope, and fencing. Vegetation consisted of oak trees, oak scrub, poison oak, flowering tobacco, eucalyptus trees, pine trees, palm trees, tall grasses and weeds, with some residential landscaping present. The ground surface was obscured by pine duff, oak litter, and 4-6 feet tall weeds. Ground visibility varied throughout the Project Area; overall it was poor, ranging from 0-25%, due to dense vegetation (Figures 17-20). Soil is comprised of light brown to dark brown sandy silt with pebble to cobble sized inclusions of rounded to sub-rounded granitic material (Figures 21-26). Imported gravel was noted in some areas. The surveyable portions of the Project Area are highly disturbed due to many of the pathways being trafficked by vehicles, pedestrians, and farm animals. Other disturbances to the Project Area include modern refuse located on Linear Lane, faunalturbation, and refuse and debris from residence occupation (Figures 27-28).
Within the Project Area is an historic-era barn. The barn will not be altered in any way or impacted by the Project.
No paleontological resources were discovered during the intensive-pedestrian survey. The archaeological survey resulted in one newly observed historic site being identified, EM-SITE-001. The site is comprised of five glass bottles and one bi-metal, tear tab can fragment. The site dates between 1924 to 1985, but likely dates to the late 1930s to mid-1940s During this time, the area existed as an agricultural area and the bottles may represent this event. It is located approximately 15-20 ft. (4.5-6 meters) west of Linear Lane, and 15 ft. (4.5 m) east of Serrano Creek. The site is heavily disturbed as modern refuse is scattered within and outside of the concentration. The site boundaries may extend outside of the observed area due to heavy oak litter covering the surface floor. Previously recorded site P-30-000037, was not relocated during the survey due to the area being inaccessible (steep slope), and having dense vegetation surrounding the area.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 10. Overview of barn and animal pens from Serrano Creek, view east.
Figure 11.Overview of barn, view northwest.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 12. Overview of animal pens behind barn, view west.
Figure 13.Overview of residence near Linear Lane, view south.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 14. Overview of area near residential home with compacted dirt area, view north.
Figure 15. Overview of corral with tall weeds, view west.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 16.Overview of residential home near Canada Road, view northwest.
Figure 17. Representative photo of vegetation and modern refuse within Project Area, view west.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 18.Representation of ground visibility and vegetation near Linear Lane, view north.
Figure 19. Representative photo of surficial soil observed within Project Area in gated area near Linear Lane, view south.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 20. Representative photo of ground visibility in western portion of Project Area, view northwest.
Figure 21. Representative photo of ground visibility in western portion of Project Area, view south.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 22. Representative of ground visibility in western portion of Project Area, plan view.
Figure 23. Representative photo of surficial soil observed within Project Area, plan view.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 24. Representative photo of surficial soil, with imported gravel observed within Project Area, plan view.
Figure 25. Representative photo of surficial soil observed within Project Area, plan view.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 26. Representative photo of surficial soil observed within Project Area, plan view.
Figure 27. Representative photo of modern refuse disturbance, plan view.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 28. Representative photo of faunalturbation noted throughout Project Area, plan view.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CULTURAL RESOURCES CONCLUSIONS
The Phase I cultural resource assessment of the Project Area included a CHRIS records search, NAHC outreach, background research, and a field pedestrian survey. The records search results indicated 12 previously recorded resources within the Project Area. The closest resource to the Project, P-30-000037, is located within the Project Area. Review of historic aerials and topographic maps shows agricultural development began in the 1930s. During the review of historic aerials, the barn was confirmed as a historic-era built environment resource located in the Project Area. The barn will not be removed or remodeled during construction. NAHC outreach efforts, two Native American tribes/contacts deferred to other tribes for any further consultation related to the Project. Three other tribes expressed interest in the project. Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation requested the lead agency’s contact information. Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians requests a Native American monitor presence to accompany an archaeologist. Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California asks to be notified if any cultural resources and/or human remains are observed during construction.
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
The potential for encountering significant cultural resources within the Project Area is considered high, due to a positive pedestrian survey and 12 previously recorded resources within ½-mile of the Project Area, with 1 resource being within the Project Area. Prior to the start of construction, a cultural resources management plan (CRMP) should be prepared and implemented. It is recommended the Project’s CRMP implement the following:
• If the historic structure will be impacted by the Project, formal evaluation by a qualified Architectural Historian is required.
• Archaeological monitoring during all initial ground-disturbance activities, including vegetation removal, site preparation, demolition of historic structures, and grading up to three feet below surface, in order to quickly assess any discoveries of cultural resources during initial project implementation. • Development of an inadvertent discovery plan in place to expediently address archaeological and / or tribal cultural resource discoveries should these be encountered during any phase of development associated with the Project. In the event that these resources are inadvertently discovered during grounddisturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and would be discussed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency(ies). • Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands have been mandated by California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, PRC §5097.98 and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15064.5(e). According to the provisions in CEQA, should human remains be encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The Orange County Coroner shall be immediately notified and must then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC, who will in turn, notify the person they identify as the Most-Likely-Descendent (MLD) of any human remains. Further actions will be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.
Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONCLUSIONS
The Phase I paleontological resource assessment of the Project Area included a locality records search, literature review, and a field pedestrian survey. No significant paleontological resources were identified within the Project Area during the locality search or the field survey. The geologic units mapped within the Project Area are comprised of younger Quaternary fan alluvium and exposures of the Capistrano Formation. While younger Quaternary deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils within the uppermost layers, deposits from the Capistrano Formation have a high sensitivity for containing vertebrate fossils. There are nearby localities from similar sedimentary deposits to those found within 1-mile of the proposed Project Area. MCC recommends the Project Area be considered high sensitivity, and to have the potential for construction activities of the proposed project to impact underlying paleontological resources.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
Excavation has the potential to impact the paleontologically sensitive older Quaternary sediments at depth. MCC recommends that a paleontological resource mitigation program (PRMP) be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the current study area, should these be unearthed during ground disturbance within the Project Area. It is recommended the Project’s PRMP implement the following:
• A trained and qualified paleontological monitor should perform spot-check and/or monitoring of any excavations on the Project that have the potential to impact paleontological resources in undisturbed native sediments below 5 feet in depth. The monitor will have the ability to redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. • The Project paleontologist may re-evaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring after examination of the affected sediments during excavation, with approval from Lead Agency and Client representatives. • Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and SVP professional standards.
• Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. • A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, will be prepared and submitted to the appropriate personnel.
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
REFERENCES
Bean, L.J.
1972 Mukat’s People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1978 “Cahuilla.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. California, volume edited by Robert F.
Heizer, pp. 575-587 (W. T. Sturtevant, general editor). The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, L.J. and C.R. Smith
1978 “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. California. Volume edited by Robert F.
Heizer, pp. 538-549 (W. T. Sturtevant, general editor). The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, L.J. and K.S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, CA.
Bean, L.J. and F.C. Shipek
1978 “Luiseño.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. California, volume edited by Robert F.
Heizer, pp. 538-549 (W. T. Sturtevant, general editor). The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bell, A.
2020 Paleontological Records Search for the proposed Great Scott Project, in the City of Lake Forest, Orange County, project area.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
2016 Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands.
Instruction Memorandum No. 2016-124. Released July 20, 2016 BLM GLO (Bureau of Land Management Government Land Office) 2008 Land Grant Records Search Tool. Available online
at:http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/PatentSearch/Default.asp. Last accessed September 10, 2020.
Byrd, B.F. and L.M Raab
2007 “Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium.” In Colonization, Culture, and Complexity: California's Chaotic Prehistory, Editors: T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar. New York: Alta Mira Press, pp.215-228
California Department of Water Resources
2004 “California’s Groundwater - Bulletin 118, Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin”. February.
Available online at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-B118-Basin-Descriptions/B118-Basin-Boundary-Description-2003--- 8_001.pdf. Last Accessed February 5, 2020.
City of Lake Forest
2020 “Environmental Impact Report-2040 Lake Forest General Plan” Available online at:
https://lakeforestca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10440/Final-EIR_Lake-Forest-GP_5-20-20-. Last accessed September 10, 2020.
Chartkoff, J.L. and K.K. Chartkoff.
1984 The Archaeology of California. Menlo Park: Stanford University Press.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
2013 Initial Study Remedial Action Plan for Ascon Landfill Site, Ascon Landfill Site, Huntington Beach, California.
Prepared for Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch.
Drover, C. E., Koerper, H.C., and Langenwalter, P. II
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1983 “Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-Ora-64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California”. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly19(3 & 4): 1-84.
DuBois, C.
1908 “The Religion of the Luiseño and Diegueno Indians of Southern California.” In University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(3):69-186, Berkeley, California.
Erlandson, J. and R. Colten
1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. Hunter- Gatherers of the Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. Erlandson and R.Colten.
Fagan, B.M.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. London: Thames and Hudson. 2003 Before California: An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants. New York: Alta Mira Press.
Galvin Preservation Associates Inc.
2014 City of Huntington Beach Historic Context and Survey Report. Prepared for City of Hunting Beach Planning and Building Department.
Hallan-Gibson, P.
1986 The Golden Promise: An Illustrated History of Orange County. Windsor Publishers.
Johnson, B. E.
1962 “California’s Gabrielino Indians”. Fedrick Webb Hodge Anniversary Fund Publication No. 8, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Koerper, H .C. ,and C. E. Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County, The Case from CAOra-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1-34.
Koerper, H., Mason, R., and Peterson, M.
2003 “Complexity, Demography and Change in Late Holocene Orange County”. In Erlandson, J. and T. Jones (eds),Catalysts to Complexity: The Late Holocene on the California Coast. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of Indians of California. Reprint of 1925 original edition, Dover Publications, New York.
Los Angeles Almanac
2019 “Map of Territories of Original Peoples with County Boundaries in Southern California” (2019). Derived from Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, William C. Sturtevant (Gen. Editor) & Robert F. Heizer (Vol. Editor), 1978. Available at: http://www.laalmanac.com/history/hi05.php].
Martin, P.S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P. Martin and H.E. Wright.
Yale University Press: NewHaven.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science179(4077):969-974.
Mason, R., Koerper, H., and Langenwalter, P.
1997 “Middle Holocene adaptations on the Newport Coast of Orange County”. In Erlandson, J. and M. Glassow, Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com McCawley, W.
1996 First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press, Banning, CA.
Moratto, M.J.
1984 California Archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory9(1):1-46.
Padon, B.
1998 Cultural Resource Review for Groundwater Replenishment System Program EIR/Tier I/EIS, Orange County Water District and County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. Available at South Coast Central Information Center.
Raschke, R. E.
1984 Early and middle Miocene vertebrates from the Santa Ana Mountains, California. In: B. Butler, J. Gant, and C. J. Stadum eds., The Natural Sciences of Orange County: Memoirs of the Natural History Foundation of Orange County. Vol. 1, pp. 61-67.
Schoellhamer, J. E., J.G. Vedder, R.F. Yerkes and D.M. Kinney. 1981 Geology of the northern Santa Ana Mountains, California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-D.
Scott, E. and K. Springer
2003 CEQA and Fossil Preservation in Southern California. The Environmental Monitor, Winter: 4-10, 17.
Scott, E., K. Springer, and J. C. Sagebiel
2004 “Vertebrate Paleontology in the Mojave Desert: The Continuing Importance of “Follow-Through” in Preserving Paleontological Resources” in The Human Journey and Ancient Life in California’s Deserts, Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference, M. W. Allen and Reed, J. editors: 65-70.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists (SVP)
2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources.
Online: http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/68/68c554bb-86f1- 442f-a0dc-25299762d36c.pdf Wallace, W. J.
1955 “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology”. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. Vol 2: 214-230.
Warren, Claude N.
1967 “Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast”. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology1(3).
Woodburne, M.O., and Golz, D.J.,
1972 “Stratigraphy of the Punchbowl Formation, Cajon Valley, Southern California.” In Univ. Calif. Pub. Geol.
Sci.,V 92, 73pp
Appendix A
Qualifications
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Tria Belcourt, M.A., RPA
President and Principal Environmental Specialist
Tria Belcourt oversees and is responsible for the entire work process at Material Culture Consulting. She is responsible for planning, supervising, and overseeing field projects, including responsibility for the professional quality of evaluations and recommendations. Tria has primary accountability for the technical completeness and competence of work conducted by her staff. She is responsible for development of work plans and/or research designs, for performance of crew chiefs, for selection standards and limitations on work assignments of crew members, for analysis and interpretation of field data, for integration of fieldwork results into comparative regional perspectives, and for preparation of reports. Tria’s advanced academic training and more than sixteen years of professional archaeological experience has included rigorous training and application of anthropological and archaeological theory and methods, and in recording, collecting, handling, analyzing, evaluating, and reporting cultural property data, relative to the type and scope of work proposed.
Tria has been an archaeological project manager and principal investigator for over nine years, leading and managing several complex compliance projects throughout the State of California and in Southern Nevada, which have involved each step of cultural resource compliance and management. Prior to this, she spent six years as a field technician and crew chief on projects throughout California and the Southeastern United States. Her experience includes conducting background research, field survey, resource testing and formal NRHP/CRHR evaluation, data recovery plan development and implementation. She has prepared hundreds of technical reports for all of the above to state and federal standards, including following BLM standards for GIS spatial data management and technical reporting – ranging from simple clearance forms, to letter reports, to extensive data recovery reports. She was the lead preparer of the Fort Irwin Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan (2009-2013) and has also prepared several cultural resource management plans for state regulated projects. She has overseen and conducted archaeological monitoring and management of unanticipated discovery of resources, including Native American human remains on federal lands (and repatriation of the remains), and reported the results and outcomes of cultural resource monitoring efforts in lengthy technical reports. Finally, Tria regularly provides third party and QA/QC review of cultural resource technical documents, due to her keen understanding of state and federal regulations and laws governing the management of cultural resources throughout the state of California.
EDUCATION
2014 Graduate Certificate in Environmental Management of Military Lands, Colorado State University 2010 Professional Certification in CEQA/NEPA, ICF International Corporation 2009 M.A. in Anthropology, University of Florida Gainesville, Florida Professional Certification in GIS
2006 B.A. in Anthropology, Magna Cum Laude, University of California, Los Angeles, California
AFFILIATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS/TRAINING
• Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA)
• Society for California Archaeology (SCA)
UTILITY SECTOR EXPERIENCE
SCE Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Project (TLRR) – Control Silver Peak 66kV Subtransmission, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California. Cultural Resource Inventory Assessment (October 2016- present). Ms. Belcourt provides project management and leadership for this SCE project, as the Principal Investigator for Archaeology, under contract to Arcadis (2016-2018) and Environmental Intelligence (2018-present). MCC is tasked with all aspects of cultural resources assessments including records searches, surveys, maintaining and generating GIS data according to SCE Schema, obtaining federal and state permits for cultural resources studies, and technical reporting.
SCE Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Project (TLRR) - Kern River 66kV, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California.
Cultural Resource Inventory Assessment (October 2016- present). Ms. Belcourt provides project management and leadership for this SCE project, as the Principal Investigator for Archaeology, under contract to Arcadis (2016-present). MCC is tasked with all aspects of cultural resources assessments including records searches, surveys, maintaining and generating GIS data according to SCE Schema, obtaining federal and state permits for cultural resources studies, and technical reporting.
Belcourt CV 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com SCE Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Project (TLRR) – Eldorado Pisgah Lugo 220kV Subtransmission, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California. Cultural Resource Inventory Assessment (October 2016- present). Ms. Belcourt provides project management and leadership for this SCE project, as the Principal Investigator for Archaeology, under contract to Arcadis (2016-present). MCC is tasked with all aspects of cultural resources assessments including records searches, surveys, maintaining and generating GIS data according to SCE Schema, obtaining federal and state permits for cultural resources studies, and technical reporting.
SCE Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Project (TLRR) – Control Haiwee 115kV Subtransmission, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California. Cultural Resource Inventory Assessment (April 2017- present). Ms. Belcourt provides project management and leadership for this SCE project, as the Principal Investigator for Archaeology, under contract to Arcadis (2016-2018) and to SWCA (2018-present). MCC is tasked with all aspects of cultural resources assessments including records searches, surveys, maintaining and generating GIS data according to SCE Schema, obtaining federal and state permits for cultural resources studies, and technical reporting.
SCE Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Project (TLRR) – Ivanpah Coolwater Kramer Inyokern 115kV Subtransmission, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California. Cultural Resource Inventory Assessment (April 2017- present).
Ms. Belcourt provides project management and leadership for this SCE project, as the Principal Investigator for Archaeology, under contract to Arcadis (2016-2018) and to SWCA (2018-present). MCC is tasked with all aspects of cultural resources assessments including records searches, surveys, maintaining and generating GIS data according to SCE Schema, obtaining federal and state permits for cultural resources studies, and technical reporting.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), NERC Alert Program – Archaeological Principal Investigator; throughout California; 2015 – Present. Belcourt provides oversight of all task orders and project management of on-call task orders involving cultural resource desktop reviews, records searches and field reviews for the PG&E NERC Alert program: tracking and reporting efforts, maintaining project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor (Arcadis).
Southern California Edison (SCE), On-Call and Emergency Projects – Archaeological Principal Investigator and Project Manager; throughout California, 2013 – Present. Belcourt has provided oversight of over 200 task orders for on-call and emergency projects to date, involving cultural resource desktop reviews, records searches and field reviews for deteriorated poles, system upgrades, initial studies to support capital projects, and monitoring support to replace facilities due to natural disasters. This high-volume program includes preparing and submitting budgets, managing support staff and overseeing work, tracking and reporting efforts, maintaining project schedules, and preparing technical reports and GIS datasets for submittal to prime contractor (SWCA).
Southern California Edison (SCE), Large Capital Projects – Archaeological Principal Investigator and Project Manager; throughout California, 2014 – Present. Belcourt has provided oversight of over 20 task orders for major projects to date, involving cultural resources for this contract with SWCA, Environmental Intelligence and ICF. This includes preparing and submitting budgets, managing support staff and overseeing work, tracking and reporting efforts, maintaining project schedule, and preparing technical reports and GIS datasets for submittal to prime contractors.
Southern California Edison (SCE), Small Capital Projects – Archaeological Principal Investigator and Project Manager; throughout California, 2014 – Present. Belcourt provides oversight of all task orders and project management of task orders involving cultural resources for this contract with Environmental Intelligence and ICF. This includes preparing and submitting budgets, managing support staff and overseeing work, tracking and reporting efforts, maintaining project schedule, and preparing technical reports and GIS datasets for submittal to prime contractors.
Southern California Edison (SCE), Coolwater Lugo Transmission Project –– Environmental Project Manager; San Bernardino County, California; 2014 – 2015. Belcourt provided oversight of all project management on CWLTP: tracking and reporting efforts of subconsultants (Pacific Legacy, Paleo Solutions and Urbana Preservation and Planning), maintaining project schedule and timely submittal of project deliverables to agency reviewers. Served as communication facilitator between SCE and BLM/CPUC agency reviewers. Provided final review of the Cultural Resources Technical Report (which included over 1,000 cultural resources) and the Historic Built Environment Report - prior to draft submittal to BLM.
SCE, Eldorado Ivanpah Transmission Project – In-house Consultant for Archaeology; San Bernardino County, California and Clark County, Nevada; 2010-2012. Belcourt provided complex regulatory oversight and project management regarding cultural and paleontological resource management. She developed compliance training to inform and guide construction activities and major capital project teams. She also developed and implemented internal cultural resource management programs based on project migitation measures. Tria coordinated with BLM archaeologists on discovery and management of previously unknown cultural resources identified during construction. She provided environmental analyses, technical reports, and clearance documentation for over 20 project modifications during construction without delay to project. Developed the cultural resources geodatabase for EITP and coordinated regularly with the project GIS team.
Belcourt CV 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Silver State South Substation, In-house Consultant for Archaeology; Southern California Edison, Clark County, NV; 2010-2012.
Provided regulatory oversight and project management regarding cultural and paleontological resource management during project licensing and scoping. Identified potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources, developing appropriate mitigation measures in preparation for and projecting alternative conclusions.
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, Multiple Roles; Southern California Edison, Segments 1-3 and Segments 6-11, Kern, Los Angeles and Orange County, CA; 2009 - Present. Tria provided service to this project over seven years in multiple roles – archaeological field monitor, project coordinator, in-house consultant at SCE, and principal investigator. She provided regulatory oversight and project management regarding cultural and paleontological resource management for all segments of TRTP. Developed and implemented internal cultural resource management programs based on the mitigation measures in the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/EIS) for TRTP, and for the existing Special Use Permits and Record of Decision for TRTP, issued by the Angeles National Forest (ANF). Oversaw preparation of the Historic Properties Treatment Plans, fieldwork and technical report preparation for two large-scale Phase III Data Recovery excavations on Angeles National Forest. Coordinated with ANF archaeologists on discovery and management of previously unknown cultural resources identified during construction. Provided cultural resources analyses and clearance documentation, including technical reports, for over 100 project modifications during construction without delay to project. Finally, Tria was responsible for maintaining the geospatial data for the project within the SCE cultural resources geodatabase TRTP and coordinated with the project GIS team.
Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Area, Principal Investigator; Cadiz Inc., San Bernardino County, CA; 2013. Oversaw records search to identify the extent of previous cultural resources surveys and all previously recorded prehistoric and historic resources within the 7,500-acre Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area (Project Area) located on lands administered by the BLM Needles Field Office in unincorporated San Bernardino County, California.
SOLAR SECTOR EXPERIENCE
Ecoplexus California Correctional Institution Solar Project, Tehachapi, Kern County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (April 2018 – present). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, coordinated AB52 consultation between the State of California and local tribes, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Ecoplexus Ironwood State Prison and Chuckawalla Valley State Prison Solar Project, City of Blythe, Riverside County.
Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (June 2018 – present). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, coordinated AB52 consultation between the State of California and local tribes, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys.
She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Ecoplexus California State Prison Centinela Solar Project, City of Imperial, Imperial County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (August 2017 – April 2018). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, coordinated AB52 consultation between the State of California and local tribes, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys.
She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Ecoplexus Calipatiria State Prison Solar Project, City of Calipatria, Imperial County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (August 2017 – April 2018). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, coordinated AB52 consultation between the State of California and local tribes, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Ecoplexus RJ Donovan State Prison Solar Project, San Diego, San Diego County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (March 2018 – April 2018). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Ecoplexus Salinas Valley State Prison Solar Project, City of Soledad, Monterey County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (March 2018 – April 2018). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Belcourt CV 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Ecoplexus Correctional Training Facility Soledad Project, City of Soledad, Monterey County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (March 2018 – April 2018). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
SDG&E Cameron Substation Photovoltaic Project, San Diego, San Diego County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (September 2017 – present). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, facilitated Native American consultation between County of San Diego and local tribes, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Forefront Power Beard Solar Project, Dustin Acres, Kern County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (March 2018- April 2018). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Forefront Power Broadman Solar Project, Livermore, Alameda County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (February 2018- March 2018). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Forefront Power Nachtigall Solar Project, Wasco, Kern County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (March 2018-April 2018). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Forefront Power Rocha Solar Project, Fuller Acres, Kern County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (March 2018-April 2018). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Forefront Power Shafter Solar Project, City of Shafter, Kern County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (March 2018-present). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Forefront Power Anderson Twisselman Solar Project, Lost Hills, Kern County, California. California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (March 2018-April 2018). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Forefront Power Weedpatch Solar Project, Kern County, California. Cultural and Paleontological Assessments (March 2018- present). Belcourt provided oversight and project management for this project, involving cultural and paleontological resource desktop reviews, Native American outreach, arranged for the records searches and coordinated field surveys. She also oversaw production of the final technical report, project schedule, and timely submittal of data to prime contractor.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
Jennifer Kelly, M.Sc.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project
Manager
Jennifer Kelly has experience in all aspects of paleontology. She has extensive experience with monitoring, salvage, fieldwork, project management, and report writing, as well as volunteer experience from the La Brea Tar Pits/Page Museum and the Cooper Center of Orange County (Paleontology department) and field experience as a Staff Geologist for Leighton Geotechnical. Her expertise is Geology, and she has her M.S. in Geological Sciences, emphasis in Geochemistry.
Jennifer has taught lab courses in paleontology and general geology, and also assisted with field mapping classes. Jennifer is HAZWOPER 40-hour certified and a registered Orange County paleontologist. She has authored and co-authored more than 100 paleontological compliance documents, including PRMPs, EIR, EIS, PEA, treatment plans, final monitoring reports, survey reports, and other compliance documents, in compliance with NEPA, CEQA, Caltrans and city and county laws, ordinances, regulations, and statutes.
Education
2012 M.Sc. in Geology, California State University, Long Beach, California 2005 B.S., Geology (preliminary work for entry to M.S. Geology Program), California State University, Long Beach
2004 B.A., Theater Arts, California State University, Long Beach Certifications and Training
• 40 Hour Certification for HAZWOPER training under 29 CFR 1910. 120, CA (2013 – 2014) • Orange County Certified Paleontologist
• San Diego County Certified Paleontologist
Recent Professional Experience in California
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Harvill Industrial Project, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California (2017-present). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP). Kelly also oversees the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This project is ongoing and is scheduled to be complete in 2020.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Rider Commerce Center Project, Unincorporated Riverside County, California (2018-present). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP). Kelly also oversees the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This project is ongoing and is scheduled to be complete in 2020.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Ontario Ranch Logistic Center, City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California (2018-present) Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and authored the PRIMP for this project. Kelly also oversees the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This project is ongoing and is scheduled to be complete in 2021.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Saddleback College, City of Mission Viejo, Orange County (2018-present) Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP), and Kelly CV 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com oversaw the paleontological monitoring program detailed in the PRIMP. Kelly is currently co-authoring the final paleontological mitigation report This project is in the final stages and is scheduled to be completed 2020.
Private Development Sector Experience
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Proposed Alta Vista Specific Plan Project, SC Development, City of Placentia, Orange County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Magnolia Tank Farm Project, SLF-HB Magnolia, LLC, City of Huntington Beach, Orange County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Santa Fe Springs Apartment Project, Clearwater Communities, City of Whittier, Los Angeles County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Rider Business Center Project, Capstone Advisor, Unincorporated Riverside County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Los Olivos French Valley Project, Newland Homes LLC, Unincorporated Riverside County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Veteran’s Village Community Development Project, UHC LLC, Cathedral City, Riverside County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Colony Commerce East Project, CapRock Partners, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County (2016). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Jurupa Valley Medical Clinic Project, Boureston Company, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County (2016). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Renewable Energy Sector Experience
Paleontological Project Manager, Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP), Southern California Edison (SCE), Kern County, Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County (2009-2015). Ms. Kelly conducted and led surveys along this project’s right of way. She was also in charge of scheduling monitoring crews during grading in areas of paleontological sensitivity, managing and reviewing log sheets, and tracking data that is incorporated to final reports. Ms. Kelly played a valuable role with scheduling for the project’s needs. She monitored, surveyed, and reported on all paleontological facets of this project as the Lead Paleontological Monitor for segment 3B, which was located near Rosamond, and for segments 4-11 which extended into Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. She authored more than 10 of the compliance reports for this project. She also performed monitoring on every segment of this Project.
Paleontological Project Manager, West of Devers Transmission Line Project, SCE, Riverside County, California (2009-2016). Ms. Kelly provided all project management and paleontological related services. This included proper BLM authorization and permitting to conduct surveying and a research design for field reconnaissance related to PEA, EIS/EIR documentation for the proposed transmission line. She assisted with managing documentation with laws relating to paleontological resources, among which are CEQA and NEPA compliance.
Appendix B
Cultural Resources
Record Search Results
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources OR-00277 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the
Serrano Highlands, Project Area (rancho De
Los Alisos, Units 1 & 2)
Cottrell, Marie G. 30-000039, 30-000773
OR-00495 1980 Archaeological Assessment of Rancho De
Los Alisos Planning Area 6.
Cottrell, Marie G. 30-000741, 30-000858, 30-000859
OR-00580 1977 The Aliso Creek Watershed, Orange County, California a Proposal for Creating an
Archaeological District for the National
Register of Historic Places and a Suggested
Research and Study Design
Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
Anonymous
OR-00611 1988 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the
Baker Ranch Property, El Toro Orange
County,
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. 30-000040, 30-000758, 30-001004, 30-001145, 30-001150
OR-00730 1984 Cultural Resources Assessment Tentative
Tract 12110 Orange County, California
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. 30-001057, 30-100438, 30-100439 OR-00738 1984 Cultural Resources Assessment Tentative
Tract 11986 Orange County, California
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. 30-000698, 30-001058, 30-001495, 30-100309, 30-100310, 30-100311
OR-00748 1984 Cultural Resources Assessment Los Alisos
Research and Development Park El Toro,
Orange County, California
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. 30-000570, 30-000647, 30-000648, 30-001062, 30-001063, 30-001064,
30-001065, 30-001066
OR-00773 1985 Archaeological Site CA-ORA-1057, a Late
Prehistoric Period Hunting Camp in El Toro,
Orange County, California
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. 30-001057 OR-00798 1985 Archaeological Survey of the Canada
Apartments Property in El Toro, Orange
County, California
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.
OR-00799 1985 Archaeological Survey of Property Belonging to the William Lyon Company El Toro,
Orange County, California
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. 30-000176, 30-001100 OR-00875 1987 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the
Canada Ridge Lane Property, El Toro,
Orange County, California
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.
OR-00909 1988 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of
Tentative Parcel 83-110, El Toro, Orange
County
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.
OR-00940 1988 Interim Report Test Excavation of Nine
Archaeological Sites on the Pacific
Commercentre Property, El Toro Area,
Orange County California
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. 30-000510, 30-000647, 30-000648, 30-001062, 30-001063, 30-001064,
30-001065, 30-001066, 30-001171
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources OR-01022 1989 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Allenmccolloch Pipeline (amp) Flow Augmentation Project Reaches S4b/s5
Del Chario, Kathleen C., ARM
V. Drummy-Chapel, and
C. R. Demcak
30-000244, 30-000643, 30-000647,
30-000651
OR-01088 1990 Report on Archaeological Monitoring of
Rough Grading of Bake Parkway From
Portola Parkway to Station 159+40.81, El
Toro, California
Archaeological Advisory
Group
Brock, James P. 30-100444
OR-01372 1994 Mitigation and Monitoring of Eight Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, CA-ORA-510, CA-ORA647, CA-ORA-648, CA-ORA-1062, CA-ORA1063, CA-ORA-1065, CA-ORA-1066, CAORA-1171, Located in Southern Orange County, California
Brown, Joan C. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. 30-000510, 30-000647, 30-000648, 30-001062, 30-001063, 30-001065,
30-001066, 30-001171
OR-01567 1997 Archaeological Services for 25781 Atlantic Ocean Drive, Lake Forest (permit #w007506)
Jertberg, Patricia R. Petra Resources Inc.
OR-01583 1974 Archaeology and Paleontology Report for
Rancho De Los Alisos Area, Orange County,
California
Paleo - Nicoll, Gerald A. G.A. Nicoll and Associates
OR-01678 1998 Archaeological Services for Tract 13344, Lot 6, 25741 Atlantic Ocean Drive, Pacific
Commercentre, Lake Forest, Orange County,
California
Jertberg, Patricia R. Petra Resources Inc.
OR-01679 1998 Archaeological Services for Tract 13343, Lot 5, Pacific Commercentre, Lake Forest
Jertberg, Patricia R. Petra Resources Inc.
OR-01696 1998 Archaeological Services for Tract 13344, Lot 13, 26012 Atlantic Ocean Drive, and Lot 39,
26021 Commercentre Drive, Lake Forest
Jertberg, Patricia R. Petra Resources, Inc.
OR-01697 1998 Archaeological Services for Tract 13343, Lot 1, 20571 Crescent Bay Drive, Lake Forest
Jertberg, Patricia R. Petra Resources, Inc.
OR-02211 2001 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and
Monitoring of Pacific Commercentre, and
Mitigation of CA-ORA-1581, City of Lake
Forest, County of Orange, Ca
Hoover, Anne M. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. 30-001581
OR-02218 2000 Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed Comfort Inn Project, 20768 Lake Forest
Drive, Orange County, Ca
Archaeological Advisory
Group
Brock, James P. 30-000037, 30-001057, 30-001062,
30-001100, 30-001147, 30-001171
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources OR-02219 2000 Archaeological and Paleontological
Assessments of a 12.05 Acre Parcel Located
Just East of Dimension Drive and Enterprise
Way in Lake Forest, Orange County
Archaeological Associates,
Ltd.
White, Robert S., White,
Laurie, and Minch, John
30-000037, 30-000039, 30-000040,
30-000176, 30-000510, 30-000647,
30-000648, 30-000758, 30-000773,
30-001004, 30-001057, 30-001058,
30-001062, 30-001063, 30-001064,
30-001065, 30-001066, 30-001100,
30-001146, 30-001147, 30-001148,
30-001149, 30-001150, 30-001171,
30-001496
Paleo -
OR-03063 2001 Records Search Results for Sprint Pcs
Facility Og65xc417d (the Pacific World Site),
Located at 25791 Commercentre Drive, El
Toro in Orange County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne H.
OR-03744 2009 Cultural Resources Investigation for T-Mobile LA33498A "The Arbors" 26356 Vintage
Woods Road, Lake Forest, Orange County,
CA 92630
Archaeological Resources
Technology
Carolyn Losee
OR-03748 2009 Phase II Archaeological Evaluation CA-ORA1004 & CA-ORA-1150Patrick O. Maxon Bonterra Consulting 30-001004, 30-001150 OR-03749 2008 Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey- Proposed Alton Parkway Extension
Project, Including Baker Ranch, Lake Forest,
CA
Patrick O. Maxon BonTerra Consulting 30-000040, 30-000758, 30-001004, 30-001150
OR-03770 2009 Results of the Cultural Resource Assessment for the Southern Calirornia Edison
Replacement of Deteriorated Pole Nos.
2140160E, 2140170E, 2140171E, 2140178E,
2140179E, and 2280425; Orange County,
California; WO 4805-0557
Clark, Fatima PCR Services Corporation 30-000037, 30-000038, 30-000039, 30-000117, 30-000510, 30-000612,
30-000698, 30-000773, 30-001057,
30-001058, 30-001064, 30-001495,
30-100309, 30-100310, 30-100311,
30-100439, 30-156547
OR-03840 2009 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the IRWD Baker Regional Water Treatment Plant
Project, Orange County, CA
Marken, Mitch ESA 30-000039, 30-000647, 30-000648,
30-000773, 30-001060
OR-03992 2010 Archaeological Addendum Report for the
IRWD Baker Regional Water Treatment Plant
Project, Orange County, CA
Bray, Madeleine ESA 30-000039, 30-001495
OR-04358 1999 Archaeological and Paleontological
Monitoring Report for Serrano Creek
Business Center, Lake Forest, California
Paleo - Gust, Sherrl RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources OR-04574 2011 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Crown Castle USA Southern California Metro PCS
DAS Project, Orange and Los Angeles
Counties, California (BCR Consulting Project
No. SYN1007)
Brunzell, David BCR Consulting
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-30-000037 CA-ORA-000037 Resource Name - CAMP 37
OCAS
OR-00286, OR01995, OR-02218,
OR-02219, OR03770
Unknown AP01 1949
P-30-000040 CA-ORA-000040 Resource Name - CAMP 40
OCAS
OR-00255, OR00611, OR-01995,
OR-02219, OR03749
Site, Other Prehistoric AP02 1949
P-30-000510 CA-ORA-000510 OR-00940, OR01372, OR-01995, OR-02219, OR03770
Site Prehistoric AP02 1975 (Rice, Glen, Archaeological
Research, Inc.);
1994 (Brown, Joan, RMW Paleo
Asoociates)
P-30-001057 CA-ORA-001057 Resource Name - Signal
Landmark I
OR-00730, OR00773, OR-02218,
OR-02219, OR03747, OR-03770,
OR-04336
Site Prehistoric AP02; AP08 1984 (Bissell, Ron, RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.)
P-30-001062 CA-ORA-001062 Resource Name - Signal
Landmark III
OR-00748, OR00940, OR-01372,
OR-02218, OR02219, OR-02985
Site Prehistoric AP02 1984 (Bissell, Ron);
1994 (Brown, J., RMW Paleo
Associates)
P-30-001064 CA-ORA-001064 Resource Name - Signal
Landmark V
OR-00748, OR00940, OR-02219,
OR-03747, OR03770
Site Prehistoric AP02 1984 (Bissell, Ron);
1994 (Brown, J., RMW Paleo
Associates)
P-30-001065 CA-ORA-001065 Resource Name - Signal
Landmark VI
OR-00748, OR00940, OR-01372,
OR-02219
Site Prehistoric AP02 1984 (Bissell, Ron);
1994 (Brown, J., RMW Paleo
Associates)
P-30-001171 CA-ORA-001171 Resource Name - Site Z OR-00940, OR01372, OR-02218, OR-02219
Site Prehistoric AP02 1988 (BISSELL, RMW Paleo
Associates);
1994 (Brown, J., RMW Paleo
Associates)
P-30-001581 CA-ORA-001581 Resource Name - PCC-1 OR-02211, OR03747Site Prehistoric AP02; AP15 2000 (R. Bissell, RMW Paleo Associates)
P-30-100311 Resource Name - #5 Isolated
Chopper/Scraper;
Other - Signal Landmark Isolate III
OR-00738, OR03747, OR-03770,
OR-04336
Other Prehistoric AP02 1984 (R. Bissell, RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.)
P-30-100438 Resource Name - Signal
Landmark Isolate I
OR-00730, OR03747, OR-04336Other Prehistoric AP02 1984 (R. Bissell)
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-30-100439 Resource Name - Signal
Landmark Isolate II
OR-00730, OR03747, OR-03770Other Prehistoric AP02 1984 (R. Bissell)
Appendix C
NAHC and Native American
Correspondence
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
August 5, 2020
Tria Belcourt
Material Culture Consulting, Inc.
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: EPD Great Scott Project, Orange County
Dear Ms. Belcourt:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
Marshall McKay
Wintun
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians
Sonia Johnston, Chairperson
P.O. Box 25628
Santa Ana, CA, 92799
[email protected]
Juaneno
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation -
Belardes
Matias Belardes, Chairperson
32161 Avenida Los Amigos
San Juan Capisttrano, CA, 92675
Phone: (949) 293 - 8522
[email protected]
Juaneno
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation -
Belardes
Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager
4955 Paseo Segovia
Irvine, CA, 92603
Phone: (949) 293 - 8522
[email protected]
Juaneno
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation -
Romero
Heidi Lucero, Cultural Resources
Director
31411-A La Matanza Street
San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675
Phone: (949) 488 - 3484
[email protected]
Juaneno
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation -
Romero
Teresa Romero, Chairperson
31411-A La Matanza Street
San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675
Phone: (949) 488 - 3484
Fax: (949) 488-3294
[email protected]
Juaneno
La Jolla Band of Luiseno
Indians
Fred Nelson, Chairperson
22000 Highway 76
Pauma Valley, CA, 92061
Phone: (760) 742 - 3771
Luiseno
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed EPD Great Scott Project, Orange County.
PROJ-2020-
004315
08/05/2020 03:30 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Orange County
8/5/2020
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Rd.
Pala, CA, 92059
Phone: (760) 891 - 3515
Fax: (760) 742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians
Temet Aguilar, Chairperson
P.O. Box 369
Pauma Valley, CA, 92061
Phone: (760) 742 - 1289
Fax: (760) 742-3422
[email protected]
Luiseno
San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians
1889 Sunset Drive
Vista, CA, 92081
Phone: (760) 724 - 8505
Fax: (760) 724-2172
[email protected]
Luiseno
San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians
San Luis Rey, Tribal Council
1889 Sunset Drive
Vista, CA, 92081
Phone: (760) 724 - 8505
Fax: (760) 724-2172
[email protected]
Luiseno
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Scott Cozart, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92583
Phone: (951) 654 - 2765
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed EPD Great Scott Project, Orange County.
PROJ-2020-
004315
08/05/2020 03:30 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Orange County
8/5/2020
August 6, 2020
RE: Proposed Great Scott Project, City of Lake Forest; El Toro USGS Quadrangle, Orange County, California.
Greetings,
Material Culture Consulting, Inc (MCC) is conducting the cultural resources review of the above project to support preparation of the environmental documents. The project proposes the development of a parcel in the City of Lake Forest, CA (see attached map). As part of our background research and forthcoming survey, we would like to invite you to share any knowledge of potential cultural resources within the project area.
Please note - this request is not part of any formal local, state, or federal consultation process, and all requests for consultation should be directed to the City of Lake Forest as the Lead CEQA Agency.
Our firm contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on August 4, 2020 to request review of the Sacred Lands File and for a list of tribes with traditional lands and/or cultural places within the area. The NAHC responded on August 5, 2020 stating that the Sacred Lands File review resulted in negative results and provided your contact information as part of the list. We understand that negative results do not preclude the existence of cultural resources, and that a tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource, which is why we are contacting you.
Project Location and Description
The proposed Project Area currently exists as a developed area with a home, barn, and multiple structures associated with various farm animals. It is bounded by commercial development in all cardinal directions.
The Project Area is located west of Linear Lane, north of Canada Road, and Is bordered by Serrano Creek to the south and east. The Project consists of remodeling the existing house to an office, removing structures associated with animal keeping, creating gravel parking areas, and clearing some vegetation. The area of potential impact (API) would encompass a total of approximately 6.37 acres. Specifically, the proposed Project is located within Section 11 and 12 of Township 06 South and Range 08 West on the USGS El Toro quadrangle (San Bernardino Base Meridian).
Please respond at your earliest convenience if you wish to share any knowledge of cultural resources within or adjacent to the API. Any information, concerns, or recommendations regarding cultural resources within the API can be shared with me via telephone, email, or via standard mail. Thank you very much for your assistance.
Kindest regards,
-
Tria Belcourt, M.A., RPA
President and Principal Archaeologist
626-205-8279
[email protected]
EPD Great Scott
CEQA Due Diligence Native American Contact Log
August 6, 2020
Name/Affiliation Date and
Method of
1st Contact
Date of 1st
Follow Up
Attempt
Date of 2nd
Follow-Up
Attempt
Results MCC Response
Andrew Salas,
Chairperson
Gabrieleno
Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
P.O. Box 393 Covina,
CA, 91723
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
and
voicemail
left on
September
9, 2020.
[EM]
On 8/8, MCC
received an email
from Brandy Salas
requesting the lead
agency’s contact
information.
MCC will include
response within
report.
Anthony Morales,
Chairperson
Gabrieleno/Tongva
San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians
P.O. Box 693 San
Gabriel, CA, 91778
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
on
September
9, 2020.
[EM]
Mr. Morales stated
that due to its
location warrants
archaeo and Native
American
monitoring, but
would like to be
updated with the
survey and record
search results to
provide a positive
answer. An update
was given on
11/3/20 to Mr.
Morales. He stated if
arch monitoring is
required, he requires
a Native American
monitor. He would
like to be informed
as the project
continues.
MCC will include
response within
report.
Sandonne Goad,
Chairperson
Gabrielino /Tongva
Nation
106 1/2 Judge John
Aiso St., #231 Los
Angeles, CA, 90012
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call was
placed on
September
9, 2020.
Mailbox was
full. [EM]
n/a n/a
EPD Great Scott
CEQA Due Diligence Native American Contact Log
August 6, 2020
Robert Dorame,
Chairperson
Gabrielino Tongva
Indians of California
Tribal Council
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call was
placed on
September
9, 2020.
Mailbox was
full. [EM]
Mr. Dorame would
like to be informed
after the survey is
completed to give
the tribe’s response.
An update was given
on 11/3/20, in the
event that cultural
resources or human
remains are
discovered or
impacted, the tribe
would like to be
notify regardless of
the coroner’s
decision. The
reasoning is that
there has been
confusion recently
within Orange
County when
discovering human
remains.
MCC will include
response within
report.
Charles Alvarez
Gabrielino-Tongva
Tribe
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
and
voicemail
left on
September
9, 2020 [EM]
n/a n/a
Sonia Johnston,
Chairperson
Juaneno Band of
Mission Indians
P.O. Box 25628 Santa
Ana, CA, 92799
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
E-mail was
resent on
September
9, 2020.
[EM]
n/a n/a
Matias Belardes,
Chairperson
Juaneno Band of
Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation –
Belardes
32161 Avenida Los
Amigos San Juan
Capistrano, CA, 92675
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
and directed
to Joyce
Perry. See
below.
n/a n/a
EPD Great Scott
CEQA Due Diligence Native American Contact Log
August 6, 2020
Joyce Perry, Tribal
Manager
Juaneno Band of
Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation –
Belardes
4955 Paseo Segovia
Irvine, CA, 92603
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
and
voicemail
left on
September
9, 2020.
[EM]
n/a n/a
Heidi Lucero, Cultural
Resources Director
Juaneno Band of
Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation –
Romero
31411-A La Matanza
Street San Juan
Capistrano, CA, 92675
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
on
September
9, 2020.
[EM]
n/a n/a
Teresa Romero,
Chairperson
Juaneno Band of
Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation –
Romero
31411-A La Matanza
Street San Juan
Capistrano, CA, 92675
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call was
placed and
directed to
above
contact on
September
9, 2020.
[EM]
n/a n/a
Fred Nelson,
Chairperson
La Jolla Band of
Luiseno Indians
22000 Highway 76
Pauma Valley, CA,
92061
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
Call
placed
and
voicemail
left on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
and
message left
for Cultural
Resource
Department
with
secretary
Nicole on
September
9, 2020.
[EM]
n/a n/a
Shasta Gaughen,
Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
Pala Band of Mission
Indians
PMB 50, 35008 Pala
Temecula Rd.
Pala, CA, 9205
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
and
voicemail
left on
September
9, 2020.
[EM]
n/a n/a
EPD Great Scott
CEQA Due Diligence Native American Contact Log
August 6, 2020
Temet Aguilar,
Chairperson
Pauma Band of
Luiseno Indians
P.O. Box 369 Pauma
Valley, CA, 92061
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
and
voicemail
left on
September
9, 2020.
n/a n/a
San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians
1889 Sunset Drive
Vista, CA, 92081
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
and was
directed to
call Cami at
(760)917-
1736.
Cami stated the
Project Area is out of
boundaries and
defers to Juaneno
Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen
Nation – Belardes.
MCC will include
response in
report.
San Luis Rey, Tribal
Council
San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indian
1889 Sunset Drive
Vista, CA, 92081
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
See above n/a n/a
Lovina Redner, Tribal
Chair
Santa Rosa Band of
Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 391820 Anza,
CA, 9253
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
and directed
to send
email. Email
was sent to
Vanessa
Minott on
September
9, 2020
n/a n/a
Joseph Ontiveros,
Cultural Resource
Department
Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians
P.O. BOX 487 San
Jacinto, CA, 92581
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
Call placed
on
September
9, 2020.
Mr. Ontiveros
deferred the Project
to tribes in the area.
MCC will include
response in
report.
Scott Cozart,
Chairperson
Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians
P. O. Box 487 San
Jacinto, CA, 92583
Letter
mailed via
USPS on
August 6,
2020 [EM]
E-mail
sent on
August 25,
2020 [EM]
See above n/a n/a
Appendix D
Paleontological Resources
Records Search Results
Research & Collections
e-mail: [email protected]
7 August 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc.
2701-B North Towne Ave
Pomona, CA 91767
Attn: Erika McMullin; [email protected] re: Paleontological resources for the Great Scott Project, Orange County, CA Dear Erika:
I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for proposed development at Great Scott Project, Orange County, CA project area as outlined on the portion of the El Toro USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on 4 August 2020. We do not have any fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project area, but we do have fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur in the proposed project area, either at the surface or at depth.
The following table shows the closest known localities in the collection of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
Locality Number Location Formation Taxa Depth
LACM VP 5500
east of Lake Forest Drive
between Vintage Road on the
north & Pittsford Drive on the
south
Capistrano
Formation Seals (Pinnipedia) unknown
LACM VP 4666-
4668
West of El Toro Road & north
of Trabuco Road
Capistrano
Formation
Mammals, including eared
seals (Otariidae) 22 ft bgs
LACM IP 7706 1 mile W.S.W. of El Toro
Topanga
Formation Invertebrates unknown
LACM VP 7546-
7547
N. side of Blake Parkway, W.
of state highway 241
Capistrano
Formation
Dolphin (Pontoporiidae), seal
(Imagotariinae) unknown
LACM VP 3491 Cheery Street & El Toro Road
Capistrano
Formation
Shark (Carcharodon, Isurus;
teleost fishes (Teleostei);
eared seals (Otariidae);
toothed whale (Odontoceti) unknown
VP, Vertebrate Paleontology; IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs, below ground surface Excavations into fossil-bearing strata may well encounter significant fossils and should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any specimens without impeding development. Also, sediment samples should be collected and processed to determine the small fossil potential in the proposed project area. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.
This records search covers only the records of the NaturalHistory Museum of Los Angeles County. It is not intended to take the place of a thorough paleontological assessment of the proposed project area covering other institutional records, a literature review, or any potential on-site survey.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Bell, Ph.D.
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
enclosure: invoice
131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com September 14, 2023 Project No. 19035-01
Mr. Sam Juarez
EPD Solutions, Inc.
2030 Main Street, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Recommendations for Proposed Great Scott Tree Service Commercial Development, APNs 610‐301‐07, ‐20, and ‐21, 20865 Canada Road, Lake Forest, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Great Scott Tree Service commercial development, APNs 610- 301-07, -20, and -21, located at 20865 Canada Road in the City of Lake Forest, 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.
Ryan Douglas, PE, GE 3147 Katie Maes, CEG 2216
Project Engineer Project Geologist
RLD/KTM/amm
Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic copy)
Project No. 19035‐01 Page i September 14, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation .................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS.............................................................................................................6
2.1 Geologic Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Generalized Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Field Infiltration Testing ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Seismic Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.6 Faulting ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.6.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement .............................................................................. 10
2.6.2 Lateral Spreading ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.7 Expansion Potential ................................................................................................................................ 11
3.0 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................12
4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................13
4.1 Site Earthwork .......................................................................................................................................... 13
4.1.1 Site Preparation ......................................................................................................................... 13
4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction Depths and Limits ........................................................... 14
4.1.3 Temporary Excavations ......................................................................................................... 15
4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation ................................................................ 15
4.1.5 Material for Fill .......................................................................................................................... 16
4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills .................................................................................... 17
4.1.7 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction .................................................. 17
4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ................................................................................. 18
4.2.1 Slab Design and Construction .............................................................................................. 18
4.2.2 Slab Underlayment Guidelines ............................................................................................ 19
4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance ................................................................................................ 19
4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls (Including Truck Docks) ............................ 20
4.5 Soil Corrosivity .......................................................................................................................................... 21
4.6 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control .......................................................................... 22
4.7 Subsurface Water Infiltration .............................................................................................................. 22
4.8 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections .................................................................. 23
4.9 Preliminary Gravel Parking Area Recommendations ................................................................ 23
4.10 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork ...................................................................................................... 24
4.11 Geotechnical Plan Review ..................................................................................................................... 25
4.12 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction ................................................. 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Project No. 19035‐01 Page ii September 14, 2023
5.0 LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................................26
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map (Page 3)
Figure 2 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail (Rear of Text) Sheets
Sheet 1 – Geotechnical Exploration Location Map (Rear of Text) Tables
Table 1 – Summary of Field Infiltration Testing (Page 7) Table 2 – Seismic Design Parameters for Structures with a Period of Vibration ≤ 0.5 Second (Page 8) Table 3 – Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Sandy Soils (Page 19) Table 4 – Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Section Options (Page 22) Table 5 – Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Placed on Very Low Expansion Potential Subgrade (Page 23)
Appendices
Appendix A – References
Appendix B – Field Exploration Logs
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – Infiltration Test Data
Appendix E – Liquefaction Analysis
Appendix F – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Project No. 19035‐01 Page 1 September 14, 2023
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services
This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed commercial development located at 20865 Canada Road in the City of Lake Forest, California.
Refer to the Site Location Map (Figure 1).
The purpose of our study was to provide a preliminary geotechnical evaluation relative to the proposed development. As part of our scope of work, we have: 1) reviewed available geotechnical background information including in-house regional geologic maps and published geotechnical literature pertinent to the site (Appendix A); 2) performed a limited subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site consisting of the excavation of three small-diameter borings ranging in depth from approximately 5 to 50 feet below existing ground surface; 3) performed one field infiltration test; 4) performed laboratory testing of select soil samples obtained during our subsurface evaluation; and 5) prepared this geotechnical summary report presenting our preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations for the development of the proposed project.
1.2 Existing Conditions
The approximately 6.72-acre project site is comprised of three parcels (APNs 610-301-07, -20, and -21) and is currently developed with one single-family residence, along with a second residence that was converted for office use which has since been demolished, and a barn with multiple structures. Open unpaved (dirt) areas within the site are used for parking and storage.
Serrano Creek forms the project site’s northern boundary. There are several trees with brush and vegetation distributed throughout the site. The Project site is currently accessed from two driveways on Linear Lane and a driveway on Canada Road.
Based on review of historic aerials, it appears the barn structure was constructed some time before the year 1938 and the residential structure was constructed sometime between the years 1946 and 1952.
1.3 Project Description
Based on the preliminary grading plan (Huitt-Zollars, 2023), the proposed improvements include the construction of a gravel road and gravel parking areas, building remodels, a new trash enclosure, retaining walls, and water quality improvements. The proposed development is located on the southern side of the existing Serrano Creek alignment. Design cuts and fills (not including required remedial grading) are anticipated to be on the order of 2 to 4 feet. The proposed building remodels are anticipated to be relatively light with maximum column and wall loads of approximately 20 kips and 2 kips per linear foot, respectively. Please note no structural loads were provided to us at the time of this report.
Some of the existing structures including the barn (storage building) and residence (office) are anticipated to remain in-place and keep the same building footprint that currently exists.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 2 September 14, 2023
The recommendations given in this report are based upon the estimated structural loading, grading and layout information above. We understand that the project plans are currently being developed at this time; LGC Geotechnical should be provided with updated project plans and any changes to structural loads when they become available, in order to either confirm or modify the recommendations provided herein.
Approximate Site Location
FIGURE 1
Site Location Map
DATE September 2023
ENG. / GEOL.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT NAME
SCALE
RLD / KTM
Not to Scale
Great Scott - Lake Forest
19035-01
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 4 September 14, 2023
1.4 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation
LGC Geotechnical performed a limited subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site consisting of the excavation of three hollow-stem auger borings to evaluate onsite geotechnical conditions.
Three hollow-stem borings (HS-1, HS-2 & I-1) were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 50 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical staff engineer observed the drilling operations, logged the borings, and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. The borings were excavated by Calpac Drilling under subcontract to LGC Geotechnical using a truckmounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem augers. Driven soil samples were collected by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California Drive (MCD) sampler generally obtained at 2.5 to 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.
The raw blow counts for each 6-inch increment of penetration were recorded on the boring logs.
Bulk samples of the near-surface soils were also collected and logged at select borings for laboratory testing. At the completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with the native soil cuttings and tamped. Some settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time.
Infiltration testing was performed within one of the borings (I-1) to a depth of 5 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical staff engineer installed standpipe, backfilled the boring with crushed rock and pre-soaked the infiltration hole prior to testing. Infiltration testing was performed per the County of Orange testing guidelines. The location was subsequently backfilled with native soils at the completion of testing.
The approximate locations of our subsurface explorations are provided on the Geotechnical Exploration Location Map (Figure 2). The boring logs are provided in Appendix B.
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 index, consolidation, R-value and corrosion (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 91 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 117 pcf, with an average of 106 pcf. Field moisture contents ranged from approximately 1 to 26 percent, with an average of 13 percent. Four fines content tests were performed and indicated a fines content (passing No. 200 sieve) ranging from approximately 6 to 37 percent. Based on the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS), the tested samples would be classified as “coarse-grained.” One Atterberg Limit (liquid limit and plastic limit) test was performed. Results indicated a Plasticity Index (PI) value of 17.
One consolidation test was performed. The load versus deformation plot is provided in Project No. 19035‐01 Page 5 September 14, 2023
Appendix C.
Expansion potential testing indicated an expansion index value of 8, corresponding to “Very Low” expansion potential.
One R-value test was performed on a bulk sample collected and resulted in an R-Value of 66. Corrosion testing indicated soluble sulfate contents of approximately 0.02 percent, a chloride content of 103 parts per million (ppm), pH of 8.2, and a minimum resistivity of 857 ohmcentimeters.
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. 19035‐01 Page 6 September 14, 2023
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
2.1 Geologic Conditions
The subject site is located within the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, part of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The region consists of dissected foothills bordering the Los Angeles Basin to the northwest and the granite-core Santa Ana Mountains to the east. The Southern California Batholith forms the core of the Santa Ana Mountains, which is overlain by a thick sequence of sedimentary units, which comprise the foothills including the subject site. Late Miocene to Early Pliocene bedrock materials of the Oso Member of the Capistrano Formation that underlie the subject site at depth are primarily composed of sandstone and silty sandstone (USGS, 2004).
The site is specifically located within the Serrano Creek drainage course and the area just southeast of the active drainage. The southwest-flowing creek has deposited variable alluvial materials as observed during our subsurface investigation.
2.2 Generalized Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface evaluation performed at the subject site indicated that site soils consist of variable alluvium ranging from very moist to wet, moderate to dark brown clayey sand and sand, to an alluvial deposit consisting of light gray, relatively dry, medium to coarse sand with few pebbles. The material is labelled “younger alluvium” on boring logs. Bedrock of the Capistrano Formation, Oso Member was encountered at depth below the alluvium, consisting of light yellowish brown, silty sandstone, moist, very dense, observed to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50 feet below existing grade.
It should be noted that the borings 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.
2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in our boring HS-1 at a depth of approximately 15 feet below existing grade. Historic high groundwater is estimated to be about 10 feet below existing grade (CDMG, 2000).
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.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 7 September 14, 2023
2.4 Field Infiltration Testing
One field percolation test was performed in the area of the proposed infiltration trench and the location is depicted on Figure 2 – Geotechnical Exploration Location Map. Test well installation consisted of placing a 3-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe in the excavated borehole and backfilling the annulus with crushed rock including the placement of approximately 2 inches of crushed rock at the bottom of the borehole. The infiltration test well was presoaked the day of installation and testing took place within 24 hours of presoaking. During the pre-test, the water level was observed to drop less than 6 inches in 25 minutes for two consecutive readings.
Therefore, the test procedure for fine-grained soils or “slow test” was followed. Test well installation and the estimation of infiltration rates were accomplished in general accordance with the guidelines set forth by the County of Orange (2013). In general, three-dimensional flow out of the test well (percolation), as observed in the field, is mathematically reduced to one-dimensional flow out of the bottom of the test well (infiltration). Infiltration tests are performed using relatively clean water, free of particulates, silt, etc. The results of our recent field infiltration testing are presented in Appendix D and summarized below.
TABLE 1
Summary of Field Infiltration Testing
Infiltration Test
Identification
Approx. Depth
Below Existing
Grade (ft)
Observed
Infiltration Rate*
(in./hr.)
Measured
Infiltration Rate**
(in./hr.)
I-1 5 0.7 0.35
*Observed Infiltration Rates Do Not Include Factor of Safety. **Measured Infiltration Rates Include a Factor of Safety of 2 in Order to Evaluate Feasibility. The actual design Factor of Safety could be higher and should be verified by the civil engineer.
The tested infiltration rates provided in this report are considered a general representation of the infiltration rates at the location of the proposed infiltration trench. Please note, the testing of infiltration rates is highly dependent upon the materials encountered at the point of testing (i.e. location and depth of testing). Varying subsurface conditions may exist outside of the test location which could alter the calculated infiltration rate. Please refer to Section 4.7 for subsurface water infiltration recommendations.
2.5 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. Since the site contain soils that are susceptible to liquefaction (refer to section below “Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement”), ASCE 7-16 which has been adopted by the CBC requires that site soils be assigned Site Class “F” and a sitespecific response spectrum be performed. However, in accordance with Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-16, if the fundamental periods of vibration of the planned structure are equal to or less than
0.5 seconds, a site-specific response spectrum is not required and ASCE 7-16/2022 CBC site class and seismic parameters may be used in lieu of a site-specific response spectrum. It Project No. 19035‐01 Page 8 September 14, 2023
should be noted that the seismic parameters provided herein are not applicable for any structure having a fundamental period of vibration greater than 0.5 seconds.
Additionally, the following seismic parameters are only applicable for code‐based acceleration response spectra and are not applicable for where site‐specific ground motion procedures are required by ASCE 7‐16. Representative site coordinates of latitude
33.6606 degrees north and longitude -117.6751 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 D are provided in Table 2 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.
A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period (MCE) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.57 at a distance of approximately 15.98 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 6.57 at a distance of approximately 21.89 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 0.570 (SEAOC, 2022).
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 9 September 14, 2023
TABLE 2
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 D* Chapter 20 of ASCE 7
Ss (Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration
for Short Periods) 1.250g From SEAOC, 2022
S1 (Risk-Targeted Spectral
Accelerations for 1-Second Periods) 0.446g From SEAOC, 2022 Fa (per Table 1613.2.3(1)) 1.000
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)) 1.854
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
SMS for Site Class D
[Note: SMS = FaSS] 1.250g -
SM1 for Site Class D
[Note: SM1 = FvS1] 0.827g
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
SDS for Site Class D
[Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 0.833g -
SD1 for Site Class D
[Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1] 0.551g
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
CRS (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec) 0.940 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 CR1 (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec) 0.932 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 *Since site soils are Site Class D and S1 is greater than or equal to 0.2, the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken equal to 1.5 times the value calculated in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > Ts, or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL. Refer to ASCE 7-16.
2.6 Faulting
The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (AlquistPriolo) and no faults were identified on the site during our site evaluation (CGS, 2018). The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. The closest known active faults are associated with the San Joaquin Hills Fault, located approximately 3.1 miles from the site; the Elsinore Fault Zone, approximately 12.6 miles northeast of the site; and the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 12.7 miles southwest of the site.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 10 September 14, 2023
Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include ground lurching and shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction, and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. A discussion of these secondary effects is provided in the following sections.
2.6.1 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.
Based on our review of the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction potential (CDMG, 2001), the site is located within a liquefaction hazard zone. In general, site soils are medium dense to dense and not susceptible to liquefaction. However, isolated loose sand layers are present and considered susceptible to liquefaction. The recent encountered in-situ groundwater depth of 15 feet below existing grade and historic high groundwater depth of 10 feet below existing grade were both used in the liquefaction analysis. The liquefaction evaluation was performed using data from boring HS-1. Liquefaction potential was evaluated using the procedures outlined by Special Publication 117A (SCEC, 1999 & CGS, 2008) and based on the seismic criteria of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and historic high groundwater depth. Liquefaction induced settlement was estimated using the PGAM per the 2022 CBC and a moment magnitude of 6.9 (USGS, 2008).
Results indicate total seismic settlement on the order of 2-inches or less. Differential seismic settlement can be estimated as half of the total estimated settlement over a horizontal span of about 40 feet (i.e., 1-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet). Seismically induced settlements were estimated by the procedure outlined by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). Liquefaction calculations are provided in Appendix E.
2.6.2 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 Project No. 19035‐01 Page 11 September 14, 2023
cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures.
Based on site liquefaction potential, lateral spreading and consequently zones of instability (horizontal displacements) near the banks of the adjacent creek are possible during the design basis earthquake ground motion. A corrected (N1)60 blow count of less than 15 is typically used for screening of potential lateral spreading (Youd, Hansen, Bartlett, 2002). Based on the obtained data, the soils within the lateral zone of the creek generally have corrected (N1)60 values of at least 15. Based on the obtained apparent density (i.e., blow counts) obtained from our field evaluation the potential for lateral spreading is generally considered low.
2.7 Expansion Potential
Based on the results of our recent laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have a “Very Low” expansion potential. Final expansion potential of site soils should be determined at the completion of grading. Results of expansion testing at finish grades will be utilized to confirm final foundation design.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 12 September 14, 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 following conclusions and recommendations are implemented.
The following is a summary of the primary geotechnical factors that may affect future development of the site:
Groundwater was encountered during our subsurface evaluation at a depth of approximately 15 feet below existing ground surface. Historic high groundwater is estimated to be about 10 feet below existing grade (CDMG, 2000).
The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Alquist-Priolo).
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. Site soils are considered susceptible to liquefaction. The site is located in a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction. Total dynamic settlement is estimated to be on the order of 2-inches or less. Differential dynamic settlement can be estimated at half of the total settlement over a horizontal span of 40 feet for design of foundations.
Based on the results of preliminary laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have “Very Low” expansion potential. Final design expansion potential must be determined at the completion of grading.
From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils are suitable material for use as general fill (not retaining wall backfill), provided that they are relatively free from oversized material (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and significant organic material.
Some portions of the onsite soils have high fines content and are not suitable for backfill of site retaining walls. Therefore, import and/or select grading and stockpiling of onsite sandy soils meeting project recommendations may be required.
Excavations into the existing site soils should be feasible with heavy construction equipment in good working order.
The proposed grading and construction are not anticipated to pose a significant adverse geotechnical impact on the existing and surrounding improvements and adjoining sites, provided the recommendations presented in this report are implemented during design and construction of the site.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 13 September 14, 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 consist of demolition of the existing site improvements, required earthwork removals, subgrade preparation, precise grading and construction of the proposed new improvements including the remodeled buildings, parking areas, subsurface utilities, water quality facilities, etc.
We recommend that earthwork be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, future grading plan review report(s), the 2022 CBC/City of Lake Forest grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix F. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included in Appendix F. The following recommendations should be considered preliminary and may be revised based upon future evaluation and review of the project plans and/or based on the actual conditions encountered during site grading/construction.
4.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered improvements, the areas should be cleared of existing building structures, asphalt, surface obstructions, and Project No. 19035‐01 Page 14 September 14, 2023
demolition debris. Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. 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 should be completely removed and replaced with properly placed compacted fill. Deeper demolition may be required in order to remove existing foundations. We recommend the trenches associated with demolition which extend below the remedial grading depth be backfilled and properly compacted prior to the demolition contractor leaving the site.
If cesspools or septic systems are encountered during earthwork, 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 and Recompaction Depths and Limits
In order to provide a relatively uniform bearing condition for the planned building structures and improvements, we recommend the site soils be removed and recompacted.
New Buildings: We recommend that soils within new building pads be removed and recompacted to a minimum depth of 4 feet below existing grade or 3 feet beneath the base of the foundations, whichever is deeper. Where adequate space is available, the base of removal and recompaction bottoms should extend laterally a minimum distance equal to the depth of removal and recompaction below finish grade or at a minimum distance of 4 feet beyond the edges of the proposed building foundations, whichever is larger.
Building Remodel Areas: We recommend that soils supporting new footings/slabs within the existing building remodel areas be removed and recompacted to a minimum depth of 2 feet below existing grade. Where adequate space is available, the base of removal and recompaction bottoms should extend laterally a minimum distance equal to the depth of removal and recompaction below finish grade or at a minimum distance of 2 feet beyond the edges of the proposed building foundations, whichever is larger.
Minor Site Structures: For minor site structures such as free-standing, screen walls, trash enclosures, etc., removal and recompaction should extend at least 3 feet beneath the existing grade or 2 feet beneath the base of foundations, whichever is deeper. In general, the envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the edges of the proposed improvements mentioned above, where space permits.
Pavement and Hardscape: Within pavement areas, removal and recompaction should extend to a depth of at least 1 foot below the existing grade or 1 foot beneath the finished subgrade (i.e., beneath planned aggregate base/asphalt concrete or gravel). Within hardscape areas, removal and recompaction should extend to a depth of at least 1 foot Project No. 19035‐01 Page 15 September 14, 2023
below the existing grade or 1 foot beneath the finished subgrade (i.e., beneath planned concrete).
Local conditions may be encountered during excavation that could require deep remedial grading beyond the above noted minimum in order to obtain an acceptable subgrade. The actual depths and lateral extents of grading will be determined by the geotechnical consultant, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading. Removal and recompaction areas should be accurately staked in the field by the Project Surveyor.
4.1.3 Temporary Excavations
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. Based on our field investigation, the majority of site soils are anticipated to be OSHA Type “B” soils (refer to the attached boring logs). Sandy soils are present and should be considered susceptible to caving. Raveling of the sandy soils should be anticipated for temporary slopes. Flatter slope inclinations should be considered if raveling cannot be tolerated. The exposed slope surface may be kept surficially moist (but not saturated) during construction to reduce (not eliminate) potential sloughing. Soil conditions should be regularly evaluated during construction to verify conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person” required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination with the geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor.
Surcharge loads (vehicular traffic, soil stockpiles, construction equipment, etc.) should be set back from the perimeter of excavations a minimum distance equivalent to a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation or 5 feet, whichever is greater, unless the cut is properly shored and designed for the applicable surcharge load. 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. If requested, temporary shoring parameters will be provided.
4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation
In general, 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 (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content), and re-compacted per project recommendations.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 16 September 14, 2023
Removal bottoms and areas to receive fill should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement. Soil subgrade for planned footings and improvements (e.g., slabs, etc.) should be firm and competent.
4.1.5 Material for Fill
From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally considered suitable for use as general compacted fill, provided they are screened of significant 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 soils of “Very Low” expansion potential (expansion index 20 or less based on American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] D 4829), and free of significant organic materials, construction debris and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Import for any required 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.
Retaining wall backfill should consist of imported or onsite free draining, clean granular (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 significant 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, select grading and stockpiling and/or import of soils meeting the criteria outlined above will be required by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. These preliminary findings should be confirmed during grading.
Aggregate base (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) should conform to the requirements of Section 200-2 of the most recent version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for untreated base materials (except processed miscellaneous base) and/or City of Lake Forest requirements.
The placement of inert demolition materials in compacted fill is acceptable from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the demolition material is broken up into pieces not larger than typically used for aggregate base (approximately 1 to 3 inch in maximum dimension) and well blended into fill soils with essentially no resulting voids. Demolition material placed in fills must be free of construction debris (wood, organics, etc.) and reinforcing steel. If asphalt concrete fragments will be incorporated into the demolition materials, approval from an environmental viewpoint may be required and is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. From our previous experience, we recommend that asphalt concrete fragments be limited to fill areas within planned parking and drive aisle areas (i.e., not within building pad areas).
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 17 September 14, 2023
4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills
Material to be placed as fill should be brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 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. Drying and or mixing of very moist soils will be required prior to reusing the materials in compacted fills. Soils are also present that will require additional moisture in order to achieve the required compaction.
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.
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 (generally within optimum and 2 percent 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 (Mirafi 140N or approved alternative) or at the very minimum to be vertically separated from the trench backfill with filter fabric to prevent the migration of fines into the rock backfill.
4.1.7 Trench and Retaining 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 above 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 the above Section.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 18 September 14, 2023
Utility trenches running parallel to footings should not be excavated within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) downward projection from adjacent footings (“footing influence zone”) to avoid potential undermining. Depending on the utility line and structural loading of the footing, utility trenches running perpendicular to footings may require special provisions such as sand-cement slurry backfill of the utility trench in this zone or flexible sleeves through the footings. These conditions should be evaluated on a case-bycase basis.
Retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils as outlined in preceding Section 4.1.5.
The limits of select sandy backfill should extend at minimum ½ the height of the retaining wall or the width of the heel (if applicable), whichever is greater (Figure 3). Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to at least 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.
4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations
The proposed building additions and modular structures may be supported on a conventional slab and spread footings or a mat slab, provided earthwork is performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. All footings should be supported on properly compacted fill. Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion of grading.
Preliminary foundation recommendations are provided in the following sections. The foundation design must be performed by the structural engineer based on the following geotechnical parameters and minimum values provided.
4.2.1 Slab Design and Construction
We recommend buildings be founded on a conventional slab with a minimum thickness of 4 inches. Prefabricated modular buildings (office structures, etc.) may also be founded on a mat slab with a minimum thickness of 6 inches. Conventional slabs and mat slabs are to be supported on compacted fill soils properly prepared in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report. Minimum slab reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer based on the imposed loading, crack control, estimated static settlement and seismic settlement, etc.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 19 September 14, 2023
It is recommended that subgrade soils below mat slabs be moisture conditioned in order to maintain the recommended moisture content up to the time of concrete placement. The recommended moisture content of the mat slab subgrade soils should be approximately 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches. The moisture content of the mat slab subgrade should be verified by the geotechnical engineer within 1 to 2 days prior to concrete placement. In addition, this moisture content should be maintained around the immediate perimeter of the mat slabs during construction.
4.2.2 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 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
Provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and minimum embedment of 12 inches below lowest adjacent ground surface.
These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. Bearing values indicated are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by ⅓ for short duration loading (i.e., wind or seismic loads).
In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity and provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, foundation settlement due to structural loads is anticipated to be ½-inch or less. Differential settlement may be taken as half of the total settlement (i.e., ¼- inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet). Seismic settlement recommendations are presented in Section 2.6.1.
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 0.3 may be assumed with dead-load forces. For slabs constructed over a moisture retarder, the allowable friction coefficient should be provided by the manufacturer. An allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 225 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,250 psf may be used for lateral resistance. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 300 pcf to a maximum of 3,000 psf for short duration seismic or wind loading. These passive pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only.
For a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) downward sloping condition, a reduced allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 100 pcf to a maximum of 1,000 psf may be used. We recommend that the upper foot of passive resistance be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete or asphalt. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be used in combination without Project No. 19035‐01 Page 20 September 14, 2023
reduction. 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. The structural designer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety and/or load factors in their design.
4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls
The following may be used for design of site retaining walls. 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 weight of soil over the wall footing.
The following lateral earth pressures are presented in Table 3 for approved import or onsite free draining, clean granular (sandy) soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve per ASTM D-421/422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Portions of the onsite soils are not suitable for retaining wall backfill due to their fines content. Therefore, select grading and stockpiling and/or import of soils meeting the criteria outlined above will be required by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. The wall designer should clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans the required select sandy soil backfill criteria. These preliminary findings should be confirmed during grading.
TABLE 3
Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Sandy Soils
Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight
(pcf)
Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight
(pcf)
Level Backfill 2:1 Sloped Backfill
Approved Sandy Soils Approved Sandy Soils
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 70
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 earth pressure will be higher. This would include 90-degree corners of retaining walls. Such walls should be designed for “at-rest.” 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. 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 engineer.
Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. To reduce, but not eliminate, saturation of near-surface (upper approximate 1- foot) soils in front of the retaining walls, the perforated subdrain pipe should be located as low as possible behind the retaining wall. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable Project No. 19035‐01 Page 21 September 14, 2023
outlet. In general, we do not recommend retaining wall outlet pipes be connected to area drains. If subdrains are connected to area drains, special care should be taken to maintain these drains. Typical conventional retaining wall drainage is shown on Figure 3. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Waterproofing and outlet systems are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant.
Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) upward projection from the bottom of the proposed retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining wall. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, retaining walls adjacent to streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 85 pounds per square foot (psf) due to normal street vehicle traffic, if applicable. Uniform lateral surcharges may be estimated using the applicable coefficient of lateral earth pressure using a rectangular distribution. A factor of
0.45 and 0.3 may be used for at-rest and active conditions, respectively. The retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical consultant for any required geotechnical input in estimating surcharge loads.
If required, the retaining wall designer may use a seismic lateral earth pressure increment of 10 pcf for a level backfill condition. 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. The provided seismic lateral earth pressure should not be used for retaining walls exceeding 10 feet in height. If a retaining wall greater than 10 feet in height is proposed or a retaining wall with a sloping backfill condition, the retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for specific seismic lateral earth pressure increments based on the configuration of the planned retaining wall structures. This seismic lateral earth pressure is estimated using the procedure outlined by the Structural Engineers Association of California (Lew, et al, 2010).
Soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) are provided in Section 4.3 (Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance). Earthwork considerations (temporary backcuts, backfill, compaction, etc.) for retaining walls are provided in Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections.
4.5 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 of a near-surface bulk sample indicated a soluble sulfate content less than approximately 0.02 percent, a chloride content of 103 parts per million (ppm), pH of 8.2, and a minimum resistivity of 857 ohm-centimeters. Based on Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines Project No. 19035‐01 Page 22 September 14, 2023
(Caltrans, 2021), soils are considered corrosive to structural elements if the pH is 5.5 or less, or the chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater, or the sulfate concentration is 1500 ppm (0.2 percent) or greater. Based on the preliminary test results, soils are not considered corrosive using Caltrans criteria.
Based on laboratory sulfate test results, the near surface soils are designated to a class “S0” per ACI 318, Table 19.3.1.1 with respect to sulfates. Concrete in direct contact with the onsite soils can be designed according to ACI 318, Table 19.3.2.1 using the “S0” sulfate classification.
Laboratory testing may need to be performed at the completion of grading by the project corrosion engineer to further evaluate the as-graded soil corrosivity characteristics.
Accordingly, revision of the corrosion potential may be needed, should future test results differ substantially from the conditions reported herein. The client and/or other members of the development team should consider this during the design and planning phase of the project and formulate an appropriate course of action.
4.6 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control
From a geotechnical perspective, we recommend that compacted finished grade soils adjacent to the proposed warehouse structures be sloped away from the proposed structures 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 in some jurisdictions have recommended that low flow runoff be infiltrated rather than discharged via conventional storm drainage systems. 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. Infiltrated water may enter underground utility pipe zones and migrate along the pipe backfill, potentially impacting other improvements located far away from the point of infiltration.
Geotechnical stability and integrity of the project site is reliant upon appropriate handling of surface water. Due to the low infiltration rate, shallow groundwater and site liquefaction potential, we strongly recommend against the intentional infiltration of storm water.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 23 September 14, 2023
4.8 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
The following provisional minimum asphalt concrete (AC) street sections are provided in Table4 for Traffic Indices (TI) of 5.5, 6.0 and 6.5 to be utilized in the design of the auto and truck parking/circulation areas. These sections are based on an assumed R-value of 50. 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.
Final pavement sections should be confirmed by the project civil engineer based upon the final design Traffic Index. If requested, LGC Geotechnical will provide sections for alternate TI values.
TABLE 4
Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Section Options
Assumed Traffic Index 5.0 (or less) 6.5
R ‐Value Subgrade 50 50
AC Thickness 4.0 inches 4.0 inches
Aggregate Base Thickness 4.0 inches 4.5 inches
The pavement section thicknesses provided above are considered minimum thicknesses.
Increasing the thickness of any or all of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement 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. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement.
Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in the previous Section “Site Earthwork” and the related sub-sections of this report.
4.9 Preliminary Gravel Parking Area Recommendations
It is our understanding that the equipment parking areas will consist of compacted gravel (1-inch to 1 ½-inch in maximum dimension) over compacted subgrade and asphalt concrete paving is not desired. A minimum gravel pavement section of 4 inches of compacted gravel, over 6 inches of compacted aggregate base, over compacted subgrade is recommended. This parking surface is suitable for a traffic index of 5.0. It should be noted that gravel parking surfaces will require ongoing maintenance during the life of the pavement. Occasional re-grading should also be expected as a result of traffic loading and shifting of the unconfined gravel material.
The thickness shown is a minimum thickness. Increasing the thickness of the above will reduce the likelihood of the equipment parking area 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 equipment parking areas will occur through the design life of the pavement. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the equipment parking areas.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 24 September 14, 2023
Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in the previous Section “Site Earthwork” and the related sub-sections of this report.
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 5. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints, but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress.
TABLE 5
Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Placed on Very Low Expansion Potential Subgrade
Sidewalks Private Drives Patios/
Entryways
City Sidewalk
Curb and Gutters
Minimum
Thickness (in.) 4 (nominal) 4 (full) 4 (full) City/Agency Standard
Presoaking Wet down prior
to placing
Wet down prior
to placing
Wet down prior
to placing
City/Agency
Standard
Reinforcement
No. 3 at 24
inches on
centers
No. 3 at 24
inches on
centers
City/Agency
Standard
Thickened
Edge (in.) 8 x 8 City/Agency
Standard
Crack Control
Joints
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint to
a minimum of 1/3
the concrete
thickness
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint
to a minimum of
1/3 the concrete
thickness
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint
to a minimum of
1/3 the concrete
thickness
City/Agency
Standard
Maximum
Joint Spacing 5 feet
10 feet or quarter
cut whichever is
closer
6 feet City/Agency
Standard
Aggregate
Base
Thickness (in.)
City/Agency
Standard
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 25 September 14, 2023
4.11 Geotechnical Plan Review
When available, project plans (grading, foundation, retaining wall, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated. Additional fieldwork and/or modified geotechnical recommendations may be necessary.
4.12 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 grading (removal and recompaction bottoms, fill placement, etc.); During retaining wall backfill and compaction;
During utility trench backfill and compaction;
After moisture conditioning building pads and other concrete-flatwork subgrades, and 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 steel reinforcement and/or concrete; and
When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent to issuance of this report.
Project No. 19035‐01 Page 26 September 14, 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.
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 2
Retaining Wall
Detail
DATE September 2023
ENG. / GEOL.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT NAME
SCALE
RLD / KTM
Not to Scale
Great Scott - Lake Forest
19035-01
Appendix A
References
Project No. 19035‐01 A‐1 September 14, 2023
APPENDIX A
References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2017.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D420 – D5876.
Bray, J.D., and Sancio, R. B., 2006, Assessment of Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1165-1177, dated September 2006.
California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Volumes 1 and 2, dated July 2022.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2021, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, dated May 2021.
California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG]), 2000, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the El Toro
7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 2000-013, dated 2000.
______, 2001, State of California Seismic Hazard Zone, El Toro Quadrangle, Official Map, scale: 1:24,000, Release Date: January 17, 2001.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, California Geological Survey Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.
______, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.
County of Orange, 2013, Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), Exhibit 7.III, December 20, 2013.
Huitt-Zollars, 2023, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-169, 30795 Canada Road, Lake Forest, California, plotted August 31, 2023.
Lew, et al, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Basements, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Convention Proceedings.
NCEER, 1997, “Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, T.
L. Youd and I. M. Idriss Editors, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, NCEER, Buffalo, NY.
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, “Recommended Procedure for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigation Liquefaction Hazards in California”, Edited by Martin, G.R., and Lew, M., dated March 1999.
Project No. 19035‐01 A‐2 September 14, 2023
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B., 1987, “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2019, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps, Retrieved August 31, 2023, from: https://seismicmaps.org/
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2004, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30 x 60 Quadrangle, California, Version 2.0, Compiled by Douglas M. Morton, 2004, Open File Report 99- 172, Sheets 1-2.
________, 2014, Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update) (v4.2.0), Retrieved August 31, 2023, from: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Youd, L.T., Hansen, C.B., Bartlett, S.F., 2002, Revised multilinear regression equations for prediction of lateral spread displacement, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, December 2002, pp. 1007-1017.
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 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:
630
625
620
615
610
605
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
4/8/2019
~631' MSL
8"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Great Scott - Lake Forest
19035-01
Logged By BPP
Sampled By BPP
Checked By RLD
SP-SC @0' to 30' - Quaternary Alluvium (Qal)
@0' - Silty SAND: dark brown, slightly moist EI,CR
R-1 5
6 6
111.8 12.1 SM @2.5' - Silty SAND: gray, moist, loose
R-2 2
3 3
98.2 14.2 @5' - Silty SAND: brown, very moist, loose
R-3 2
4 7
112.2 14.6 SC @7.5' - Clayey SAND: dark olive brown, very moist, loose
CN
R-4 2
2 3
101.8 21.8
CL
@10' - Clayey SAND: brown, very moist, loose -#200
SPT-1 2
2 3
26.2 @15' - Sandy CLAY: brown, wet, medium stiff;
groundwater
AL
R-5 11
12 11
112.7 15.1 SP-SM @20' - SAND with Silt: light brown, wet, medium dense -#200 SPT-2 5
11 12
18.4 @25' - Silty SAND: brown, wet, medium dense -#200 B-1 Last Edited: 4/25/2019 @30' to T.D. - Tertiary Capistrano Formation, Oso
Member (Tco)
SM
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
600
595
590
585
580
575
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
4/8/2019
~631' MSL
8"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Great Scott - Lake Forest
19035-01
Logged By BPP
Sampled By BPP
Checked By RLD
R-6 9
11 22
117.0 14.5 SC @30' - Clayey SAND with some gravel: gray-brown, wet, medium dense; extremely weathered bedrock
-#200
SPT-3 3
11 27
17.2 SM @35' - Silty SAND: yellowish brown, wet, dense
R-7 50/2" 105.4 24.8 SC @40' - Clayey SAND: gray-brown with iron oxide staining, wet, very dense; slightly weathered bedrock
SPT-4 50/6" 17.5 @45' - Clayey SAND: gray with iron oxide staining, wet, very dense
@47' - Auger Refusal
Total Depth = 50'
Groundwater Encountered at Approximately 15'
Backfilled with Cuttings on 4/8/2019
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:
645
640
635
630
625
620
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2
4/8/2019
~646' MSL
8"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Great Scott - Lake Forest
19035-01
Logged By BPP
Sampled By BPP
Checked By N/A
SM @0' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Alluvium (Qya)
@0' - Silty SAND with Gravel: brown and dry
RV
R-1 8
8 12
105.6 0.8 SP @2.5' - SAND: pinkish-brown, dry, medium dense R-2 7
7 9
100.0 2.4 @5' - SAND: light brown, dry, medium dense
R-3 7
9 12
103.0 1.1 @7.5' - SAND: yellowish brown, dry, medium dense R-4 7
13 14
91.4 0.7 @10' - SAND: pinkish gray, dry, medium dense
Total Depth = 10'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 4/8/2019 B-1 Last Edited: 4/25/2019 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:
625
620
615
610
605
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-1
4/8/2019
~630' MSL
8"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Great Scott - Lake Forest
19035-01
Logged By BPP
Sampled By BPP
Checked By N/A
@0' to T.D. - Quaternay Alluvium (Qal)
@0' - Silty SAND: brown and moist
R-1 2
2 3
110.6 10.2
SM
@2.5' - Silty SAND: gray-brown, wet, very loose
Total Depth = 5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 4/8/2019 Last Edited: 4/25/2019 Appendix C
Laboratory Test Results
Project No. 19035‐01 C‐1 September, 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. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from SPT or disturbed samples.
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) or ASTM D422 (sieve and hydrometer).
Sample Location Description % Passing #
200 Sieve
HS‐1 @ 10 ft Clayey Sand 37
HS‐1 @ 20 ft Sand with Silt 6
HS‐1 @ 25 ft Silty Sand 16
HS‐1 @ 30 ft Clayey Sand with some Gravel 37
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 plot is provided in this Appendix.
Sample Location Liquid Limit
(%)
Plastic Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index (%)
USCS
Soil
Classification
HS‐1 @ 15 ft 35 18 17 CL
APPENDIX C (Cont’d)
Laboratory Test Results
Project No. 19035‐01 C‐2 September, 2023
Consolidation: One consolidation test was performed per ASTM D2435. A sample (2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height) was placed in a consolidometer and increasing loads were applied.
The sample was 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 curve is provided in this Appendix.
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of a selected representative sample was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test per ASTM D4829.
Sample
Location
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential*
HS‐1 @ 1‐5 ft 8 Very Low
* Per ASTM D4829
R‐value Test: R‐value test was performed in general accordance with California Test Method 301.
The plot is included in the Appendix.
Sample Location R‐value
HS‐2 @ 1‐5 ft 66
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate content of a selected sample was determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The test results are presented in the table below.
Sample Location Sulfate Content (%)
HS‐1 @ 1‐5 ft < 0.02
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested per CTM 422. The results are presented below.
Sample Location Chloride Content (ppm)
HS‐1 @ 1‐5 ft 103
APPENDIX C (Cont’d)
Laboratory Test Results
Project No. 19035‐01 C‐3 September, 2023
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 (ohms‐
cm)
HS‐1 @ 1‐5 ft 8.2 857
HS-1 SPT-1 15 - 35 18 17 CL
Project Number:
Plasticity
Index (%)
PI
19035-01
Date: Apr-19
Symbol
Great Scott - Lake Forest
USCS Plastic Limit
(%) PL
Liquid Limit
(%) LL
Passing
No. 200
Sieve (%)
Depth (ft) Sample
No.: Location.:
ATTERBERG LIMITS
(ASTM D 4318)
PLASTICITY CHART - CLASSIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 20 40 60 80 100
Liquid Limit (L.L.)
Plasticity Index (P.I.)
Project Name: Tested By:G. Bathala Date: 04/10/19
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 04/24/19
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):
Sample No.: Sample Type: Ring
Soil Identification:
2.415
1.000
199.51
45.62 0.9688
208.34
190.23
66.23 14.6
111.7
77 0.3164
269.38
250.41
71.40 14.22
114.5
81 0.2809
2.70 62.43
0.10 0.3158 0.9994 0.00 0.06 0.508 0.06
0.25 0.3128 0.9964 0.07 0.37 0.505 0.30
0.50 0.3098 0.9934 0.13 0.66 0.501 0.53
1.00 0.3068 0.9904 0.21 0.96 0.498 0.75
1.00 0.3068 0.9904 0.21 0.96 0.498 0.75
2.00 0.3038 0.9874 0.33 1.26 0.495 0.93
4.00 0.2969 0.9805 0.46 1.95 0.487 1.49
8.00 0.2857 0.9693 0.64 3.08 0.473 2.44
16.00 0.2702 0.9538 0.86 4.63 0.453 3.77
8.00 0.2721 0.9557 0.78 4.44 0.454 3.66
4.00 0.2743 0.9579 0.68 4.22 0.456 3.54
1.00 0.2788 0.9624 0.50 3.77 0.460 3.27
0.50 0.2809 0.9645 0.43 3.55 0.462 3.12
Lake Forest
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
Dark olive brown clayey sand (SC)
7.5 R-3
19035-01
HS-1
Weight of Container (g)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Water Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Final Saturation (%)
Final Vertical Reading (in.)
Specific Gravity (assumed)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Saturation (%)
Initial Vertical Reading (in.)
Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Sample Diameter (in.)
Sample Thickness (in.)
Wt. of Sample + Ring (g)
Weight of Ring (g)
After Test
Height after consol. (in.)
Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Before Test
Corrected
Deformation (%)
Time Readings
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Deformation
% of
Sample
Thickness
Void
Ratio
0.450
0.460
0.470
0.480
0.490
0.500
0.510
0.520
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
HS-1 R-3 14.6 14.2 114.5
Soil Identification: Dark olive brown clayey sand (SC)
Project No.:
Lake Forest
04-19
19035-01
Time Readings
111.7 0.462 77 81
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)
0.509
Void Ratio
7.5 0.0000
0.1000
0.2000
0.3000
0.4000
0.5000
0.6000
0.7000
0.8000
0.9000
1.0000
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
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
DOT CA Test 301
PROJECT NAME: Lake Forest PROJECT NUMBER: 19035-01
BORING NUMBER: HS-2 DEPTH (FT.): 1-5
SAMPLE NUMBER: B-1 TECHNICIAN: S. Felter
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown silty sand with Gravel (SM) DATE COMPLETED: 4/16/2019 TEST SPECIMEN a b c
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 11.0 11.4 11.8
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.49 2.50 2.59
DRY DENSITY, pcf 118.4 120.3 116.5
COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi 350 300 250
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 588 406 275
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 25 11 9
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 26 33 38
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.26 4.32 4.42
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 75 69 64
R-VALUE CORRECTED 75 69 66
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.40 0.50 0.54
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 0.83 0.37 0.30
EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 70
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 66
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 66
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
Appendix D
Infiltration Test Data
Boring Number:
Test hole dimensions (if circular)
5 8
2 3.4 ft
Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 8:37 9:02 25.0 2.54 2.92 0.38
2 9:02 9:27 25.0 2.60 2.93 0.33
Main Test Data
1 9:28 9:58 30.0 2.50 2.88 0.38 0.6
2 9:59 10:29 30.0 2.47 2.88 0.41 0.7
3 10:30 11:00 30.0 2.53 2.91 0.38 0.6
4 11:01 11:31 30.0 2.53 2.93 0.4 0.7
5 11:32 12:02 30.0 2.54 2.95 0.41 0.7
6 12:03 12:33 30.0 2.49 2.91 0.42 0.7
7 12:34 13:04 30.0 2.58 3.00 0.42 0.7
8 13:05 13:35 30.0 2.52 2.93 0.41 0.7
9 13:36 14:06 30.0 2.53 2.95 0.42 0.7
10 14:07 14:37 30.0 2.48 2.89 0.41 0.7
11 14:38 15:08 30.0 2.45 2.90 0.45 0.7
12 15:09 15:39 30.0 2.53 2.98 0.45 0.7
Factor of Safety 2.0
0.35 Sketch: Notes:
Infiltration Test Data Sheet
19035‐01
Boring Diameter (inches):
I‐1
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name:
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):
Boring Depth ‐ (5 x Boring Radius) (What the sounder tape should read) (Shallow) The value on the sounder tape
should be close to this value during
testing for DEEP testing fill to 4 feet
below top of hole
Project Number:
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Minimum test Head (Do):
Date:
*measured at time of test
4/4/2019
Great Scott ‐ Lake Forest
Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):
Spreadsheet Revised on: 10/26/2016
Calculated
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Start Time
(24:HR)
Greater Than or
Equal to
0.5 feet (yes/no)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
No
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)
Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
Trial No.
Based on Guidelines from: Orange County 05/19/2011
Pit Length (feet):
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Final Depth
to Water, Df
(feet)
Calculated Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Trial No. Time Interval, t
(min)
Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
No
Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Calculated Infiltration Rate (No factors of safety) 0.7 Change in
Water Level,
D (feet)
Time Interval
(min)
Appendix E
Liquefaction Analysis
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION
Based on Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils , Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, December 31, 1997 and Evaluation of Settlments in Sand due to Earthquake Shaking , Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987 Seismic Event Profile Constants Depth to GWT Project Name Great Scott M.V. Moment Magnitude 6.57 Total Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 120 During Investigation (ft) 15 Project Number 19035-01 Peak Ground Acceleration 0.57 g (2022 CBC) Unit Weight of Water (lbs/ft3 62.4 During Design Event (ft) 10 Boring HS- 1 Determination of Cyclic Resitance Ratio
Thickness Total Stress Pore Pressure Effective Sampler SPT Overburden Energy Borehole Rod Length Sampler Type Fines Depth (ft) Depth (m) SPT Rings (ft) Stress (psf) Pressure (psf) Stress (psf) Diameter Nm CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 Content (N1)60cs K CRR7.5
2.5 0.8 12 3.75 420 0 420 0.62 7.44 1.70 1.25 1.00 0.75 1.00 11.86 5 11.86 1.000 0.128 5 1.5 6 2.5 720 0 720 0.62 3.72 1.70 1.25 1.00 0.75 1.00 5.94 25 10.91 1.000 0.118
7.5 2.3 11 3.75 1020 0 1020 0.62 6.82 1.43 1.25 1.00 0.75 1.00 9.15 25 14.49 1.000 0.157 10 3.0 5 2.5 1320 0 1320 0.62 3.10 1.26 1.25 1.00 0.75 1.00 3.66 37 9.39 1.000 0.102 15 4.6 55 1920 0 1920 1.00 5.00 1.04 1.25 1.00 0.85 1.10 6.09 50 12.31 1.000 0.133 20 6.1 23 5 2520 312 2208 0.62 14.26 0.97 1.25 1.00 0.95 1.00 16.47 6 16.57 0.986 0.17625 7.6 23 5 3120 624 2496 1.00 23.00 0.91 1.25 1.00 0.95 1.10 27.48 16 31.73 0.965 SPT >30 NF 30 9.1 33 5 3720 936 2784 0.62 20.46 0.87 1.25 1.00 0.95 1.00 21.04 37 30.25 0.946 SPT >30 NF 35 10.7 38 5 4320 1248 3072 1.00 38.00 0.82 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.10 43.08 15 47.65 0.927 SPT >30 NF 40 12.2 100 5 4920 1560 3360 0.62 62.00 0.79 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 61.09 15 66.53 0.910 SPT >30 NF45 13.7 100 2.5 5520 1872 3648 1.00 100.00 0.76 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.10 104.03 15 111.53 0.893 SPT >30 NF 45 Determination of Cyclic Stress Ratio
Total Stress Pore Pressure Effective
Depth (ft) Depth (m) SPT Rings Thickness Stress (psf) Pressure (psf) Stress (psf)
2.5 0.76 12 3.75 300 0 300 0.99615 0.369074 1.403 Above GWT 5 1.52 6 2.5 600 0 600 0.99024 0.366883 1.403 Above GWT
7.5 2.29 11 3.75 900 0 900 0.98456 0.36478 1.403 Above GWT 10 3.05 5 2.5 1200 0 1200 0.97914 0.362772 1.403 0.40
15 4.57 5 5 1800 312 1488 0.96856 0.434094 1.403 Bray-Clay20 6.10 23 5 2400 624 1776 0.9569 0.479095 1.403 0.5225 7.62 23 5 3000 936 2064 0.94183 0.507194 1.403 Corr. SPT>30 30 9.14 33 5 3600 1248 2352 0.92058 0.522052 1.403 Corr. SPT>3035 10.67 38 5 4200 1560 2640 0.89062 0.524959 1.403 Corr. SPT>3040 12.19 100 5 4800 1872 2928 0.85103 0.516899 1.403 Corr. SPT>3045 13.72 100 2.5 5400 2184 3216 0.80363 0.499945 1.403 Corr. SPT>30 Blow Count
Sampling Data During Investigation Sampling Correction Factors Blow Count
Sampling Data During Design Event
rd CSR MSF FS
8/31/2023
Appendix F
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for
Rough Grading
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.
HS-1 T.D. = 50' I-1 T.D. = 5' LEGEND Proposed Location of Hollow Stem Auger Infiltration Boring by LGC Geotechnical, with Approximate Proposed Depth in Feet Proposed Location of Hollow Stem Boring by LGC Geotechnical, with Approximate Proposed Depth in Feet I-1 T.D. = 5' HS-2 T.D. = 10' HS-2 T.D. = 10' SHEET 1 of 1 LGC Geotechnical, Inc. 131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200 San Clemente, CA 92672 TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142 DATE SCALE PROJECT NAME PROJECT NO. Geotechnical Exploration Location Map ENG. / GEOL. September 2023 1" = 50' Great Scott - Lake Forest 19035-01 RLD / KTM JM Research and Consulting
Jennifer Mermilliod, M.A.
4049 Almond Street, Suite 201
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone 951-233-6897
[email protected]
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 16, 2021
TO: Jeremy Krout
EPD Solutions, Inc.
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1120
Irvine, CA Orange, CA 92614
FROM: Jennifer Mermilliod, M.A., Principal Historian/Architectural Historian SUBJECT: Focused Cultural Resources Survey – Historic Resources Assessment for the Great Scott Project, Lake Forest, Orange County, California Dear Mr. Krout,
JM Research & Consulting (JMRC) completed a focused Cultural Resources Survey – Historic Resources Assessment (HRA) of 20795 & 20865 Canada Road (APN (APN 610-301-07; -20; and - 21) in the City of Lake Forest, Orange County for the proposed Great Scott Project, which proposes to convert the approximately 6.37-acre subject property into an office, parking, and wood chip drying area.
The survey was requested by EPD Solutions based on the results of a Phase I-level Cultural Resources study, including archaeological investigation, completed by Material Culture Consultants in September 2020 (MCC 2020), which identified two single-family residences, barn, and ancillary structures on the project site, some of which would be demolished under the proposed project. Therefore, this HRA acts as a companion study to the MCC 2020 report to complete the Cultural Resources investigation as part of the environmental review process in compliance with CEQA (PRC §21000, et seq.) to evaluate the property for significance and eligibility for historic designation and to analyze potential impacts of the proposed project.
Jennifer Mermilliod, M.A., Principal Historian/Architectural Historian, JMRC, who exceeds the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards, acted as Principal Historic Consultant and both managed and completed the study, which included consultation, coordination, and compliance applicable and relevant to cultural resources planning (see resume, Attachment B).
The intensive-level survey was conducted in April 2021 and included field survey and historic and building specific research to supplement the work performed by MCC in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. Research and review of source material included previous cultural resources studies and reports, Orange County property and assessment records, city directories, historic newspapers and secondary source accounts, and historic aerial photographs.
Once part of the Rancho Cañada de Los Alisos, the 10,668-acre Mexican land grant from Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado to Jose Antonio Fernando Serrano was purchased by Bostonian Dwight Whiting in 1884. Developed as Aliso City, Whiting subdivided the level portions, introduced the railroad, and planted olive trees, grape vineyards, and added approximately 400 acres of eucalyptus trees, some of which may be extant to the area east of the residence at 20795 Canada Road.
Fieldwork and additional historic and building specific archival research under the current HRA revealed that the property was developed from Lot F of Tract 695 as the 44.13-acre Osterman Ranch beginning in 1929. Purchased from The Whiting Company in 1928, Valencia orange trees were planted in 1929, and the easterly residence addressed as 20795 Canada Road was constructed in time for the 1930 assessment. The westerly residence addressed as 20865 Canada Road was added to the property in 1947-1953, and additional ancillary structures were added to the property over time, and both residences are severely altered. A single mature orange tree and three mature avocado trees remain just east of the westerly residence, a wind machine (1953) and early well and plant are not apparent on the site, and the former grove was removed for commercial/industrial development in the 1980s.
Bennie Willis Osterman was one of a large clan of Ostermans in the area and one of several sons of John Osterman, one of the best-known early ranchers in Orange County with a ranch in Tustin and former president of the Orange County Farm Bureau. As documented in historic newspapers, Bennie’s Osterman Ranch was established prior to 1928 and this purchase of additional acreage along the Serrano Creek. Accounts describe a large estate with reservoir used partly as a swimming pool (by 1935), badminton court, horseback riding, and other entertainments in the El Toro foothills where Bennie resided with his wife, Cynthia, and two daughters and hosted many social gatherings. Osterman was active in the El Toro Farm Center, conducting research in pest control for orange and walnut trees, and in 1931 he was one of several incorporators of the Pacific Coast Bean Growers Association. Historic accounts do not document the relocation of the Ostermans from their earlier ranch to this property, or anywhere on the 44 acres, which indicates it may have been occupied by a manager for a time; however, it is clear that Mrs. Osterman was living in the easterly residence (20795) upon her death in 1965.
The Osterman Ranch has been extensively altered, and its setting is significantly compromised by reduction of the property from approximately 44.13 acres to 6.37 acres, the removal of the grove, and the modern development of its immediately adjacent former acreage. Both single-family residences have been severely altered with original architectural features enveloped by later alterations and additions. As a secondary structure, the large barn, which is in poor condition but has suffered less alteration, is unable to sufficiently convey its association apart from the context of the reduced and compromised property. Although owned, and likely occupied, by Bennie and Cynthia Osterman, who were engaged in early 20th century agriculture in the area as well as the social and cultural life of the small town, the reduced and compromised property is not strongly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our national or state history or with significant persons in our past (NR/CR Criteria A,B/1,2); does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or represent the work of a master or possess high artistic value (NR/CR C/3); and has not yielded, or is likely to yield, further information important in history or prehistory (NR/CR Criteria D/4). The ranch property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NR) or California Register of Historical Resources (CR) at any level, and the City of Lake Forest does not have a local preservation ordinance with criteria for designation or maintain a local inventory. Therefore, the Osterman Ranch is assigned a California Historic Resources (CHR) code of 6Z – Found ineligible for NR, CR, or Local designation through survey evaluation. The property was fully documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR forms (attached). The results of this focused study indicate that no further historic investigation is recommended.
The proposed Great Scott Project includes the demolition of the easterly residence at 20795 Canada Road and conversion of the westerly residence at 20865 Canada Road to an office. The office conversion includes the demolition of the garage and swimming pool as well as interior tenant improvements. Proposed site improvements include removing the orange and avocado trees for parking, removing animal structures, improving areas for wood chip drying flats, providing one-way vehicular access to the property from Linear Lane, and replacing eucalyptus trees in the eastern point of the property with Virginia Live Oak.
As the remains of the Osterman Ranch have been found ineligible for designation, the property is not considered a historic resource under CEQA, and no mitigation measures are recommended. The cluster of mature eucalyptus trees found to the east of the residence at 20795 Canada Road may be some of the 400 acres planted to eucalyptus by The Whiting Company in the late-1890s. It is recommended that retention of these trees be considered in the planning process; however, if removal of the eucalyptus trees does occur, this would not be considered a CEQA impact and no mitigation would be required.
Please contact me should you need any clarification or further assistance.
Regards,
Jennifer Mermilliod, Principal, JMRC
Attachment A
DPR Forms
DPR 523A (3/97) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
CHR Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Osterman Ranch P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Orange and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad El Toro Date T 6S ; R 8W ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec 11 & 12 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address 20795 & 20865 Canada Road City Lake Forest Zip Code 92630 d. UTM: (give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone ; mE/ mN/ e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel#, directions to resource, elevation, etc. as appropriate) APN: 610-301-07; -20; -21 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) See Continuation Sheet.
P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP33 – Farm/Ranch P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
Acession #) View to north. Photo
taken on March 30, 2021
*P6. Date Constructed / Age and Sources:
Historic Prehistoric Both
1930 (Assessors Records and Historic Aerials)
*P7. Owner and Address:
Hess & Cohen Trust
20795-28065 Canada Road
Lake Forest, CA 92630
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, org., and addr.)
Jennifer Mermilliod
JM Research & Consulting (JMRC)
5110 Magnolia Avenue
Riverside, CA 92506
*P9. Date Recorded: March 30, 2021
*P10. Survey Type
Intensive-Level
*P11 – Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Mermilliod, Jennifer (JMRC). 2021. Historic Resources Assessment for the Great Scott Project, Lake Forest, Orange County, CA.
Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other Other (List)
DPR 523B (3/97) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Osterman Ranch B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name:
B3. Original Use: Ranch B4. Present Use: MFR
*B5. Architectural Style: Ranch (1930s-1950s; altered)
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations and date of alterations) 1929 Valencia orange grove
1930 Easterly residence (20795; alteres 1938-1960s), barn, smaller barn (demolished by 1938), and some ancillary structures 1947-1953 Westerly residence (20865); altered 1960-1970 1970-1980 Additoinal ancillary structures
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
Barn
Animal Pens/Corrals/Exercise Ring
B9a. Architect: none B9b. Builder: unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme Early-20th Century Citriculture Area City of Lake Forest/Orange County Period of Significance 1929-late-1940s Property Type Ranch Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) See Continuation Sheet.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2/HP3 SFR/MFR; HP4 Ancillary Building; HP30 Trees *B12. References:
City of Orange 1927-1932. City Directories.
County of Orange 1926. Tract No. 695. L.A. Misc Records 3/290-291.
County of Orange 1927-1930. Assessment Records
County of Orange 1928. Corporation Grant Deed. M.B. 153/319.
County of Orange 1931-1999. Historical Aerials Imagery, ocgis.com.
County of Orange 1934. Agreement – Well & Pump. M.B. 690/313.
Fidelity National Title Company 2021. Title Report.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Jennifer Mermilliod
*Date of Evaluation: April 10, 2021
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
* Recorded by Jennifer Mermilliod *Date March 30, 2021 Continuation Update P3a. Description:
This former ranch property is wedged between the rear of a commercial industrial complex off Canada Road and the Serrano Creek Trail at the southern terminus of Linear Lane. The property is elevated above the creek on an irregular finger-shaped parcel and accessed by an asphalt drive from Canada Road and dirt and gravel drive around the rear of the commercial-industrial buildings. The property consists of two single-family residences, a large hay barn, and several ancillary structures for animal shelter and storage. Mainly covered with natural vegetation, one mature orange tree and three mature avocado trees are found on the east edge of the property, and a Eucalyptus grove and boulders are found beyond the northeasterly residence along Linear Lane.
20795 Canada Road
The one-story, single-family residence (20795 Canada Road) faces east from the northeasterly area of the property rests on a stacked concrete and cinder block foundation. The original, cross gabled with hip, 1930 residence is enveloped by multiple additions and enclosures (1938- 1960s). The wood-framed, now-irregular plan is topped by a complex moderate-pitched hip and side-gabled roof with twin high-pitched rearfacing gables covered with composition shingles. A variety of eaves, including wide, narrow, boxed, and exposed rafters, shelter walls clad in flush vertical boards. Visible fenestration consists of aluminum-framed, sliding windows, some paired with shutters, and a tripartite assemblage is found on the left façade. The off-centered front door with privacy sidelight is recessed beneath a façade addition or enclosure, a raised entry is found on the side (south) elevation, which may be a former enclosed porch, and an aluminum-framed, sliding glass door accesses a large rear shed roof addition. A brick chimney rises from the interior. A side-gabled detached garage with narrow eaves clad in board-n-batten with swinging panel doors is found to the south, beyond which is a large rear addition that appears to serve as a second matching garage/storage building as well as a storage shed elevated on cinder block. A metal storage container is adjacent (south) of the primary garage. A mature redwood tree and a redwood stump (aged approximately 80 years) are found in the side yard between the residence and primary garage. 20865 Canada Road
The Ranch style one-story single-family residence (20865 Canada Road) faces east from the southwesterly area of the property rests on a stacked concrete foundation. The original, ca. late-1940s residence (1947-1953) has two large façade additions and other modifications mostly completed 1960-1970. The wood-framed, now-rambling plan is topped by a moderate-pitched cross gable roof with extended gable peaks and modest eaves with exposed rafters over original portions and a low-pitched shed roof with wide eaves and exposed heavy rafters over façade additions. Walls are clad in board-n-batten, and fenestration consists primarily of aluminum-framed, sliding windows in the front mass and aluminum-framed double-hung windows on the rear, original mass; one jalousie window is found on the north. The entry is recessed within a covered breezeway that separates the residence from the matching garage, and a raised, covered porch shelters a rear door. An open addition with jacuzzi and second story deck has been added to the rear of the garage and adjacent to a rear swimming pool. The front yard is landscaped with turf, one mature orange tree and three mature avocado trees.
Barn
A large, approximately 58’x64’ hay barn faces east between the two residences on a raised low concrete wall foundation and earthen floor. The wood-framed one-story structure with hayloft is topped with a medium-pitched front-gabled roof is covered with corrugated metal panels and ends in narrow, open eaves with gutters over walls clad in flush vertical boards and board-n-batten in front and rear gable ends. Fenestration consists of multiple same-sized openings regularly spaced and filled with corrugated fiberglass. A wood-framed, multi-paned casement window with wood sill and a 5-panel wood door with round metal knob are found on the north elevation adjacent to a former electric panel. Two sliding barn doors on a top metal rail and a swinging, wood hayloft door in the gable end are found on both the front and rear elevations. Four hitching posts line the rear elevation.
Several wood-framed and metal framed open air structures in active use are located along the rear of the property and serve as animal pens and corrals, an exercise ring, and storage. A wind machine permitted in 1953 and an early well and pump house documented in a recorded 1934 agreement were not identified during field survey. The property is in fair condition and retains a poor level of integrity due to many inappropriate additions over time and the loss of its historic setting with the removal of original groves and development of surrounding area. *B10. Significance:
The partition of the Rancho Cañada de Los Alisos gave rise to development in this area of Orange County and eventually the City of Lake Forest (formerly El Toro). Originally, a 10,668-acre Mexican land grant from Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado to Jose Antonio Fernando Serrano in 1842, and enlarged by Pio Pica in 1846, most of the rancho was purchased by Bostonian Dwight Whiting in 1884 after the devastating drought of 1863-64. Developed as Aliso City in the style of an English village, Whiting subdivided the level portions, introduced the railroad, and planted olive trees, grape vineyards, and approximately 400 acres of Eucalyptus trees.
In 1928, The Whiting Company sold the 44.13-acre parcel, Lot F of Tract 695, to Bennie W. and Cynthia Osterman. Bennie Willis Osterman was one of a large clan of Ostermans in the area and one of several sons of John Osterman, one of the best-known early ranchers in Orange County with a ranch in Tustin and former president of the Orange County Farm Bureau. As documented in historic newspapers, Bennie’s Osterman Ranch was established prior to 1928 and this purchase of additional acreage along the Serrano Creek. Accounts describe a large estate with reservoir used partly as a swimming pool (by 1935), badminton court, horseback riding, and other entertainments in the El Toro foothills where Bennie resided with his wife and two daughters and hosted many social gatherings. Osterman was active in the El Toro Farm Center, DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
* Recorded by Jennifer Mermilliod *Date March 30, 2021 Continuation Update conducting research in pest control for orange and walnut trees, and in 1931 he was one of several incorporators of the Pacific Coast Bean Growers Association.
Immediately after purchase in 1928, the acreage was planted to Valencia oranges (1929), and the easterly residence (20795 Canada Road) and barn were constructed in time for the 1930 assessment. Historic accounts do not document the relocation of the Ostermans from their earlier ranch to this property, or anywhere on the 44 acres, which indicates it may have been occupied by a manager for a time; however, it is clear that Mrs. Osterman was living in the easterly residence (20795) upon her death in 1965. Over the course of the early- to mid-20th century decades, the ranch along the Serrano Creek grew to include multiple ancillary structures. A second residence was constructed sometime between 1947 and 1953, and a the Ostermans deeded to their daughter and son-in-law, Denver and Sadie Nutter, a portion of Lot F in 1953, likely indicating their residency in the second single-family residence on the property. Due to the arid climate and poor soil, unlike other southern California towns, agriculture was generally unsuccessful in the vicinity. Residential and other development began in earnest in 1959, although groves of the ranch persisted into the 1980s, finally giving way to commercial/industrial development by 1990.
The former ranch is no longer a functioning agricultural property, and integrity of design, materials, and setting has been severely compromised by alterations over time and the elimination of its historic agricultural setting. The primary residence (20795 Canada Road) has been severely altered such that its original design cannot be fully understood, though remaining architectural fabric does not indicate high stylistic intent. The secondary Ranch style residence (20865 Canada Road), constructed as the agricultural period of the area was subsiding, is also extensively altered, remaining ancillary structures are of common design and temporary construction, and the groves have been removed for new adjacent development. While the barn remains the most intact, it is an ancillary structure of a larger ranch property and is unable to convey its historic association alone. Although owned, and likely occupied, by Bennie and Cynthia Osterman, who were engaged in early 20th century agriculture in the area as well as the social and cultural life of the small town, the reduced and compromised property is not strongly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our national or state history or with significant persons in our past (NR/CR Criteria A,B/1,2); does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or represent the work of a master or possess high artistic value (NR/CR C/3); and has not yielded, or is likely to yield, further information important in history or prehistory (NR/CR Criteria D/4). The ranch property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NR) or California Register of Historical Resources (CR) at any level, and the City of Lake Forest does not have a local preservation ordinance with criteria for designation or maintain a local inventory. Therefore, the Osterman Ranch is assigned a California Historic Resources (CHR) code of 6Z – Found ineligible for NR, CR, or Local designation through survey evaluation.
*B12. References (cont.):
MCC 2020. Phase 1 Cultural & Paleontological Resources Assessment.
Santa Ana Register 1921. Notice. July 22.
Santa Ana Register 1924. El Toro Women to Gather at Tustin. June 24.
Santa Ana Register 1925. El Toro Items. February 27.
Santa Ana Register 1928. No Title (recorded land transactions). May 1.
Santa Ana Register 1929. El Toro Mercantile Company (advertisement). March 4.
Santa Ana Register 1935. El Toro. July 31.
Santa Ana Register 1938. Enjoyable Affair. July 19.
Santa Ana Register 1939. Weekend Festivities. July 5.
Santa Ana Register 1939. John Osterman Called by Death. December 26.
The Tustin News 1965. El Toro Native Has Last Rites. May 27.
P5b. Additional Photographs:
SFR 20795 showing façade alteration, view NW SFR 20795 and garage, view NE DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
* Recorded by Jennifer Mermilliod *Date March 30, 2021 Continuation Update SFR 20795 west elevation enclosure & additions, view NE SFR 20795 altered W elevation w/ original residence at core, view S SFR 20795 altered E elevation showing orig SFR at core, view W SFR 20795 additions to rear of garage, view W SFR 20865 large façade addition w/ orig roofline behind, view NW SFR 20865 garage w/ added breezeway roof, view N/NE DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
* Recorded by Jennifer Mermilliod *Date March 30, 2021 Continuation Update SFR 20865 original rear mass, added breezeway, garage, vew E SFR 20865 original rear porch, view E Barn façade with sliding doors and S elevation, view N/NE Barn south and rear elevations with hitching posts, view E/SE Storage structures & creek beyond, view E/NE Animal pens and creek beyond, view N DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
* Recorded by Jennifer Mermilliod *Date March 30, 2021 Continuation Update Horse corral and creek beyond, view N/NE Horse exercise ring, garden in foreground, view S Original orange tree w/ road & new adjacnt development, view E Rear dirt path along barn and animal structures, view E Rear dirt path along barn & SFR 20865 original rear mass, view W Creek bank, boulders, & eucalyptus trees beyond SFR 20795, view E Attachment B
Historic Aerials
Historic Aerial 1931
Historic Aerial 1938
Historic Aerial 1947
Historic Aerial 1953
Historic Aerial 1960
Historic Aerial 1970
Attachment C
Professional Resume
Jennifer Mermilliod, M.A.
JM Research & Consulting
4049 Almond Street, Suite 201
Riverside, CA 92501
951-233-6897
[email protected]
Statement of Qualifications & Expertise
Jennifer Mermilliod, M.A., Principal Historian/Architectural Historian exceeds the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for History and Architectural History.
Project Design, Entitlement & Consultation Historic Preservation Planning, Policy & Programs Regulatory Compliance – Section 106 & CEQA Cultural Resources Treatment & Management Survey, Evaluation & Context Development National Register, California Register, & Local Registration Design Review, Case Planning, & Plan Check Presentation, Public Relations, & Outreach Education
UC, Riverside, M.A., History, specialization in Historic Preservation, 2001 UC, Riverside, B.A., History, 2000
Professional Experience
Cultural Resources/Historic Consultant, JM Research & Consulting, since 2001 Reviewing Official under SHPO MOU, March Joint Powers Authority, since 2012 Contract Historic Preservation Senior Planner, City of Riverside, since 2016 Historic Consultant and On-film Historian, HGTV & DIY Network, Restored Show, Seasons 1-6, since 2016 Selected Projects
Preservation Planning, Policy & Programs
Determination of Eligibility, 550 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, 2021 Mission Heritage Plaza Substantial Compliance Analysis, Wakeland Housing & Development, Riverside, 2020 National Register Nomination: Evergreen Cemetery, Riverside, 2020-2021 First American Title Company, 4th & Main Apartment Project, City of Santa Ana, 2020-2021 National Register Nomination: Bumann Ranch, Encinitas, 2020 San Jacinto General Plan Update, City of San Jacinto, 2019 Landmark Nomination: Bigelow’s Bungalow, Riverside, 2018 Historic Interpretive Entry Design & Plaque: Marywood Retreat Center, Orange, 2017 San Jacinto Downtown Specific Plan, City of San Jacinto, 2017 National Register Nomination: Jefferson Elementary School, Corona, 2017 Citywide Streetlight LED Conversion Project, City of Riverside, 2017 City of Riverside North Park Pergola Collapse – Salvage & Documentation Program, City of Riverside, 2017 Landmark Plaque: The Patsy O’Toole House, Riverside, 2016 Landmark Plaque: The Nielson Pool House, Riverside, 2016 Landmark Nomination and Plaque: Camp Anza Officers Club, Riverside, 2016 History Room Design & Interpretive Display: Camp Anza Officers Club, Riverside, 2016 City of Redlands Certified Local Government Program Development, 2015 Chicago/Linden Strategic Plan, City of Riverside, 2013
National Register Nomination: Huntington Beach Public Library on Triangle Park, Huntington Beach, 2013 California Baptist University Specific Plan, Riverside, 2012 Landmark Nomination and Plaque: The Walter C. Banks Residence, Riverside, 2012 Historic District Nomination: Segment of State Route 18, Corona, 2012 Landmark Nomination and Plaque: The A.C.E. Hawthorne House and Tree, Riverside, 2012 National Register Nomination: Grand Boulevard, Corona, 2011 California Register Nomination: The Jackson Building, Riverside, 2009 Landmark Nomination and Plaque: The Jackson Building, Riverside, 2008 California Point of Historical Resources Nomination: Camarillo Ranch House, Camarillo, 2005 National Register Multiple Property Nomination: Architecture of the Arts and Crafts Movement, Pasadena, 2004 Structure of Merit Nomination: House at 3855-59 11th Street, Riverside, 2003 National Register Nomination: Camarillo Ranch House, Camarillo, 2003 CEQA Compliance
VitaPakt, Trumark Homes, Covina, 2021
Covina Bowl, Covina, 2020
La Atalaya, Altura Credit Union Member House, Riverside, 2019 Entrada, Wakeland Housing & Development, Riverside, 2019 Main Library, City of Riverside, 2018
Redlands YMCA Properties, Redlands, 2017
Marywood Retreat Center, Orange, 2013-2017
Mission Inn La Trattoria Pergola & Wine Tasting Room, Riverside, 2016 Rhunau, Rhunau, Clark Building, Riverside, 2016
Arlington Plaza, Riverside, 2016
Mission Lofts, Riverside, 2015
Lakeside Temescal Valley Project Lake Corona, Corona, CA Harris Farm Townhomes, Riverside, 2015
Dhammakaya Retreat, Azusa, 2013
Riverside Plaza Harris’ Department Store, Riverside, 2012 Old Town Plaza, San Jacinto, 2011
Pfennighausen Ranch, Pedley, County of Riverside, 2010
March Field Historic District Garage Building #113, March Joint Powers Authority, 2009 Five Points Realignment, City of Riverside, 2008
Fox Block, City of Riverside, 2007
Section 106 & CEQA Compliance
Prado Dam & Reservoir Improvement Project, Santa Ana River, 2017-present Home Front at Camp Anza - Camp Anza Officers Club, City of Riverside, 2013-2017 HRER, Colton Undergrade & C Street Crossing Seismic Retrofit Projects, City of Colton, Caltrans District 8, 2014 HPSR & FOE, University Avenue Streetscape Project, City of Riverside, Caltrans District 8, 2005 HPSR & FOE, Victoria Avenue Streetscape & Parkway Restoration Project, City of Riverside, Caltrans District 8, 2004 HPSR, Jurupa Avenue Underpass / Mountain Avenue Crossing Closure Project, City of Riverside, Caltrans District 8, 2001 Section 106 Compliance
Entrada, Wakeland Housing & Development, Riverside, 2019 Mission Heritage Plaza & Civil Rights Museum, Wakeland Housing & Development, Riverside, 2017 HPSR, Inglewood Avenue Corridor Widening Project, City of Lawndale, Caltrans District 7, 2013 Van Buren Improvement Project, March Joint Powers Authority, County of Riverside, EDA, 2013 Wattstar Cinema and Education, Los Angeles, 2010
County of San Bernardino Lead Abatement Program, Highland, Redlands, & San Bernardino, 2003 Professional Activities
Publications
The New Home Company Announces Marywood Hills, a Historic Collection of Luxury Residences with Unobstructed Views of the City of Orange. Press Release co-authored for immediate by The New Home Company. April 2018.
The Grandest Boulevard. Riverside County Historical Commission and the Riverside County Regional Park and OpenSpace District, The Riverside County Chronicles, Issue No. 5. Fall 2011.
Riverside Project Wins Governor’s Award for Historic Preservation: ‘Home Front at Camp Anza’ Brings New Life to Old Officers Club. Press Release authored for immediate release by City of Riverside. October 4, 2016.
Historic Resources Inventory Database Web site: Instructions for Online Navigation. Historic Resources Database Web site User’s Manual prepared for the City of Riverside. September 2002.
Historic Resources Inventory: Instructions for Recording and Viewing. Historic Resources Database User’s Manual prepared for the City of Riverside. September 2001.
Awards
California Preservation Foundation Award – Latino Context, City of Riverside. 2019.
Governor’s Award for Historic Preservation – Homefront at Camp Anza. 2016.
California Preservation Foundation Best Restoration Award – Homefront at Camp Anza. 2017.
IE Economic Partnership Award for Best Real Estate Development and Reuse – Homefront at Camp Anza. 2016.
Golden Nugget Award - Best Renovated, Restored, Adaptive Re-Use Residential Project – Homefront at Camp Anza. 2016.
Golden Nugget Award -Best Affordable Housing Community Under 30du/acre – Homefront at Camp Anza. 2016.
Presentations, Speaking Engagements, and Instruction
City of Riverside Cultural Heritage Board Continuing Education Program TBD 2021 Creating Space for Women: Julia Morgan, Architect, and the Riverside YWCA. Women In Tandem (WIT). COVID HOLD.
The History of the Automobile in Riverside, Riverside Historical Society Four-Part Lecture Series. 2018-2021.
Part 1. The Automobile Comes to Town: The Birth of the Automobile Industry in Riverside, 1902-1913. 2018.
Part 2. From Agriculture to Automobile: The Internalization of a New Economy, 1913-1928. 2019.
Part 3. COVID HOLD – Tentatively rescheduled April 11, 2021.
Part 4. COVID HOLD.
Historic Preservation: The Field of Public History. Notre Dame High School Career Day. September 2018.
Historic Preservation: The Field of Public History. Riverside East Rotary Club. July 2018.
Historic Preservation: The Field of Public History. Riverside Uptown Kiwanis. December 2017.
Architecture: Form, Function, and Ornamentation. Architecture Series. Diocese of San Bernardino, OLPH. October 2011.
How to Research Your Historic Home. City of Riverside Public Workshop. October 2010.
Riverside’s Hidden Histories: The Gems Among Us – Nava Tires. Mission Inn Foundation and Museum. June 17, 2010.
The Art of the Survey. Riverside County Historical Commission 5th Annual Symposium. October 26, 2007.
The Field of Public History. California State University, Fullerton. Dr. Wendy Elliott Scheinberg. November 14, 2006.
Arlington Heights, the Realization and Preservation of a California Dream. CPF Conference. May 14, 2005.
How to Research Your Historic Home. Riverside County Historical Commission History Workshop. April 16, 2004.
Affiliations & Service
National Trust for Historic Preservation, General Member #58551599.
California Preservation Foundation, General Member #21244.
Old Riverside Foundation, General Member; Board of Directors (2003-2005) – facilitated mission advancement through planning and direction of annual home tour, awards program, facilities maintenance, and historic preservation advocacy.
Riverside Historic Society, Lifetime Member
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA
Prepared for:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Selena Kelaher
333e Michelson Drive Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
Prepared by:
MD Acoustics, LLC
Mike Dickerson, INCE
Robert Pearson
1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste 256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Date: 9/26/2023
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Table of Contents
MD Acoustics, LLC ii
JN: 06862012_Report9.26.23.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives 1
1.2 Site Location and Study Area 1
1.3 Proposed Project Description 1
2.0 Fundamentals of Noise .................................................................................................................4
2.1 Sound, Noise and Acoustics 4
2.2 Frequency and Hertz 4
2.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels 4
2.4 Addition of Decibels 4
2.5 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels 5
2.6 Noise Descriptors 5
2.7 Traffic Noise Prediction 6
2.8 Sound Propagation 6
3.0 Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals........................................................................................8
3.1 Vibration Descriptors 8
3.2 Vibration Perception 8
3.3 Vibration Propagation 8
4.0 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................................9
4.1 Federal Regulations 9
4.2 State Regulations 9
4.3 City of Lake Forest Regulations 10
5.0 Study Method and Procedure .....................................................................................................16
5.1 Noise Measurement Procedure and Criteria 16
5.2 Noise Measurement Locations 16
5.3 Stationary Noise Modeling 16
5.4 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model 17
6.0 Existing Noise Environment.........................................................................................................19
6.1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results 19
7.0 Future Noise Environment Impacts and Mitigation ....................................................................20
7.1 Future Exterior Noise 20
7.1.1 Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Stationary Sources 20
7.1.2 Noise Impacts to On/Off-Site Receptors Due to Project Generated Traffic 21
7.2 Mitigation Measures 22
8.0 Construction Noise Impact..........................................................................................................24
8.1 Construction Noise 24
8.2 Construction Vibration 24
8.3 Construction Noise Reduction Measures 26
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Table of Contents
MD Acoustics, LLC iii
JN: 06862012_Report9.26.23.docx
9.0 References ..................................................................................................................................27
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Photographs and Field Measurement Data ......................................................................1 Appendix B: EPD Solutions Inc Memo...................................................................................................2 Appendix C: SoundPlan Input/Output ..................................................................................................3 Appendix D: Construction Input............................................................................................................4
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Location Map....................................................................................................................2 Exhibit B: Site Plan............................................................................................................................3 Exhibit C: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels......................................................................................4 Exhibit D: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines.................................................................................10 Exhibit E: Measurement Locations.................................................................................................18 Exhibit F: Operational Noise Levels Leq(h).....................................................................................23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Allowable Exterior Noise Level1.................................................................................................11 Table 2: Short-Term Noise Measurement Data1.....................................................................................19 Table 3: Worst-case Predicted Operational Leq Noise Level1.................................................................21 Table 4: Change in Noise Level Characteristics1......................................................................................21 Table 5: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels1..........................................................................24 Table 6: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria.........................................................25 Table 7: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment................................................................26 Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Introduction
1 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
This noise assessment was prepared to evaluate the potential noise impacts for the project study area and to recommend noise mitigation measures, if necessary, to minimize the potential noise impacts.
The assessment was conducted and compared to the noise standards set forth by the Federal, State and Local agencies. Consistent with the City’s Noise Guidelines, the project must demonstrate compliance to the applicable noise criterion as outlined within the City’s Noise Element and Municipal Code.
The following is provided in this report:
• A description of the study area and the proposed project • Information regarding the fundamentals of noise
• A description of the local noise guidelines and standards • An evaluation of the existing ambient noise environment • An analysis of stationary noise impacts from the project site to adjacent land uses • Construction noise and vibration evaluation
1.2 Site Location and Study Area
The project site is located at the west of Liner Lane, north of Canada Road, with Serrano Creek bordering the project site to the south and east in Lake Forest, California, as shown in Exhibit A. The site’s current land use designation is M1-Light Industrial. Land uses surrounding the site are zoned M1-Light Industrial. A multifamily residential community is further to the south east along Canada Road.
1.3 Proposed Project Description
The Project proposes to develop 6.71 acres, with 26 parking spaces, a 2,621 square foot office, and approximately 3,800 square foot storage building that is currently existing. Exhibit B demonstrates the site plan for the project.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA
Exhibit A
Location Map
2 Introduction
SITE
Exhibit B
Site Plan
3 Introduction
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Fundamentals of Noise
4 2.0 Fundamentals of Noise
This section of the report provides basic information about noise and presents some of the terms used in the report.
2.1 Sound, Noise and Acoustics
Sound is a disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a moving object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to a human ear. For traffic or stationary noise, the medium of concern is air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted.
2.2 Frequency and Hertz
A continuous sound is described by its frequency
(pitch) and its amplitude (loudness). Frequency
relates to the number of pressure oscillations per
second. Low-frequency sounds are low in pitch
(bass sounding) and high-frequency sounds are high
in pitch (squeak). These oscillations per second
(cycles) are commonly referred to as Hertz (Hz). The
human ear can hear from the bass pitch starting out
at 20 Hz all the way to the high pitch of 20,000 Hz.
2.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness.
The loudness of sound increases or decreases as
the amplitude increases or decreases. Sound
pressure amplitude is measured in units of microNewton per square inch meter (µN/m2 ), also called
micro-Pascal (µPa). One µPa is approximately one
hundred billionths (0.00000000001) of normal
atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure level (SPL or
Lp) is used to describe in logarithmic units the ratio
of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure
squared. These units are called decibels,
abbreviated dB. Exhibit C illustrates references sound levels for different noise sources.
2.4 Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by simple plus or minus addition. When two sounds or equal SPL are combined, they will produce an SPL 3 dB greater than the original single SPL. In other words, sound energy must be doubled to produce a 3 dB increase. If two sounds differ by approximately 10 dB, the higher sound level is the predominant sound.
Exhibit C: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Fundamentals of Noise
5 2.5 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, and it perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. For purposes of this report as well as with most environmental documents, the A-scale weighting is typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibel (dBA), a scale designed to account for the frequency-dependent sensitivity of the ear. Typically, the human ear can barely perceive a change in noise level of 3 dB. A change in 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change in 10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud. As previously discussed, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g. doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.
2.6 Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, others are random. Some noise levels are constant while others are sporadic. Noise descriptors were created to describe the different time-varying noise levels.
A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very highfrequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.
Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24- hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM.
Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals. dB(A): A-weighted sound level (see definition above).
Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ): The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period.
Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, or other applicable regulations, which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar spaces.
L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly L50, L90, and L99, etc.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Fundamentals of Noise
6 Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...".
Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for shortterm social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas).
Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).
Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.
Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.
Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): The dB(A) level which, if it lasted for one second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.
2.7 Traffic Noise Prediction
Noise levels associated with traffic depends on a variety of factors: (1) volume of traffic, (2) speed of traffic, (3) auto, medium truck (2–3 axle) and heavy truck percentage (4 axle and greater), and sound propagation. The greater the volume of traffic, higher speeds and truck percentages equate to a louder volume in noise. A doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along a roadway will increase noise levels by approximately 3 dB; reasons for this are discussed in the sections above.
2.8 Sound Propagation
As sound propagates from a source it spreads geometrically. Sound from a small, localized source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern.
The sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The movement of vehicles down a roadway makes the source of the sound appear to propagate from a line (i.e., line source) rather than a point source. This line source results in the noise propagating from a roadway in a cylindrical spreading versus a spherical spreading that results from a point source. The sound level attenuates for a line source at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance.
As noise propagates from the source, it is affected by the ground and atmosphere. Noise models use hard site (reflective surfaces) and soft site (absorptive surfaces) to help calculate predicted noise levels.
Hard site conditions assume no excessive ground absorption between the noise source and the Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Fundamentals of Noise
7 receiver. Soft site conditions such as grass, soft dirt or landscaping attenuate noise at a rate of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance. When added to the geometric spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall noise attenuation of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance for a line source and 7.5 dB per doubling of distance for a point source.
Research has demonstrated that atmospheric conditions can have a significant effect on noise levels when noise receivers are located 200 feet from a noise source. Wind, temperature, air humidity, and turbulence can further impact have far sound can travel.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals 8 3.0 Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals
3.1 Vibration Descriptors
Ground-borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground-borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although ground-borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Ground-borne noise is an effect of ground-borne vibration and only exists indoors since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.
Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude.
PPV – Known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) which is the maximum instantaneous peak in vibration velocity, typically given in inches per second.
RMS – Known as root mean squared (RMS) can be used to denote vibration amplitude VdB – A commonly used abbreviation to describe the vibration level (VdB) for a vibration source.
3.2 Vibration Perception
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB.
Outdoor sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground-borne noise or vibration. To counter the effects of ground-borne vibration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FTA, fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.3 inches per second without experiencing structural damage.
3.3 Vibration Propagation
There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wavefront, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P-waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wavefront. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion).
P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wavefront. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse, or side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.
As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source. As stated above, this drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Study Method and Procedure
9 4.0 Regulatory Setting
The proposed project is located in the City of Perris, California and noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, state and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.
4.1 Federal Regulations
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
• Publicize noise emission standards for interstate commerce • Assist state and local abatement efforts
• Promote noise education and research
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) originally was tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated leaving other federal agencies and committees to develop noise policies and programs. Some examples of these agencies are as follows:
The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various agencies. The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible for regulating noise from aircraft and airports. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for regulating noise from the interstate highway system. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive noise exposure to workers. The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is responsible for establishing noise regulations as it relates to exterior/interior noise levels for new HUD-assisted housing developments near high noise areas.
The federal government advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being constructed adjacent to a highway or, or alternatively that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.
Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.
4.2 State Regulations
Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model is the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix.” The matrix allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise.
The State of California has established noise insulation standards as outlined in Title 24 and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which in some cases requires acoustical analyses to outline exterior noise levels and to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed the interior threshold. The State mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Study Method and Procedure
10 plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable as illustrated in Exhibit D.
Exhibit D: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
4.3 City of Lake Forest Regulations
The City of Lake Forest outlines their noise regulations and standards within the Noise Element from the General Plan and the Noise Ordinance from the Municipal Code.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Study Method and Procedure
11 City of Lake Forest Municipal Code
Chapter 11.16 from the City’s municipal code outlines the noise ordinance. MD’s provided excerpts of the ordinance that relates to this project.
Section 11.16.030 – Designated Noise Zone
The entire territory of the City of Lake Forest is herby designated as “Noise Zone 1”.
Section 11.16.040 – Exterior Noise Standards
The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within a designated zone:
Table 1: Allowable Exterior Noise Level1
Sound Level Standards (dBA Leq*)
Noise Zone
Time Period
7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
1 55 50
Sec. 11.16.060. – Exemptions
The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter.
A. Activities not constituting “special events” conducted on the grounds of any public or private nursery, elementary, intermediate or secondary school or college.
B. “Special events” as defined in Section 5.05.020 provided said events are conducted pursuant to a special event permit issued as described in Chapter 5.05. However, this exemption shall not preclude use of the standards set forth in Section 11.16.040 (Exterior noise standards) or Section 11.16.050 (Interior noise standards) as a guide for the application, review, or issuance of a special event permit.
C. Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle, or work.
D. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time Sunday or a legal City of Lake Forest Holiday.
E. All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment which are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions.
F. Mobile noise sources associated with agricultural operations, provided such operations do not take place between the hours of 8:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time Sunday or a legal City of Lake Forest Holiday.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Study Method and Procedure
12 G. Mobile noise sources associated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application, provided that the application is made in accordance with restricted material permits issued by or regulations enforced by the Agricultural Commission.
H. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided said activities take place between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm on any day except Sunday or a legal City of Lake Forest Holiday, or between 9:00 am and 8:00 pm on Sunday or a legal City of Lake Forest Holiday.
I. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal Law.
J. Noise sources associated with solid waste collection or removal, provided such activities take place between 6:00 am and 6:00 pm Monday through Friday where audible in residential areas or between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm on Saturday where audible in residential areas or between 5:00 am and 9:00 pm and day where such activity is not audible in residential areas; or as otherwise provided in an approved franchise agreement between a waste hauler and the City.
City of Lake Forest – Noise Element
Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures
Policies, goals and implementation program measures from the Noise Element that would mitigate potential impacts on noise include the following.
PS-6.1 Land Use Planning. Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the maximum allowable noise exposure standards identified in Table PS-1 to ensure acceptable noise levels for existing and future development..
PS-6.2 Sensitive Facilities. Ensure appropriate mitigation is incorporated into the design of noisesensitive facilities to minimize noise impacts.
PS-6.3 Site Design. Require site planning and project design techniques to minimize noise impacts adjacent to sensitive uses
PS-6.4 Noise Control. Ensure that noise levels do not exceed the limits established in Table PS-2 by incorporating sound-reduction design in new construction or revitalization projects impacted by non-transportation-related noise sources.
PS-6.5 Roadway Noise. Encourage nonmotorized transportation alternatives for local trips and the implementation of noise sensitivity measures in the public realm, including traffic-calming road design, lateral separation, natural buffers, and setbacks to decrease excessive motor vehicle noise.
PS-6.6 Highway Noise. Continue to coordinate with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) to achieve maximum noise abatement in the design of new highway projects or improvements along I-5.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Study Method and Procedure
13 PS-6.7 Vehicles and Trucks. Monitor and enforce existing speed limits and motor vehicle codes requiring adequate mufflers on all types of vehicles traveling through the city.
PS-6.8 Commercial Noise. Require the use of noise attenuation measures, including screening and buffering techniques, for all new commercial development expected to produce excessive noise; in existing cases where the City’s noise standards are exceeded, work with Code Enforcement to require compliance.
PS-6.9 Interjurisdictional Coordination. Coordinate with neighboring cities to minimize noise conflicts between land uses along the City's boundaries.
PS-6.10 Airplane Noise. Maintain communication with John Wayne Airport and other relevant air transportation agencies to ensure that all future plans have limited impacts to the community of Lake Forest.
PS-6 Actions
PS-6a Update Chapter 11.16 of the Lake Forest Municipal Code to ensure that the noise standards are consistent with this General Plan, including Tables PS-1 and PS-2, and to require new residential, mixed-use with a residential component, and other noise-sensitive development to be designed to minimize noise exposure to noise sensitive uses through incorporation of site planning and architectural techniques. The update shall also include noise standards for residential uses within a mixed-use development, which may differ from other adopted residential noise standards.
PS-6b Review new development projects for compliance with the noise requirements established in this General Plan, including the standards established in Tables PS-1 and PS-2. Where necessary, require new development to mitigate excessive noise through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise-generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials such as rubberized asphalt.
PS-6c Require acoustical studies for all new discretionary projects, including those related to development and transportation, which have the potential to generate noise impacts which exceed the standards identified in this General Plan. The studies shall include representative noise measurements, estimates of existing and projected noise levels, and mitigation measures necessary to ensure compliance with this element.
PS-6d In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a substantial increase will occur if ambient noise levels have a substantial increase. Generally, a 3 dB increase in noise levels is barely perceptible, and a 5 dB increase in noise levels is clearly perceptible. Therefore, increases in noise levels shall be considered to be substantial when the following occurs:
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Study Method and Procedure
14 • When existing noise levels are less than 60 dB, a 5 dB increase in noise will be considered substantial;
• When existing noise levels are between 60 dB and 65 dB, a 3 dB increase in noise will be considered substantial;
• When existing noise levels exceed 65 dB, a 1.5 dB increase in noise will be considered substantial.
PS-6e Update the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 11.16) to reflect the noise standards established in this General Plan and proactively enforce the City’s Noise Ordinance, including requiring the following measures for construction:
• Restrict construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or federal holidays, without a specific exemption issued by the City.
• A Construction Noise Management Plan shall be submitted by the applicant for construction projects, when determined necessary by the City. The Construction Noise Management Plan shall include proper posting of construction schedules, appointment of a noise disturbance coordinator, and methods for assisting in noise reduction measures. • Noise reduction measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible.
o Except as provided herein, impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. This muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used, if such jackets are commercially available. this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever such procedures are available and consistent with construction procedures. o Temporary power poles shall be used instead of generators where feasible. o Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent properties as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or use other measures as determined by the City of provide equivalent noise reduction.
o The noisiest phases of construction shall be limited to less than 10 days at a time.
Exceptions may be allowed if the City determines an extension is necessary and all available noise reduction controls are implemented.
o Delivery of materials shall observe the hours of operation described above. Truck traffic should avoid residential areas to the extent possible.
• Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. For sensitive historic structures, a vibration limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV (peak Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Study Method and Procedure
15 particle velocity) will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage to the building.
A vibration limit of 0.30 in/sec PPV will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage at buildings of normal conventional construction.
PS-6f The City shall require new residential projects located adjacent to major freeways, hard rail lines, or light rail lines to follow the FTA vibration screening distance criteria to ensure that residential uses are not exposed to vibrations exceeding 72 VdB for frequent events (more than 70 events per day), 75 VdB for occasional events (30-70 events per day), or 80 VdB for infrequent events (less than 30 events per day).
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Study Method and Procedure
16 5.0 Study Method and Procedure
The following section describes the noise modeling procedures and assumptions used for this assessment.
5.1 Noise Measurement Procedure and Criteria
Noise measurements are taken to determine the existing noise levels. A noise receiver or receptor is any location in the noise analysis in which noise might produce an impact. The following criteria are used to select measurement locations and receptors:
• Locations expected to receive the highest noise impacts, such as the first row of houses • Locations that are acoustically representative and equivalent of the area of concern • Human land usage
• Sites clear of major obstruction and contamination
MD conducted the sound level measurements in accordance to City’s noise ordinance, the Federal Highway Transportation (FHWA) and Caltrans (TeNS) technical noise specifications. All measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). The following gives a brief description of the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement procedures for sound level measurements:
• Microphones for sound level meters were placed 5-feet above the ground for all measurements • Sound level meters were calibrated (Larson Davis CAL 200) before and after each measurement • Following the calibration of equipment, a windscreen was placed over the microphone • Frequency weighting was set on “A” and slow response
• Results of the long-term noise measurements were recorded on field data sheets • During any short-term noise measurements, any noise contaminations such as barking dogs, local traffic, lawn mowers, or aircraft fly-overs were noted
• Temperature and sky conditions were observed and documented
5.2 Noise Measurement Locations
Noise monitoring locations were selected based on the project site’s boundary. three (3) short-term 10- min noise measurements were conducted at the site’s property line and are illustrated in Exhibit E.
Appendix A includes photos, field sheet, and measured noise data.
5.3 Stationary Noise Modeling
SoundPLAN (SP) acoustical modeling software was utilized to model future worst‐case stationary noise impacts to the adjacent land uses. SP is capable of evaluating multiple stationary noise source impacts at various receiver locations. SP’s software utilizes algorithms (based on the inverse square law and reference equipment noise level data) to calculate noise level projections. The software allows the user to input specific noise sources, spectral content, sound barriers, building placement, topography, and sensitive receptor locations.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Study Method and Procedure
17 The future worst-case noise level projections were modeled using referenced sound level data for the various stationary on-site sources (parking spaces). The model assumes that the project site has approximately 26 total parking spaces.
The 26 parking spots were modeled using SoundPlans employee parking input parameter function and assumes 1 parking movements per hour. This assumption is conservative as typically employees would arrive in the morning and then depart in the evening.
The SP model assumes that all noise sources are operating simultaneously (worst-case scenario), when in actuality the noise will be intermittent and lower in noise level.
Finally, the model is able to evaluate the noise attenuating effects of any existing or proposed property line walls. Input and output calculations are provided in Appendix C.
5.4 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model
The construction noise analysis utilizes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RNCM), together with several key construction parameters. Key inputs include distance to the sensitive receiver, equipment usage, % usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site.
The project was analyzed based on the different construction phases. Construction noise is expected to be loudest during the grading, concrete and building phases of construction. The construction noise calculation output worksheet is located in Appendix D. The following assumptions relevant to short-term construction noise impacts were used:
• It is estimated that construction will occur over a 18-month time period. Construction noise is expected to be the loudest during the grading, concrete, and building phases.
Exhibit E
Measurement Locations
18 Study Method and Procedure
SITE
1 Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA
3 2
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Existing Noise Environment
19 6.0 Existing Noise Environment
Three ten-minute (10) ambient noise measurement were conducted at the project site. Noise measurements were taken to determine the existing ambient noise levels. This assessment will utilize the ambient noise data as a basis and compare levels to said data.
6.1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
The results of the short-term noise data are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Short-Term Noise Measurement Data1
Location Time 10-Min dB(A) Leq
LEQ LMAX LMIN L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
1 3:44PM-3:54PM 46.0 57.6 42.4 51.2 47.3 46.1 45.2 43.8 2 3:57PM-4:07PM 47.8 61.0 40.7 58.8 48.6 46.1 43.9 41.7 3 4:15PM-4:25PM 47.6 61.9 39.4 58.1 51.1 44.5 42.1 40.5 Notes:
1. Short-term noise monitoring location (ST1-3) is illustrated in Exhibit E.
Noise data indicates the ambient noise level ranges between 48 dBA Leq to 46 dBA Leq depending on location. Additional field notes and photographs are provided in Appendix A.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Future Noise Environment Impacts and Mitigation 20 7.0 Future Noise Environment Impacts and Mitigation
This assessment analyzes future noise impacts as a result of the project. The analysis details the estimated exterior noise levels. Stationary noise impacts are analyzed from the on-site noise sources such as trucks loading and unloading.
7.1 Future Exterior Noise
The following outlines the exterior noise levels associated with the proposed project.
7.1.1 Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Stationary Sources Adjacent uses that may be affected by project operational noise include light industrial to the north, south, east, and west. The worst-case stationary noise was modeled using SoundPLAN acoustical modeling software. Worst-case assumes that all project activities (bulldozer running, cars coming and going) are always operational when in reality the noise will be intermittent and cycle on/off depending on usage. Project operations are anticipated to occur between 6AM to 4PM.
A total of six (6) receptors were modeled to evaluate the proposed project’s operational impact. A receptor is denoted by a yellow dot. All yellow dots represent a property line.
This study compares the Project’s operational noise levels to two (2) different noise assessment scenarios: 1) Project Only operational noise level projections, 2) Project plus ambient noise level projections.
Project Operational Noise Levels
Exhibit F shows the “project only” operational noise levels at the property lines and adjacent areas.
Exhibit F shows the noise contours at the project site and illustrates how the noise will propagate at the site. Operational noise levels at the adjacent uses are anticipated to range between 26 dBA to 53 dBA Leq (depending on the location).
The “project only” noise projections to the adjacent uses are below the City’s daytime 55 dBA noise limit, as outlined within the City’s noise ordinance (see Section 4.3).
Project Plus Ambient Operational Noise Levels
Table 3 demonstrates the project plus the ambient noise levels. Project plus ambient noise level projections are anticipated to range between 46 to 54 dBA Leq at receptors (R1 – R6). The project plus ambient noise condition is below the City’s 55 dBA noise limit without mitigation and therefore is less than significant.
<Table 3 Next Page>
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Future Noise Environment Impacts and Mitigation 21 Table 3: Worst-case Predicted Operational Leq Noise Level1 Receptor1Floor
Existing Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)2
Project
Noise
Level
(dBA,
Leq)3
Total Combined
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)
Daytime
(7AM – 10PM)
Noise Limit
(dBA, Leq)
Change in Noise
Level as Result of
Project
1 1
46 26 46
55 0
2 1 38 47 1
3 1 32 46 0
4 1 38 47 1
5 1
48 53 54 6
6 1 38 48 0
Notes:
1. Receptors 1-6 represents the adjacent property lines.
3. See Exhibit f for the operational noise level projections at said receptors.
As shown in Table 3, the project will increase the worst-case noise level by approximately 0 to 6 dBA Leq at receptors (R1 – R6). It takes a change of 3 dBA to hear a noticeable difference.
Table 4 provides the characteristics associated with changes in noise levels.
Table 4: Change in Noise Level Characteristics1
Changes in Intensity Level,
dBA
Changes in Apparent
Loudness
1 Not perceptible
3 Just perceptible
5 Clearly noticeable
10 Twice (or half) as loud
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm The change in noise level would fall within the “Not Perceptible” to “Clearly Noticeable” acoustic characteristic depending on location.
7.1.2 Noise Impacts to On/Off-Site Receptors Due to Project Generated Traffic The City of Lake Forest has adopted VMT thresholds and guidelines that provide methodology and impact thresholds for projects that would require a vehicle mile traveled (VMT) analysis. Per the memo provided by EPD Solution, 9/13/2023 (Project Trip Generation), the project would generate 84 daily passenger vehicle trips (see Appendix B). Because the project would generate fewer than 110 daily passenger vehicle trips, the project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT and a traffic study is not required.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Future Noise Environment Impacts and Mitigation 22 Traffic along the subject roadways would need to double in average daily traffic volumes to see a 3 dBA increase in noise level. Since the project generates a nominal amount of traffic relative to the existing ADTs, the project’s traffic noise level increase would be nominal and therefore less than significant.
7.2 Mitigation Measures
The project complies with the City’s noise regulations as designed and therefore no mitigation measures are required.
Exhibit F
Future Daytime Operational Noise Levels
23 Future Noise Environment Impacts and Mitigation
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Construction Noise Impact
24 8.0 Construction Noise Impact
The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with the construction will vary with the different phases of construction.
8.1 Construction Noise
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generated characteristics of typical construction activities. The data is presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels1
Type Lmax (dBA) at 50 Feet
Backhoe 80
Truck 88
Concrete Mixer 85
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 76
Saw, Electric 76
Air Compressor 81
Generator 81
Paver 89
Roller 74
Notes:
1 Referenced Noise Levels from FTA noise and vibration manual.
Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City’s General Plan.
Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the project vicinity. Furthermore, noise reduction measures are provided to further reduce construction noise. The impact is considered less than significant however construction noise level projections are provided.
Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during grading phase. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario during grading assumes the use of 1-grader, 1-dozer, 2-excavators, and 2-backhoes operating at 260 feet from the property boundary.
Assuming a usage factor of 40 percent for each piece of equipment, unmitigated noise levels at 123 feet have the potential to reach 77 dBA Leq at the property boundary during building construction.
8.2 Construction Vibration
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Construction Noise Impact
25 to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a bulldozer. A large bulldozer has a vibration impact of 0.089 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet which is perceptible but below any risk to architectural damage.
The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows:
PPVequipment = PPVref (100/Drec)
n
Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 100ft.
Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft.
n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) The thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in Table 6 (below) provides general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts.
Table 6: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Table 19, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, Sept. 2013.
Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.
Table 7 gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. This data provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions. <Table 7, next page>
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA Construction Noise Impact
26 Table 7: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment1 Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity Approximate Vibration Level
(inches/second) at 25 feet LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112
0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105
0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
1 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.
At a distance of 33 feet (distance of nearest structure from the site’s south east boundary), a large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.066 PPV (in/sec) which may be perceptible for short periods of time during grading along the property line of the project site, but is below any threshold of damage.
The impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
8.3 Construction Noise Reduction Measures
Construction operations must follow the City’s General Plan and the Noise Ordinance, which states that construction, repair or excavation work performed must occur within the permissible hours. To further ensure that construction activities do not disrupt the adjacent land uses, the following measures should be taken:
1. During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices that will reduce noise levels 3 to 10 dBA.
2. The contractor should locate equipment staging areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. At all times the staging area should be approximately 123 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor.
3. Idling equipment should be turned off when not in use.
4. Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.
Great Scott Tree Service Facility
Noise Impact Study
City of Lake Forest, CA References
27 9.0 References
State of California General Plan Guidelines: 1998. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research City of Lake Forest: General Plan Noise Element.
City of Lake Forest: Municipal Code. Chapter 11.16 Noise Control Environment Planning Development Solutions (EPD) – Great Scott Tree Service Lake Forest Facility Project Trip Generation – 9/13/2023
Appendix A:
Photographs and Field Measurement Data
www.mdacoustics.com
AZ Office
4960 S. Gilbert Rd, Ste 1-461
Chandler, AZ 85249
CA Office
1197 E Los Angeles Ave, C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Project: Great Scott Site Observations:
Site Address/Location: Linear Lane, north of Canada Road Date:
Field Tech/Engineer: Jason Schuyler
General Location:
Sound Meter: NTi Audio SN: A2A-05967-E0 Site Topo:
Settings: A-weighted, slow, 1-sec, 10-minute interval Ground Type:
Meteorological Con.: 92 degrees F, 2 to 5 mph wind, eastern direction Site ID: ST-1 thru ST-3
NM3- Southern Most property ine
Figure 3: ST-2 Photo
Figure 2: ST-1 Photo
10-Minute Continuous Noise Measurement Datasheet
NM1- Taken middle of the property
NM2-Property line of the multi family residential
Clear Sky, Three locations taken, General traffic from cars passing depending on location.
Noise Source(s) w/ Distance:
Flat
Hard site conditions, reflective
Figure 1: Monitoring Locations
8/10/2020
1 3 2
06862012 10Min_Field Sheet Template_Awtg ST1-3.xlsx
www.mdacoustics.com
AZ Office
4960 S. Gilbert Rd, Ste 1-461
Chandler, AZ 85249
CA Office
1197 E Los Angeles Ave, C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Project: Great Scott
Site Address/Location: Linear Lane, north of Canada Road Site ID: ST-1 thru ST-3
Location Start Stop Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
1 3:44 PM 3:54 PM 46.0 57.6 42.4 51.2 47.3 46.1 45.2 43.8 2 3:57 PM 4:07 PM 47.8 61.0 40.7 58.8 48.6 46.1 43.9 41.7 3 4:15 PM 4:25 PM 47.6 61.9 39.4 58.1 51.1 44.5 42.1 40.5 10-Minute Continuous Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont.
Table 1: Morning - Baseline Noise Measurement Summary
Figure 4: ST-3 Photo
06862012 10Min_Field Sheet Template_Awtg ST1-3.xlsx
www.mdacoustics.com
AZ Office
4960 S. Gilbert Rd, Ste 1-461
Chandler, AZ 85249
CA Office
1197 E Los Angeles Ave, C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Project: Great Scott
Site Address/Location: Linear Lane, north of Canada Road Site ID: ST-1
10-Minute Continuous Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont.
0.0 10.0
20.0 30.0
40.0 50.0
60.0 70.0
3:44:07 PM3:44:22 PM3:44:37 PM3:44:52 PM3:45:07 PM3:45:22 PM3:45:37 PM3:45:52 PM3:46:07 PM3:46:22 PM3:46:37 PM3:46:52 PM3:47:07 PM3:47:22 PM3:47:37 PM3:47:52 PM3:48:07 PM3:48:22 PM3:48:37 PM3:48:52 PM3:49:07 PM3:49:22 PM3:49:37 PM3:49:52 PM3:50:07 PM3:50:22 PM3:50:37 PM3:50:52 PM3:51:07 PM3:51:22 PM3:51:37 PM3:51:52 PM3:52:07 PM3:52:22 PM3:52:37 PM3:52:52 PM3:53:07 PM3:53:22 PM3:53:37 PM3:53:52 PM dBA
Time
ST-1: Ambient Noise Level (1-sec) ST-1
dBA, Leq
06862012 10Min_Field Sheet Template_Awtg ST1-3.xlsx
www.mdacoustics.com
AZ Office
4960 S. Gilbert Rd, Ste 1-461
Chandler, AZ 85249
CA Office
1197 E Los Angeles Ave, C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Project: Great Scott
Site Address/Location: Linear Lane, north of Canada Road Site ID: ST-2
10-Minute Continuous Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont.
0.0 10.0
20.0 30.0
40.0 50.0
60.0 70.0
3:57:09 PM3:57:24 PM3:57:39 PM3:57:54 PM3:58:09 PM3:58:24 PM3:58:39 PM3:58:54 PM3:59:09 PM3:59:24 PM3:59:39 PM3:59:54 PM4:00:09 PM4:00:24 PM4:00:39 PM4:00:54 PM4:01:09 PM4:01:24 PM4:01:39 PM4:01:54 PM4:02:09 PM4:02:24 PM4:02:39 PM4:02:54 PM4:03:09 PM4:03:24 PM4:03:39 PM4:03:54 PM4:04:09 PM4:04:24 PM4:04:39 PM4:04:54 PM4:05:09 PM4:05:24 PM4:05:39 PM4:05:54 PM4:06:09 PM4:06:24 PM4:06:39 PM4:06:54 PM dBA
Time
ST-2: Ambient Noise Level (1-sec) ST-2
dBA, Leq
06862012 10Min_Field Sheet Template_Awtg ST1-3.xlsx
www.mdacoustics.com
AZ Office
4960 S. Gilbert Rd, Ste 1-461
Chandler, AZ 85249
CA Office
1197 E Los Angeles Ave, C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Project: Great Scott
Site Address/Location: Linear Lane, north of Canada Road Site ID: ST-3
10-Minute Continuous Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont.
0.0 10.0
20.0 30.0
40.0 50.0
60.0 70.0
4:15:23 PM4:15:38 PM4:15:53 PM4:16:08 PM4:16:23 PM4:16:38 PM4:16:53 PM4:17:08 PM4:17:23 PM4:17:38 PM4:17:53 PM4:18:08 PM4:18:23 PM4:18:38 PM4:18:53 PM4:19:08 PM4:19:23 PM4:19:38 PM4:19:53 PM4:20:08 PM4:20:23 PM4:20:38 PM4:20:53 PM4:21:08 PM4:21:23 PM4:21:38 PM4:21:53 PM4:22:08 PM4:22:23 PM4:22:38 PM4:22:53 PM4:23:08 PM4:23:23 PM4:23:38 PM4:23:53 PM4:24:08 PM4:24:23 PM4:24:38 PM4:24:53 PM4:25:08 PM dBA
Time
ST-3: Ambient Noise Level (1-sec) ST-3
dBA, Leq
06862012 10Min_Field Sheet Template_Awtg ST1-3.xlsx
Appendix B:
EPD Solutions Inc Memo
Urban Planning ■ Due Diligence ■ Entitlements ■ CEQA/NEPA ■ Development Services ■ Management ■ Public Outreach 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 ■ Irvine, Calif. 92612
949.794.1180 ■ [email protected]
Date: September 14, 2023
Prepared by: Maryam Javanmardi
To: City of Lake Forest
Site: Great Scott Tree Service Lake Forest Facility
Subject: Project Trip Generation
Project Location
This memorandum provides a preliminary estimate of the potential vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed Great Scott Tree Service Facility and a vehicle mile traveled (VMT) screening analysis. The project site, including 6.72 acres, is located within the City of Lake Forest, west of Linear Lane, north of Canada Street and bordered by Serrano Creek to the west. The project is bordered by industrial buildings on the east. The site includes the parcels numbered 610-301-07, 610-301-20, and 610-301-2.
Project Description
The Project proposes to rehabilitate one existing single-family residence as an office for the GSTC-SOC administrative functions alongside the removal of a second residence converted for office use which has taken place subsequent to the receipt of a demolition permit from the City of Lake Forest. Furthermore, the undertaking encompasses the establishment of parking zones dedicated to the tree service vehicles, referred to as “Tree Trucks” and equipment. Although wood chipping is currently not planned, it is desired in the future as it necessitates the installation of robust concrete “backstops” to facilitate the maneuvering of tractor loaders during chipping. The operational configuration and flow of Tree Truck locations for chipping are anticipated to evolve for heightened efficiency over time. Additional considerations regarding the strategy, approach, and location for wood chipping are pending discussion in relation to the use permit. According to the site plan, the site would have a total of 26 truck parking, eight (8) office employee parking (located adjacent to Linear Lane), one (1) EV (Electric Vehicle) parking, and one (1) ADA parking. The project site plan is shown in Figure 1.
Employee Workforce Specifications
The estimate of project trip generation is based on the anticipated operation of the site provided by GSTS-SOC. Based on a conservative assumption, the project would have approximately 52 employees broken down as follows:
- Nine (9) Staff members (including supervisors, administrative and maintenance staff) - 43 Field Employees
Job-Specific Arrival/Departure Patterns
Field employees would arrive at the project site in their personal vehicle (or by carpool) and would then travel to the daily work site in a field equipment vehicle. Similarly, Supervisors would arrive at the project site in their personal vehicle to pick up a work truck and then depart to the work site. The remaining employees would remain at the project site. According to GSTS-SOC, many of their current field employees carpool resulting in a vehicle occupancy of approximately 1.5 persons per vehicle.
Great Scott Tree Service Lake Forest Facility
Trip Generation Analysis
2 Presented below is the Arrival/Departure Time Pattern breakdown, which is specific to the job and has been provided by the GSTS-SOC:
Morning Operations
• At 6 AM, four (4) GSTC-SOC Supervisors will arrive in GSTC-SOC passenger trucks and park them in a designated section of the eight (8) stalls adjacent to Linear Lane. • The Supervisors will disperse by 7 AM, making the stalls adjacent to Linear Lane available for other use.
• Starting at 6 AM, a maximum of 43 Crew members will arrive, receive work instructions, load trucks, and then clear the stalls for their personal vehicles.
• The objective is for the crews to depart for job sites by 6:30 AM. • At 8 AM, approximately four Administrative Staff members will arrive and park in the Linear Lane stalls.
Afternoon Operations
Around 3 PM, Supervisors may return to stalls adjacent to Linear Lane, potentially sharing stalls with Administrative Staff members.
• Typically, the Supervisors depart by 4 PM.
• At 5 PM, the Administrative Staff members usually depart, leaving the Tree Trucks parked overnight on the premises.
At 3PM, field employees return from job sites and depart the facility by 3:30pm The lot will maintain 24-hour operations to respond to emergency situations such as storms and administrative operations including weekends.
Parking
The 43 field employees park their personal vehicles in the same spot where their large work trucks are parked overnight. Based on the site plan, each truck parking spot can accommodate approximately two passenger cars. Regarding parking dimensions, truck stalls measure 13'x45', standard stalls adjacent to Linear Lane measure 9'x19', tree truck stalls measure 11’x35’, ADA accessible stalls measure 9'x18’, and EV stalls measure 12'x18'.
Based on the information provided by GSTS-SOC, here is parking breakdown for the project:
• Boom Trucks: 10 spaces
• Boom/Dump Trucks: 9 spaces
• Dump Trucks: 2 spaces
• Tree Truck: 5
These stalls are flexible in quantity and position for efficiency and are distinctly marked with railroad ties.
Circulation
Based on the information provided by GSTS-SOC, here's an overview of the gates designated for the project:
• Gate A on Private Drive/Linear Lane: This gate is utilized by Staff to enter to the project site.
Great Scott Tree Service Lake Forest Facility
Trip Generation Analysis
3 • Gate B on Private Drive/Linear Lane: This gate is utilized by tree trucks to enter to the project site. • Gate C: on Private Drive/Linear Lane: This gate is utilized by fire trucks, which both enter and exit through this gate. This gate is also utilized by staff and tree truck to exist the project site.
The flow from Gate A and Gate B to Gate C is guided by a one-way road originating from Linear Lane and leading into designated angled parking spots.
Project trip generation
The project trip generation is shown in Table 1. The analysis utilizes peak commute period from 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM. For the purpose of this analysis, AM peak hour is assumed from 7-8 AM and the PM peak hour is assumed from 5-6 PM. Table 1 shows the trip generation by employee type: five (5) office employees, four (4) supervisors, and 43 field employees.
The Trip Generation was analyzed by the following assumptions listed below:
• Office Employees: During the AM peak hour, five (5) office employees enter the site, and no office employees leave the project site, resulting in a total of five (5) trips during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, no office employees enter the site, and five (5) office employees leave the project site, resulting in a total of five (5) trips during the PM peak hour. The total number of daily trips as a result of the operations summary provided previously for office employees is ten (10) trips. • Supervisors: During the AM peak hour, no supervisors enter the site, and four (4) supervisors leave the project site, resulting in a total of four (4) trips during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, there are no supervisor entries or exits at the project site, resulting in a total of zero (0) trips during this period. The total number of daily trips as a result of the operations summary provided previously for supervisors is 16 trips.
• Field Workers: During the AM and PM peak hours, there are no field workers entries or exits at the project site, resulting in a total of zero (0) trips during these periods. The total number of daily trips as a result of the operations summary provided previously for field workers is 58 trips.
Summarizing the passenger trips for the project, there are 84 daily trips, with nine (9) trips during the AM peak hour and five (5) trips during the PM peak hour. Additionally, trips generated by field equipment (Tree Truck) are 58 daily trips, but none of these occur during either the AM or PM peak hours. In total, this project generates 142 daily trips (including 84 daily passenger trips) with nine (9) trips in AM peak hours and five (5) trips in PM peak hours.
Great Scott Tree Service Lake Forest Facility
Trip Generation Analysis
4 Vehicle Miles Traveled
Background
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating Transportation impacts. SB743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses. The bill also specified that delay-based level of service could no longer be considered an indicator of a significant impact on the environment. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines beginning January 1, 2019. Section 15064.3 - Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts states that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for evaluating VMT.
Section 15064.3(c) states that the provisions of the section shall apply statewide beginning on July 1, 2020.
VMT Screening Analysis
The City of Lake Forest has adopted VMT thresholds and guidelines that provide methodology and impact thresholds for projects that would require a vehicle mile traveled (VMT) analysis. The City of Lake Forest Transportation Analysis Guidelines (July 21, 2020) provide criteria for projects that would be considered to have a less-than significant impact on VMT and therefore could be screened out for further analysis. If a project meets one of the following criteria, then the VMT impact of the project is considered less-than significant and no further analysis of VMT would be required:
- The project serves the local community and thereby has the potential to reduce VMT. - The project generates less than 110 daily vehicle trips. - The project is located within a Transit Priority area. - The project is located in a low VMT generating area.
The project would not be considered a local-serving use, as defined in the guidelines. The project is also not located in either a Transit Priority Area or a low VMT generating area.
The City’s Guidelines discuss the type of VMT that should be evaluated for various types of projects. Per the guidelines, VMT is defined as “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. The term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks”. This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) which states “For the purpose of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project”. Based on both of these guidance documents, truck trips are not included in the VMT analysis.
To determine if the project’s trip generation would exceed the 110 daily vehicle trips screening threshold, the passenger vehicle trip generation was utilized. This approach is consistent with both the County and CEQA Guidelines. As shown in Table 1, the project would generate 84 daily passenger vehicle trips. Because the project would generate fewer than 110 daily passenger vehicle trips, the project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT and would not require further VMT analysis.
If you have any questions on this information, please contact me at [email protected] or at (408) 893-0402.
Urban Planning ■ Due Diligence ■ Entitlements ■ CEQA/NEPA ■ Development Services ■ Management ■ Public Outreach 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 ■ Irvine, Calif. 92612
949.794.1180 ■ [email protected]
Figure 1: Project Site Plan
Per architectural site plan dated 8/30/2023
Urban Planning ■ Due Diligence ■ Entitlements ■ CEQA/NEPA ■ Development Services ■ Management ■ Public Outreach 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 ■ Irvine, Calif. 92612
949.794.1180 ■ [email protected]
Table 1: Great Scott Trip Generation
Trip Type Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Office Employees 5 10 5 0 5 0 5 5
Supervisors1
4 16 0 4 4 0 0 0
Field Employees (Passenger Vehicle)243 58 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Passenger Trips 52 84 5 4 9 0 5 5
Field Equipment/Tree Trucks3
29 58 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 142 5 4 9 0 5 5
2 Many field employees carpool, averaging 1.5 employees per vehicle. 3 Based on the information provided by GSTC-OC, there are 12 spaces designated for Boom Trucks, 11 spaces for Boom/Dump Trucks, 2 spaces for Dump Trucks.
1 Supervisors arrive at the project site, pick up a truck and depart to the job site. Therefore 4 daily trips per supervisor are assumed. # of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Employees/Trips
Appendix C:
SoundPlan Input/Output
Great Scott Tree
Contribution spectra - 001 - Great Scott Tree: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)
1.25kHz
dB(A)
1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)
2.5kHz
dB(A)
3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)
6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)
12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Receiver R1 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 25.8 dB(A)
Leq,d 25.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 15.1 15.1 15.1 5.5 5.5 5.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 14.4 14.4 14.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 8.9 8.9 8.9 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -55.3 -55.3 -55.3 Leq,d
Receiver R2 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 38.3 dB(A)
Leq,d 38.3 16.4 16.4 16.4 27.0 27.0 27.0 18.5 18.5 18.5 24.3 24.3 24.3 26.7 26.7 26.7 27.8 27.8 27.8 24.0 24.0 24.0 14.5 14.5 14.5 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3 Leq,d
Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 32.2 dB(A)
Leq,d 32.2 13.4 13.4 13.4 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.7 9.7 9.7 16.3 16.3 16.3 20.7 20.7 20.7 21.6 21.6 21.6 16.0 16.0 16.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 -33.2 -33.2 -33.2 Leq,d
Receiver R4 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 38.1 dB(A)
Leq,d 38.1 18.9 18.9 18.9 28.1 28.1 28.1 16.4 16.4 16.4 22.7 22.7 22.7 26.5 26.5 26.5 27.4 27.4 27.4 22.9 22.9 22.9 11.2 11.2 11.2 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 Leq,d
Receiver R5 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 52.7 dB(A)
Leq,d 52.7 33.0 33.0 33.0 42.8 42.8 42.8 34.4 34.4 34.4 39.2 39.2 39.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.7 40.7 40.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 30.8 30.8 30.8 16.4 16.4 16.4 Leq,d
Receiver R6 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 38.3 dB(A)
Leq,d 38.3 19.4 19.4 19.4 28.5 28.5 28.5 16.0 16.0 16.0 22.8 22.8 22.8 26.7 26.7 26.7 27.4 27.4 27.4 22.8 22.8 22.8 10.3 10.3 10.3 -18.4 -18.4 -18.4 Leq,d
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 Great Scott Tree
Contribution level - 001 - Great Scott Tree: Outdoor SP 9 Source group Source typeTr. lane Leq,d
dB(A)
A
dB
Receiver R1 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 25.8 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 25.8 0.0
Receiver R2 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 38.3 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 38.3 0.0
Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 32.2 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 32.2 0.0
Receiver R4 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 38.1 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 38.1 0.0
Receiver R5 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 52.7 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 52.7 0.0
Receiver R6 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 38.3 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 38.3 0.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 Great Scott Tree
Contribution level - 001 - Great Scott Tree: Outdoor SP 9 Source group Source typeTr. lane Leq,d
dB(A)
A
dB
Receiver R1 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 25.8 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 25.8 0.0
Receiver R2 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 38.3 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 38.3 0.0
Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 32.2 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 32.2 0.0
Receiver R4 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 38.1 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 38.1 0.0
Receiver R5 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 52.7 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 52.7 0.0
Receiver R6 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 38.3 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 38.3 0.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 Appendix D:
Construction Input
Activity
Leq at 123 feet
dBA
LMax at 123 feet
dBA
Grading 77 79
Building Construction 73 74
Paving 74 77
Equipment Summary
Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Rock Drills 96
Jack Hammers 82
Pneumatic Tools 85
Pavers 80
Dozers 85
Scrappers 87
Haul Trucks 88
Cranes 82
Portable Generators 80
Rollers 80
Tractors 80
Front-End Loaders 86
Hydraulic Excavators 86
Graders 86
Air Compressors 86
Trucks 86
Grading
Noise Level Calculation Prior to Implementation of Noise Attenuation Requirements Lmax Leq
1 Grader 86 1 40 123 0.5 0 76.2 72.2 16777305.9
2 Dozer 85 1 40 123 0.5 0 75.2 71.2 13326687.8
3 Excavator 86 1 40 123 0.5 0 76.2 72.2 16777305.9
4 Tractor/Backhoe 80 1 40 123 0.5 0 70.2 66.2 4214268.71 Source: MD Acoustics, October 2020. Lmax* 79 Leq 77
1- Percentage of time that a piece of equipment is operating at full power. Lw 110 Lw 109 dBA – A-weighted Decibels
Lmax- Maximum Level
Leq- Equivalent Level
Feet Meters Ground Effect
No
Shielding
Leq dBA
1 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
2 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
3 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
4 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
5 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
6 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
7 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
8 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
9 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
10 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
11 dBA
Shielding
LeqdBA
12 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
13 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
14 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
15 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
50 15.2 0.5 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 60 18.3 0.5 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 70 21.3 0.5 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 80 24.4 0.5 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 90 27.4 0.5 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 100 30.5 0.5 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 110 33.5 0.5 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 120 36.6 0.5 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 130 39.6 0.5 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 140 42.7 0.5 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 150 45.7 0.5 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 160 48.8 0.5 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 170 51.8 0.5 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 180 54.9 0.5 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 190 57.9 0.5 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 200 61.0 0.5 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 210 64.0 0.5 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 220 67.1 0.5 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 230 70.1 0.5 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 240 73.1 0.5 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 250 76.2 0.5 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 260 79.2 0.5 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 270 82.3 0.5 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 280 85.3 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 290 88.4 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 300 91.4 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 310 94.5 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 320 97.5 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 330 100.6 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 340 103.6 0.5 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 350 106.7 0.5 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 360 109.7 0.5 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 370 112.8 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 Shielding
(dBA)
Calculated (dBA)
No. Equipment Description Energy
Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Ground
Quantity Effect
Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor
(ft)
Building Construction
Noise Level Calculation Prior to Implementation of Noise Attenuation Requirements Lmax Leq
1 Cranes 82 1 40 123 0.5 0 72.2 68.2 6679165.79
2 Forklift/Tractor 80 1 40 123 0.5 0 70.2 66.2 4214268.71 3 Generator 80 1 40 123 0.5 0 70.2 66.2 4214268.71
4 Tractor/Backhoe 80 1 40 123 0.5 0 70.2 66.2 4214268.71 Source: MD Acoustics, July 2018. Lmax* 74 Leq 73
1- Percentage of time that a piece of equipment is operating at full power. Lw 106 Lw 105 dBA – A-weighted Decibels
Lmax- Maximum Level
Leq- Equivalent Level
Feet Meters Ground Effect
No
Shielding
Leq dBA
1 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
2 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
3 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
4 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
5 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
6 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
7 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
8 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
9 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
10 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
11 dBA
Shielding
LeqdBA
12 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
13 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
14 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
15 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
50 15.2 0.5 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 60 18.3 0.5 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 70 21.3 0.5 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 80 24.4 0.5 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 90 27.4 0.5 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 100 30.5 0.5 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 110 33.5 0.5 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 120 36.6 0.5 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 130 39.6 0.5 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 140 42.7 0.5 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 150 45.7 0.5 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 160 48.8 0.5 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 170 51.8 0.5 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 180 54.9 0.5 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 190 57.9 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 200 61.0 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 210 64.0 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 220 67.1 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 230 70.1 0.5 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 240 73.1 0.5 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 250 76.2 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 260 79.2 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 270 82.3 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 280 85.3 0.5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 290 88.4 0.5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 300 91.4 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 310 94.5 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 320 97.5 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 330 100.6 0.5 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 340 103.6 0.5 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 350 106.7 0.5 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 360 109.7 0.5 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 370 112.8 0.5 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 No. Equipment Description
Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax Quantity
Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor
(ft)
Ground
Effect
Shielding
(dBA)
Calculated (dBA)
Energy
Paving
Noise Level Calculation Prior to Implementation of Noise Attenuation Requirements Lmax Leq
1 Pavers 86 1 40 123 0.5 0 76.2 72.2 16777305.9
2 Rollers 80 1 40 123 0.5 0 70.2 66.2 4214268.71
3 Paving Equipment 80 1 40 123 0.5 0 70.2 66.2 4214268.71 Source: MD Acoustics, July 2018. Lmax* 77 Leq 74
1- Percentage of time that a piece of equipment is operating at full power. Lw 109 Lw 106 dBA – A-weighted Decibels
Lmax- Maximum Level
Leq- Equivalent Level
Feet Meters Ground Effect
No
Shielding
Leq dBA
1 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
2 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
3 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
4 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
5 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
6 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
7 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
8 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
9 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
10 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
11 dBA
Shielding
LeqdBA
12 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
13 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
14 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
15 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
50 15.2 0.5 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 60 18.3 0.5 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 70 21.3 0.5 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 80 24.4 0.5 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 90 27.4 0.5 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 100 30.5 0.5 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 110 33.5 0.5 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 120 36.6 0.5 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 130 39.6 0.5 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 140 42.7 0.5 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 150 45.7 0.5 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 160 48.8 0.5 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 170 51.8 0.5 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 180 54.9 0.5 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 190 57.9 0.5 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 200 61.0 0.5 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 210 64.0 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 220 67.1 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 230 70.1 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 240 73.1 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 250 76.2 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 260 79.2 0.5 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 270 82.3 0.5 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 280 85.3 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 290 88.4 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 300 91.4 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 310 94.5 0.5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 320 97.5 0.5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 330 100.6 0.5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 340 103.6 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 350 106.7 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 360 109.7 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 370 112.8 0.5 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 No. Equipment Description
Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax Quantity
Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor
(ft)
Ground
Effect
Shielding
(dBA)
Calculated (dBA)
Energy
Project: Great Scott Tree Service Date: 10/30/20
Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:
Address:
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment = INPUT SECTION IN BLUE
Type
PPVref = 0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.
D = 33.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.10 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.066 IN/SEC OUTPUT IN RED
DATA OUT RESULTS
2 Large Bulldozer
Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2006, pgs 38-43.
VIBRATION LEVEL IMPACT
Project Site
DATA INPUT
Your Property. Our Priority.
1745 W. Orangewood Avenue, Suite 110, Orange, CA 92868
Telephone (714) 634-9500 Fax: (714) 634-9507 Toll free: (800) 232-4326 www.HillmannConsulting.com
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
20865-20795 Canada Road
Lake Forest, California 92630
Prepared For:
Great Scott Tree Service, Inc.
10761 Court Avenue
Stanton California, 90680
Hillmann Project Number C3-8091
September 2, 2020
Your Property. Our Priority.
Corporate Office: 1600 Route 22 East, Suite #107, Union, NJ 07083 (908) 688-7800 or (800) 232-4326 Engineering Division: New Jersey Office Locations: California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia www.HillmannConsulting.com
September 2, 2020
Mr. Steve Guzowski
Great Scott Tree Service, Inc.
10761 Court Avenue
Stanton California, 90680
RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
20865-20795 Canada Road
Lake Forest, California 92630
Hillmann Project No: C3-8091
Dear Mr. Guzowski:
Hillmann Consulting, LLC, is pleased to provide the results of our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the above referenced property. This assessment was performed in general accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13, which is the latest version of the E1527 standard published by the ASTM.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide environmental due diligence services. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact our office at 714-634-9500.
Sincerely,
Hillmann Consulting, LLC
Shilpa Sunil Ryan Terwilliger
Environmental Project Manager West Coast Operations Manager Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -i- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865 Canada Road, Lake Forest. CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................1
1.1 Summary of Project Details .........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Findings Summary Table .............................................................................................................................2
1.3 Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................3
1.4 Environmental Professional Statement.........................................................................................................5
2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................6
2.1 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Property Location/Legal Description ...........................................................................................................8
2.3 Data Gaps.....................................................................................................................................................8
2.4 User Reliance ...............................................................................................................................................8
2.5 Significant Assumptions ..............................................................................................................................9
2.6 General Limitations and Exceptions ............................................................................................................9
3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION............................................................................................12
3.1 Prior Environmental Reports/Documentation ............................................................................................12
3.2 User Questionnaire.....................................................................................................................................12
3.3 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA ..........................................................................................................13
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW.....................................................................................................................14
4.1 Physical Setting Sources ............................................................................................................................14
4.2 Historical Use – Property and Adjoining Properties..................................................................................14
4.3 Standard Environmental Record Sources...................................................................................................18
4.4 Additional Environmental Record Sources................................................................................................21
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ..........................................................................................................23
5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions......................................................................................................23
5.2 General Site Setting....................................................................................................................................23
5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations................................................................................................................25
6.0 INTERVIEWS ...............................................................................................................................28
6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants..........................................................................28
6.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials.........................................................................28
7.0 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS .....................................................................................29
7.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) .......................................................................................................29
7.3 Radon .........................................................................................................................................................29
7.4 Mold/Microbial Damage ............................................................................................................................29
8.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................31
9.0 APPENDICES................................................................................................................................32 Appendix A Site Diagram/Vicinity Map
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Questionnaires / User Provided Information
Appendix D Historical Records Documentation
Appendix E Regulatory Records Documentation
Appendix F Other Documents
Appendix G Project Personnel Qualifications
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -ii- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865 Canada Road, Lake Forest. CA
List of Abbreviations/Acronyms
Hillmann may use the following abbreviations and acronyms for common terminology described in our report. Not all abbreviations or acronyms may be applicable to this report:
ACM – Asbestos Containing Material
AOC – Area of Concern
AST – Aboveground Storage Tank
ASTM – American Society for Testing Materials
BER – Business Environmental Risk
CEA – Classification Exception Area
CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act CERCLIS – Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System CESQG – Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
COC – Chemicals of Concern
CORRACTS – Corrective Action Sites
CREC – Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
DNPL – Delisted National Priority List
DTSC – Department of Toxic Substances Control
ENG – Engineering
ERNS – Emergency Response Notification System
CUPA – Certified Unified Program Agency
FOI/FOIA/FOIL – Freedom of Information / Freedom of Information Act / Freedom of Information Letter HVAC – Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning
HREC – Historic Recognized Environmental Condition
IAQ – Indoor Air Quality
INST – Institutional
ISRA – Industrial Site Recovery Act
LBP – Lead-Based Paint
LQG – Large Quantity Generator
LTANK – Leaking Storage Tank
LUST – Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SDS/MSDS – Safety Data Sheet / Material Safety Data Sheet NA – Not Applicable
NFA – No Further Action
NFRAP – No Further Remedial Actions Planned
NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL – National Priority List
OPRA – Open Public Records Act
PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCE – Perchloroethylene
RAO – Response Action Outcome
RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RWQCB – Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD – South Coast Air Quality Management District
RCRIS – Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System REC – Recognized Environmental Condition
SDG – Significant Data Gap
SEMS – Superfund Enterprise Management System
SRP – Site Remediation Program
SQG – Small Quantity Generator
SVOC – Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
TCE – Trichloroethylene
TSDF – Treatment Storage and/or Disposal Facility
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
UST – Underground Storage Tank
VEC – Vapor Encroachment Condition
VOC – Volatile Organic Compound
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -1- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
1.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Hillmann Consulting, LLC (Hillmann) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of 20865-20795 Canada Road, Lake Forest, California 92630 (the Property). This assessment has been conducted in accordance with our contracted scope of work and the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13 for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Final Rule 40 CFR Part 312. This section contains a summary of findings, opinions, and conclusions made by this assessment. However, this section, alone, does not constitute the complete assessment. The report must be read in its entirety.
1.1 Summary of Project Details
Project Name: N/A
Primary Street Address: 20865 -20795 Canada Road
City: Lake Forest County: Orange State: California
Tax ID/Parcel Number: 610-301-07 and 610-301-20, 601-301-21 Property Owner: Mr. Brian Hess
Zoning Designation:
A General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation from OS to Light Industrial; A Zone Change to change the zoning of the property from General Agriculture (A-1) to Light Industrial (M-1) to establish a contractor storage yard use (Great Scott Tree Services Inc.). Submitted on March 22, 2018. Under review.
Approx. Property Area:
APN 610-301-07 – 5.54 acres
APN 610-301-20 – 0.82 acres
APN 610-301-21 – 0.35 acres
Buildings/# of Floors One single story house converted to office use, one single story residential house, and a wooden barn
Approx. Building Area: House: 3,500 SF and Barn: 2,800 SF Former residential house used as Office: 2,600 SF
Approx. Year Built: Residential house prior to 1910/1952 and Office 1928; Barn 1848 Commercial Occupants: N/A
Current Use:
20865 Canada Road- Residential with a barn, horse stalls, and farm animals
20795 Canada Road- Office, ancillary structures used as storage shed Prior Uses: Orchards, residential / farm houses
Inspected By: Ms. Shilpa Sunil
Property Contact/Company: Mr. Steve Guzowski/Great Scott tree Service Inc.
Property Escort/Company: Mr. Steve Guzowski Great Scott tree Service Inc.
Inspection Date: August 27, 2020
Weather Conditions: Clear Sunny, 85 degrees F
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -2- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
1.2 Findings Summary Table
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Assessment
Subject
No Notable
Finding
Notable Findings REC? Rep.
Ref.
User Provided Info X 3.0
Data Gaps X Hillmann was not able to access the western portion of the Property due to thick and overgrown vegetation. 2.3
Property Regulatory
Records Review X The Property is not listed in any regulatory databases. 4.3.1 Property Historical
Records Review
Historical site uses include citrus and avocado orchards and a residential home.
REC 4.2
Site Reconnaissance
Property consists of two parcels. The northwestern portion of the Property includes Serrano creek, hiking trail and the remainder portion of the Property is covered with dense vegetation. The southern parcel is developed with a single-family residential house that has 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and approximately 2,400 square feet of floor space; and a barn. A horse stall and farm animal storage area were observed at the northwestern portion of the Property. A horse corral was observed at the southwest side of the Property.
Remaining portion of the parcel is undeveloped, currently covered by brushes and trees. The north eastern portion of the Property is currently occupied by the tenant- Richard Cohen Landscape and Construction, Inc. This Property has 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and approximately 2,600 square feet of floor space that is currently converted to office use.
No
5.0 Interviews
Mr. Steve Guzowski of Great Scott Tree Service, Inc. indicated a 500-gallon underground gasoline tank with pump was on the Property until 1984-1985, and used for agricultural purposes. A leak was detected approximately in 1984. Under the guidance of the local environmental jurisdiction, the pump was removed and the tank was filled with water. Mr. Steve indicated that the underground storage tank was still underground. Due to
overgrown vegetation, there were no visible signs of the former UST at the Property.
Hillmann reviewed online Geotracker records and there were no files pertinent to the underground storage tank found.
Based on the age of the construction of the residential home, the home was connected to a septic system. A septic system cleanout was observed at the north side of the 20795 Canada Road building.
At the time of the site inspection, Hillmann observed Los Alisos Water District has recently put a new sewer system in place.
REC
No
6.0 Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -3- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
Adjoining & Nearby
Properties X
The northwest adjacent Property at 20697 Prism Place located approximately 277 feet northwest is listed under UST and
SWEEPS UST, RCRA NON-GEN/NLR, HAZNET, CERS,
CERS HAZ Waste databases.
The south-southeast adjacent Property at 20845 Canada Road located approximately 103 feet down gradient of the Property is listed under RCRA NONGEN/NLR database.
No
No
4.3.2 5.2.8
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS / NON-ASTM SCOPE
BER Not
Applicable Findings Rep.Ref.
Asbestos Containing
Materials (ACM)
Based on the age of the construction of the single-family residential home there is potential for ACM. 7.1
Lead Based Paint
(LBP) 7.2
Radon The Property located in USEPA Radon Zone 3. 7.3
Mold 7.4
1.3 Findings and Conclusions
1.3.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions
Hillmann has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 of the Property as described in Section 2 of this report. Any additions to, exceptions to or deletions from this practice are also described in Section 2 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property, except for the following:
RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
REC 1 The former UST at the Property is considered to be REC to the Property.
REC 2 The historical usage of the Property as a citrus and avocado grove is considered a REC in connection with the Property.
HISTORICAL RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
No HRECs were identified.
CONTROLLED RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
No CRECs were identified.
SIGNIFICANT DATA GAPS
No SDGs were identified.
1.3.2 REC Response Action Recommendations
The following table presents recommended response actions to the identified RECs for further investigation and/or corrective action:
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -4- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
REC RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY TABLE
REC # Response Action
REC 1 and 2 Hillmann recommends a limited Phase II subsurface investigation to determine whether elevated pesticide compounds are present due to the history of agricultural/orchard use. Additionally, Hillmann recommends soil sampling to determine whether the owner reported gasoline underground storage tank has adversely impacted the Property. A subsurface investigation would be necessary to evaluate to the extent of residual impact. In addition, due to the residual impact in shallow soil and groundwater, a subsurface soil vapor survey is recommended prior to any planned redevelopment of the Property.
1.3.3 Additional Findings
The following environmental conditions were identified, but are not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property:
NOTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
1. The site appears to have been utilized as citrus and avocado orchard from circa 1938 to 1940. There is the potential for soil contamination due to current and historic pesticide applications; this is considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.
2. Site contact Mr. Guzowski of Great Scott Tree Service, Inc. indicated a 500-gallon underground gasoline tank with pump was on Property until 1984-1985 and was used for agricultural purposes. Property owner reported that a leak was detected approximately in 1984. Under the guidance of the local environmental jurisdiction, the pump was removed and the tank was filled with water. Mr. Steve indicated that the underground storage tank was still underground. Due to overgrown vegetation, there were no visible signs of the former UST at the Property. There were no records of date of installation of the UST and no leaks were recorded. Hillmann reviewed online Geotracker records and there were no files pertinent to the underground storage tank found. Hillmann reviewed the GPR investigation report prepared by C Below, dated August 31, 2020, the investigation results did not identify any tank, other than possible resident’s septic tank measuring 10x12 and possible old water pump foundation near the drive way measuring 2x2 were identified. The GPR report is attached under Appendix C.
Based on the lack of tank removal records, Hillmann recommends further soil sampling to determine if the subsurface has been impacted by the former UST leak and analyze for suspect compounds such as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHcc), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and Ca Assessment Metals (CAM).
3. Mr. Steve Guzowski mentioned that the residential property had a septic system in place. Due to the overgrown vegetation, septic system was not visible. There were new sewer lines in places laid out by the city observed in the vicinity of the Property.
Additionally, Hillmann observed a septic system cleanout exists at the north side of the Property (20795 Canada Road); however, the capacity of the septic tank is unknown. The only pertinent information Hillmann was able to obtain was that the septic tank is serviced by vacuuming out the contents periodically approximately twice a month.
Hillmann recommends to remove the septic system and be capped under current regulations.
4. Hillmann observed one above ground storage tank stored on a secondary containment in the barn building. No evidence of leaks or staining was observed in vicinity of the tank. The above ground storage tank is not considered to be a REC; however, it should be properly removed and disposed of at an authorized off-site location.
Additionally, there were small containers of degreaser observed in the barn building. Hillmann observed deminimis oil staining in the barn building.
5. Several 5-gallon pails containing grout and flooring construction material were observed in the northeast covered storage yard. Five 5-gallon containers and a 5-gallon pail of oil and small containers of paint was observed inside the garage.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -5- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
6. XPO Logistics Freight Inc - UIV (20697 Prism Place). This site is adjoining to the northwest and is crossupgradient of the Property. The site is listed under UST, SWEEPS UST, RCRA NONGEN/NLR, CERS Hazwaste, CERS tanks, HAZZNET databases. This site is registered on the UST database with Facility ID # FA0024234. The SWEEPS UST listing indicates the 10,000-gallon motor vehicle fuel diesel UST was installed in 1988. Based on the absence of reported releases or violations, this listing is not considered a REC in connection with the Property. The CERS Hazwaste listing indicates that hazardous waste treatment occurs onsite, several administrative violations are noted. The CERS listing indicates that the site operates as a chemical storage facility with several administrative violations. The CERS listing indicates that the site returned to compliance on 3/17/2017 after the violation for not collecting waste in a container was issued on 3/13/2017. Due to a lack of reported spills, the relatively minor violation, and hydrologic gradient, these listings are not considered to be RECs in connection with the Property
1.4 Environmental Professional Statement
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. ________________________________
Ryan Terwilliger
Environmental Professional
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -6- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose and Scope
This assessment was conducted utilizing generally accepted Phase I ESA industry standards in accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13. The ASTM describes these methodologies as representing good commercial and customary practice in the United States of America for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and petroleum products. As such, this practice is intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on CERCLA liability (hereinafter, the “landowner liability protections,” or “LLPs”): that is, the practice that constitutes all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses the property consistent with good commercial and customary practice as defined at 42 U.S.C. §9601(35) (B). The primary goal of the processes established by ASTM E1527-13 is to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property.
The term recognized environmental condition (REC) is defined by the ASTM as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or at a property: (1) due to a 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 ASTM has also defined the terms historical recognized environmental conditions and controlled recognized environmental conditions as two additional types of RECs. The term historical recognized environmental condition (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 (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls or engineering controls).
The term controlled recognized environmental condition (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, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.
Conditions determined to be “de minimis conditions” are not considered to be RECs, HRECs or CRECs. De minimis condition is defined by the ASTM, “…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.” The chief components of this assessment are generally described as follows:
• A non-invasive visual reconnaissance of the Property and adjoining properties in accordance with ASTM guidelines for evidence of RECs.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -7- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
• Interviews of past and present owners and occupants and state and local government officials, seeking information related to the potential presence of RECs at the Property. • A review of standard physical record sources for available topographic, geologic and groundwater data.
• A review of standard historic record sources, such as fire insurance maps, city directories, aerial photographs, prior reports, and interviews, etc., to determine prior uses of the Property from the present, back to the Property’s first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier.
• A review of standard environmental record sources including federal and state environmental databases, and additional environmental record sources, to identify potential regulatory concerns with the Property, adjoining properties, and properties located within the surrounding area.
An evaluation of environmental or other regulatory compliance matters is excluded from the scope of this assessment.
These methodologies are described as representing good commercial and customary practice for conducting an Environmental Site Assessment of a property for the purpose of identifying recognized environmental conditions.
2.1.1 Business Environmental Risks/Non-ASTM Scope Considerations In accordance with our contract agreement, Hillmann may have addressed the following potential environmental subject matters that are outside of the requirements of the ASTM E1527-13 standard:
Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM): A cursory non-intrusive visual screening for the presence of suspect ACM within the accessed areas of buildings built prior to 1990 on the Property. It is emphasized that this cursory non-intrusive visual screening does not constitute an asbestos survey/inspection of the premises. An asbestos survey/inspection should be sought by the report User(s) if more certainty is desired regarding ACM and potential asbestos hazards at the Property.
Furthermore, a review of regulatory compliance matters pertaining to asbestos is excluded from the scope of work.
Lead-Based Paint (LBP): A cursory non-intrusive visual screening of the condition of painted surfaces in the accessed areas of residential buildings/units built prior to 1980 on the Property. It is emphasized that this cursory non-intrusive visual screening does not constitute a comprehensive survey for LBP or potential lead hazards. A comprehensive inspection should be sought by the report User(s) if more certainty is desired regarding LBP at the Property.
Furthermore, a review of regulatory compliance matters pertaining to lead-based paint is excluded from the scope of work.
USEPA Designated Radon Potential: Review of general non-site-specific data published by the USEPA regarding the Radon Zone classification for the area of the Property.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -8- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
Mold: A cursory non-intrusive visual screening within the accessed areas of buildings on the Property for evidence of systemic microbial problems, including visible mold growth, water damaged building materials or musty odors. It is emphasized that this cursory non-intrusive visual screening does not constitute a comprehensive survey for moisture/mold/microbial damage. A more comprehensive inspection should be sought by the report User(s) if more certainty is desired regarding the potential for moisture/mold/microbial damages at the Property.
2.2 Property Location/Legal Description
Property location and legal description details are described as follows:
Primary Street Address: 20865 Canada Road
City: Lake Forest County: Orange State: California
Tax ID/Parcel Number: 610-301-07 and 610-301-20
Approx. Land Area:
610-301-07 – 5.54 acres
APN 610-301-20 – 0.82 acres
APN 610-301-21 – 0.35 acres
Approx. Latitude/Longitude: North 33.6605380 degrees/West 117.6751250 degrees Additional Details (if appl.): NA
2.3 Data Gaps
A data gap is defined by the ASTM as a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information.
A data gap is only significant if other information and/or professional experience raises reasonable concerns involving the data gap and the ability to determine the presence or absence of recognized environmental conditions. The following table summarizes data gaps encountered during the assessment as well as a discussion of their significance.
Data Gap: Significant
(Yes/No)?
Discussion
Historical records data failure No See Section 4.2.9
Response to agency records
requests not received as of date
of report.
No Any additional information indicative of a REC will be forwarded upon receipt.
2.4 User Reliance
This report is for the exclusive use of the User(s) named on the front cover. No other party(ies) shall have any right to rely on the content of this report without first obtaining the consent of the original report User; and without obtaining written consent from Hillmann in the form of a letter of reliance or report recertification.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -9- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
2.5 Significant Assumptions
The following significant assumptions are made:
• Hillmann has assumed that the site operations at the time of the site visit reflect typical site conditions relative to potential environmental conditions and that no concealment of environmental conditions or releases by site owners or occupants has occurred. Likewise, Hillmann has also assumed that no areas of the Property with potential environmental concerns or RECs were concealed or otherwise not made known to us, intentionally or unknowingly, by the Property owners/occupants and/or site escort at the time of the site visit. • For the purpose of estimating the approximate direction of groundwater flow in the absence of site specific groundwater data, unless indicated otherwise, Hillmann has assumed that the gradient of groundwater flow follows the surface topography of the Property and immediate surrounding area.
2.6 General Limitations and Exceptions
2.6.1 Limitations
The report turnaround time specified by the contract agreement for this assessment may present a limitation to Hillmann’s ability to access and review pertinent regulatory agency records. Such limitations, if encountered, are further specified in Section 4.4.
Significant limitations related to the condition or accessibility of the Property at the time of the site reconnaissance, if encountered, are reported in Section 5.1.
2.6.2 Other Exceptions or Deletions
No other exceptions or deletions from the ASTM Standard E 1527-13 are reported.
2.6.3 Special Terms and Conditions
Hillmann has prepared this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment using reasonable efforts in each phase of its work to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with hazardous substances, wastes, and petroleum products at the Property. Findings within this report are based on information collected from observations made on the day of the site reconnaissance and from reasonably ascertainable information obtained from governing public agencies and private sources.
This report is not definitive and should not be assumed to be a complete or specific definition of the conditions above or below grade. Information in this report is not intended to be used as a construction document and should not be used for demolition, renovation, site development, redevelopment, or other construction purposes. Hillmann makes no representation or warranty that the past or current operations at the Property are, or have been, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and codes.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -10- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
Findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on our visual observations of the Property, interviews conducted, the records reviewed, information provided by the Client, and/or a review of readily available and supplied drawings and documents.
Hillmann relies upon the information, whether written, graphic or verbal, provided by the Property contact(s) or as shown on any documents reviewed or received from the Property contact, owner or agent, or municipal source; and assumes that information to be true and correct.
Although there may have been some degree of overlap in the information provided by these various sources, Hillmann did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of all information reviewed or received during the course of this assessment. Hillmann can neither warrant nor guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information that was obtained from ostensibly knowledgeable individuals, regulatory agency representatives or other secondary sources.
Regardless of the findings stated in this report, Hillmann is not responsible for consequences or conditions arising from facts that were concealed, withheld or not fully disclosed at the time the assessment was conducted.
This report does not warrant against future operations or conditions, nor does it warrant against operations or conditions present of a type or at a location not investigated.
The regulatory database report provided is based on an evaluation of the data collected and compiled by a contracted data research company. The regulatory research is designed to meet the requirements of ASTM Standard E 1527-13. Hillmann can neither warrant nor guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information obtained from the regulatory database report provider during the course of this assessment.
Subsurface conditions may differ from the conditions implied by the surface observations and can only be reliably evaluated through intrusive techniques.
Reasonable efforts have been made during this assessment to identify aboveground and underground storage tanks and ancillary equipment. “Reasonable efforts” are limited to information gained from visual observation of largely unobstructed areas, recorded database information held in public record and available information gathered from interviews. Such methods may not identify surficial and subsurface features that may have been hidden from view due to parked automobiles and other vehicles, snow cover, vegetative growth, pavement, construction or debris pile storage or incorrect information from sources.
Hillmann is not a professional title insurance firm and makes no guarantee, explicit or implied, that the records which were reviewed represent a comprehensive or precise delineation of past Property ownership or tenancy for legal purposes.
The ASTM E1527-13 standard states that recommendations are not required to be included in a Phase I ESA report; however, further that recommendations are an additional service that may be useful in the User’s analysis of landowner liability protections or business environmental risks; and that the User should consider whether recommendations for additional inquiries or other services are desired.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -11- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
The recommended response actions to the identified RECs presented in Section 1.3, if any, are not intended to represent the only course(s) of action to take; nor does it imply any opinion as to the timing of the action. Furthermore, it is emphasized that additional response actions may become warranted depending on the outcome of the initial action(s) taken. Hillmann advises that consultation with legal counsel familiar with environmental and real estate law may be beneficial to the decision-making process for the type and timing of a response action to identified RECs if any.
Due to the limited nature of our review of potential Business Environmental Risks, the User of the report should consider whether to take additional action(s) to further define, properly manage and/or mitigate potential BERs.
In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this report and the terms and conditions of the consulting services agreement for this project, the consulting services agreement shall control.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -12- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
The term “User” is defined by ASTM as the party seeking to use Practice E1527 to complete an environmental site assessment of the Property; specifically, the entities named on the front cover to which the report has been addressed.
3.1 Prior Environmental Reports/Documentation
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 20865 Canada Road, Lake Forest, California 92630 prepared by Hillmann Consulting and dated December 2, 2019.
The prior Phase I identified two RECs in connection with the Property. The first, was due to the owner reported UST on the Property, with lack of records of removal of UST. The second was due to historical usage of the Property as a citrus and avocado grove is considered to be a REC to the Property.
Hillmann recommends a limited Phase II subsurface investigation to determine the historic agricultural use and whether the owner reported gasoline underground storage tank has adversely impacted the Property.
3.2 User Questionnaire
Section 6 of the ASTM E1527-13 standard describes certain tasks required to be performed by the report User in order to qualify for landowner liability protections to CERCLA liability. To assist the report User to meet these requirements, and as recommended by the ASTM E1527-13 standard, a Questionnaire of inquiries (User Questionnaire) specified in 40 CFR 312.25, 312.28, 312.29, 312.30, and 312.31 has been provided to the original report User. The following is a summary of the User’s response:
Question: Yes/No: Detail:
Environmental liens that are filed or recorded against the property:
Did a search of recorded land title records identify any environmental liens filed or recorded against the property under federal, tribal, state or local law?
NR
Activity and use limitations that are in place on the property or that have been filed or recorded against the property:
Did a search of recorded land title records (or judicial records where appropriate, identify any AULs, such as engineering controls, land use restrictions or institutional controls that are in place at the property and/or have been filed or recorded against the property under federal, tribal, state or local law? NR
Specialized knowledge or experience of the person seeking to qualify for the LLP:
Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and
processes used by this type of business?
NR
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -13- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
Relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the property if it were not contaminated:
Does the purchase price being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the property? If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property?
NR
Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable
Information:
Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property that would help the
environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example,
-Do you know the past uses of the property? NR
-Do you know of specific chemicals that are present or were once present at the property? NR
-Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property? NR
-Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property? NR
The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation:
Based on your knowledge and experience related to the property are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of releases at the property?
NR
Litigation/Administrative Proceedings/Government Notices As the User of this ESA, do you have knowledge of (1) any pending, threatened, or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property; (2) any pending, threatened, or past administrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or from the property; and (3) any notices from any governmental entity regarding any possible violation of environmental laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products.
NR
NR-no response
3.3 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA
Hillmann assumes that the Phase I ESA was being performed in order to qualify for landowner liability protection to CERCLA liability.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -14- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW
4.1 Physical Setting Sources
The following physical setting sources were reviewed:
Source Discussion
USGS 7.5 minute
Topographic Map
Data: (EDR GeocheckPhysical Setting Source
Addendum)
The Property lies at an elevation of approximately 631 feet above mean sea level on the El Toro, CA Quadrangle map. The topography indicated by the map appeared to be gently sloping downward towards the west. The closest down gradient water body is Serrano Creek located approximately 198 feet to the west.
USDA SCS Soil Data:
(EDR Geocheck-Physical
Setting Source Addendum)
The soil type at the Property is classified as “Riverwash”. The “Riverwash” designation is described as soils with a sand surface texture with a Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high-water table or are shallow to an impervious layer.
Geologic Data:
(EDR Geocheck-Physical
Setting Source Addendum)
The geologic formation in the vicinity of the Property is described as a stratified sequence of the Cenozoic Era, Tertiary System, and Miocene Series.
Additional Sources/
Data:
N/A
Groundwater Flow
Discussion:
Based on a review of the above information as well as observation of the site, the direction of shallow groundwater flow at the site is inferred to be generally to north.
4.2 Historical Use – Property and Adjoining Properties
Hillmann has conducted research in order to help identify the likelihood of past uses having led to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. Standard historical sources have been sought in an attempt to document the past uses of the Property as far back as it can be shown that the Property contained structures; or from the time the Property was first used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial or governmental purposes.
4.2.1 Fire Insurance Maps
Hillmann obtained a Certified Sanborn Map Report from EDR in order to research published historic fire insurance maps for the Property and surrounding area. A copy of the report is included in Appendix D. The following is a summary of site use information interpreted from a review of the report:
Year(s) Description
Property (No Coverage)
Adjoining
Properties
4.2.2 City Directories
The following is a generalized summary of the findings of City Directory Research for past occupants of the Property, indicating occupants and the years indicated by the listings.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -15- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
Property
Occupant(s) Appr. Date Range
Canada Ranch Stables / Hess Ronald Construction 2000-2010 Don Hess 1992-1995
Hillmann also reviewed the EDR City Directory Abstract report for listings of historic occupants of the adjoining properties. The following is a general summary of listings of historic adjoining property occupants:
Adjoining Properties
Address(es) Historic Occupant(s) Appr. Date Range
20941 Canada Road American Mini Storage 1995-2014
Private individual 1992
20845 Canada Road Commercial/industrial 2010-2014
4.2.3 Historical Topographic Map Review
Hillmann reviewed historic topographic maps of the Property from EDR. The following details related to site usage were indicated by the topographic maps:
Year(s) Summary
1902, 1935
Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land.
Adjoining
Properties
The adjoining properties are depicted as undeveloped land. 1942
Property The Property is depicted as an orchard.
Adjoining
Properties
The adjoining properties are depicted as orchards. Serrano Creek is depicted to the northwest.
1949, 1950
Property The Property is depicted as an orchard. Serrano Creek is depicted to the northwest.
Adjoining
Properties
The adjoining properties are depicted as orchards. Adjacent property to the northeast is depicted with three small structures. Canada Road is shown on the map.
1968
Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land with a small structure depicted to the southwest. Serrano Creek is depicted to the northwest.
Adjoining
Properties
Adjacent property to the northeast is depicted with three small structures. Canada Road is shown on the map.
1978, 1981,
1982
Property The Property is depicted as an orchard with a small structure depicted to the southwest. Serrano Creek is depicted to the northwest.
Adjoining
Properties
Adjacent property to the northeast is depicted with three small structures. The adjoining properties to the northwest are depicted as commercial/light industrial structure.
1997
Property The Property is depicted as an orchard. Serrano Creek is depicted to the northwest.
Adjoining
Properties
The adjoining properties to the northwest and southwest are depicted with existing commercial/light industrial structures.
2012
Property No building development is depicted on the topographic map.
Adjoining
Properties
No building development is depicted on the topographic map.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -16- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
4.2.4 Aerial Photograph Review
Hillmann reviewed historic aerial photographs of the Property from EDR. The following interpretation of land usage was made by review of the aerial photographs:
Year(s) Summary
1938, 1946,
1949
Property The Property appears to be developed with small residential structure surrounded by orchard. Serrano Creek is depicted to the northwest.
Adjoining
Properties
The adjoining properties appear to be orchards. Small structures are depicted to the northeast.
1952, 1963,
1967, 1972,
1974, 1980
Property The southwest corner of the Property appears to be developed with the existing residential home and barn; the remainder of the Property appears to be orchards.
Adjoining
Properties
The adjoining properties appear to be orchards. Small structures are depicted to the northeast and to the south.
1990, 1994,
Property The Property appears to be developed with the existing structures including a residential home and a barn. Serrano creek is depicted to the northwest.
Adjoining
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north, east and southwest are depicted to be developed with existing commercial/light industrial structures. The south adjacent property is depicted to be undeveloped land.
2005, 2009,
2012 and
2016
Property The Property appears to be developed with the existing structures including a residential home and a barn. Serrano creek is depicted to the northwest.
Adjoining
Properties
The adjoining properties to the north, east, west, and southwest are depicted to be developed with existing commercial/light industrial structures.
4.2.5 EDR High-Risk Historical Records
The EDR Radius Map™ report, which will be discussed in greater detail in Section 4.3, provided a search of proprietary databases of potential historical high-risk uses at or in the vicinity of the Property. These databases include EDR Historic Cleaners – a database of property addresses with records of historical occupancy by suspected cleaners businesses; EDR Historic Auto – a database of property addresses with records of historical occupancy by potential automotive gas/filling stations and repair facilities; and EDR MGP- a database of sites historically occupied by manufactured gas plants and related facilities.
EDR Historic Cleaners No on-site or adjoining listings identified.
EDR Historic Auto No on-site or adjoining listings identified.
EDR MGP No listings identified within 1-mile search distance.
4.2.6 Petroleum/Natural Gas Well Review
Hillmann reviewed historical record sources for evidence of historic petroleum and/or natural gas wells at the Property. In addition, Hillmann conducted a search of the property location on the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources Well Finder database (http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/index.html). No record of any historical petroleum/natural gas wells at the Property was identified.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -17- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
4.2.7 Additional Historical Data
No additional historical data was reviewed and/or obtained.
4.2.8 Summary of Identified Historic Uses
The following table presents a summary of the types and approximate timeframes of identified prior uses of the Property:
Property
Years (Approx.) Use
1938 to 1980 Orchards, Serrano Creek
1990 to Present Residential, Barn, Serrano Creek
The following table presents a summary of the types of identified prior uses of the adjoining properties:
Adjoining Properties
Years (Approx.) Use
1938 to 1980 Orchards
1990 Undeveloped land (south adjacent property)
1990 to Present Undeveloped land
4.2.9 Historical Records Data Failure
The ASTM E1527-13 standard defines data failure as a failure to achieve the ASTM specified historical research objectives after reviewing the standard historical sources that are reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful. The objective is to identify all obvious uses of the property from the present, back to the property’s first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier.
Furthermore, records of historic use/conditions should be sought in intervals no less than approximately five years, unless the property conditions appear unchanged over a longer interval.
Objective Met? Detail Significant
Data
Gap?
First developed use/date
determined?
Yes The Property was developed as Orchard and a Bran in 1800s. A residential home circa 1938.
No
Record sources at 5-year
intervals back to 1940 or first
developed use?
No Records gaps between 1952 and 1963, 1980 and 1989,
and 1994 and 2005; however, site conditions likely
unchanged during these intervals.
No
All obvious prior uses
identified?
Yes See Section 4.2.8. No
Please refer to Section 2.3 for additional discussion of data gaps and their significance to the findings of the assessment.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -18- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
4.2.10 Historic Uses REC Discussion
A portion of the Property appears to have been utilized as orchards since circa 1930. This use suggests the historical application of pesticides during this time, which could have accumulated in the shallow soils at that time. There is the potential for soil contamination due to current and historic pesticide applications, this is considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.
The owner of the Property reported a 500-gallon underground gasoline tank with a pump that was used as part of the agricultural purposes is considered to be REC to the Property. According to the Property owner, a leak was detected in 1984 and the pump was removed from the Property under the guidance of the local environmental jurisdiction. Hillmann reviewed records for the agencies and there are no records obtained in regards to the underground storage tank. There have been no records of the UST as having been removed and it is considered to be a REC in connection with the Property. Hillmann recommends a limited Phase II investigation to determine whether the UST is still present and whether the historical operation of the UST have negatively impacted the Property.
4.3 Standard Environmental Record Sources
Hillmann obtained a regulatory database report, titled EDR Radius Map™ Report, from Environmental Data Resources of Shelton, CT. The report provided a search of standard environmental record sources in general accordance with the requirements of the ASTM E1527-
13. Hillmann has reviewed the regulatory database report, and a summary of findings has been presented in the following tables and report sections. Hillmann has also reviewed the list of unmapped sites (a.k.a. “Orphan List” sites). Unmapped sites identified as falling within an applicable specific search distance or warranting discussion in the report, if any, have been included in the information presented below. Detailed descriptions of the meaning and significance of the regulatory databases can be found in the regulatory database report in Appendix E.
Regulatory Database Search
Distance
Property
Listed?
Adj.
Properties
Listed?
Total Listings
Within Search
Distance
Fed. NPL/Proposed NPL 1-mile No No 0
Fed. Delisted NPL ½-mile No No 0
Fed. SEMS ½-mile No No 0
Fed. SEMS-ARCHIVE ½-mile No No 0
Fed. RCRA CORRACTS 1-mile No No 0
Fed. RCRA TSD ½-mile No No 0
Fed. RCRA LQG Site & Adj. No No
Fed. RCRA SQG Site & Adj. No No
Fed. RCRA CESQG Site & Adj. No No
Fed. ENG Control List Site No
Fed. INST Control List Site No
Fed. ERNS Site No
State/Tribal Hazardous Waste Site 1-mile No No 0
State/Tribal Landfill/Solid Waste ½-mile No No 0
State/Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks ½-mile No No 2
State/Tribal Registered Storage Tanks Site & Adj. No No State/Tribal Eng. Control List Site No
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -19- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
State/Tribal Inst. Control List Site No
State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites ½-mile No No 0
State/Tribal Brownfields ½-mile No No 0
Supplemental Regulatory Databases Site & Adj. No No
4.3.1 Property Listings
The Property address was identified in the following databases.
PEST LIC, FINDS, ECHO, RCRA Non-Gen/ NLR, HWTS, – Richard Cohen Landscape and Construction Inc at 20795 Canada Road. The Property is listed under PEST LIC with facility type as MGB and QAC. This site is listed as a Non-generator of hazardous waste. There were no reported violations. Based on the absence of reported violations or releases and the relative hydraulic gradient this listing is not considered a REC in connection with the Property.
4.3.2 Adjoining Property Listings
RCRA NonGen NLR/ – Global Power Technologies Group at 20692 Canada Road. This site is adjoining to the north-northwest and approximately 85 feet up/crossgradient of the Property. This site is listed as a Non-generator of hazardous waste. There were no reported violations. Based on the absence of reported violations or releases and the relative hydraulic gradient this listing is not considered a REC in connection with the Property.
RCRA NonGen NLR/ – Camila Corp at 20845 Canada Road. This site is adjoining to the southsoutheast and approximately 103 feet downgradient of the Property. This site is listed as a Nongenerator of hazardous waste. There were no reported violations. Based on the absence of reported violations or releases and the relative hydraulic gradient this listing is not considered a REC in connection with the Property.
UST, SWEEPS UST, RCRA NonGEN/ NLR, HAZNET, CERS, CERS HAZWASTE – XPO Logistics Freight INC. UIV at 20697 Prism Place. The site is adjoining to the northwest and is approximately 277 feet cross- gradient of the Property. This site is registered on the UST database with Facility ID # FA0024234. The SWEEPS UST listing indicates a 10,000-gallon motor vehicle fuel - diesel underground storage tank was installed in 1988. RCRA NonGen/NLR listing indicates the site is non generator of hazardous waste. CERS HAZWASTE describes the site as a hazardous waste generator. The listings indicate several violations issued since 2012 to 2017 and were returned to compliance immediately. Several compliance evaluation inspection results are listed for the site. Based on the absence of reported violations or releases and the upgradient position relative to the Property, this site is not considered a REC in connection with the Property.
4.3.3 ASTM Search Distance Findings
The following is a summary of the findings of the regulatory database review with regard to sites identified as located within the ASTM specified search distance surrounding the Property. In order to keep this report informative and yet concise, Hillmann has provided a brief discussion of the listed site(s) for each database category that appears most likely to impact the Property based Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -20- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
on distance, topography and/or case status. A copy of the full regulatory database report, including available details of all listed sites, is included in Appendix E.
Note that listings for the following databases, if identified, would be discussed above in Sections
4.3.1 and 4.3.2: Registered Storage Tanks, Federal RCRA Generators, Federal and State INST and ENG Controls, ERNS.)
Federal NPL: No NPL listing was identified within a one-mile radius of the Property.
Federal Delisted NPL: No DNPL listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.
Federal SEMS (formerly CERCLIS): No SEMS listing was identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.
Federal SEMS-ARCHIVE (former CERC-NFRAP): No SEMS-ARCHIVE listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.
Federal RCRA-CORRACTS: No CORRACTS listing was identified within a one-mile radius of the Property.
Federal RCRA-TSD: No TSD listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.
State/Tribal Hazardous Waste Sites: No SHWS listings were identified within a one-mile radius of the Property on the EnviroStor database.
No SHWS listings were identified within a one-mile radius of the Property on the RESPONSE database.
State/Tribal Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites: No SWF/LF listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.
State/Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks: Five (5) LUST listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property. The closest listing is described as Chevron at 20731 Lake Forest located 1968 feet east of the Property. The site is listed with completed case -closed status dated 04/20/1998. Based on the distance, hydraulic gradient and case closed status the listed sites are not considered to be concern to the Property.
Based on the regulatory closure received and the relative distance from the Property, other LUST listing is not considered a REC in connection with the Property.
No SLIC listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.
State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites: No VCP listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.
State/Tribal Brownfields: No BROWNFIELDS listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the Property.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -21- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
Review of the sites identified within the ASTM search parameters did not identify any nearby or surrounding area sites that are considered to be a REC in connection with the Property, unless as discussed otherwise previously in this section.
4.3.4 Tier I Vapor Encroachment Screening
Hillmann reviewed adjoining and vicinity database sites to identify potential off-site sources of sub-surface vapor encroachment. This review was based upon the current ASTM “Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions” (ASTM E 2600-15); and also utilizing the “Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property Potentially Impacted by Vapor Migration from Nearby Contaminated Sources” (Buonicore, 2011-S-103-AWMA). Vicinity database sites pertaining to non-petroleum product releases within 1,760 feet of the Property in the up-gradient direction, 365 feet of the Property in the cross gradient direction and 100 feet of the Property in the down gradient direction; and vicinity database sites pertaining to petroleum product releases within 528 feet of the Property in the up-gradient direction, 165 feet of the Property in the cross gradient direction and 100 feet of the Property in the down gradient direction were reviewed to identify active contamination sites with the potential to affect subsurface vapor conditions at the subject property. The potential for vapor encroachment was considered in assessing whether or not a REC exists in connection with the Property when reviewing applicable sites within those distances.
The 500- gallon gasoline underground storage tank is considered to be potential vapor instruction and therefore, considered to be REC to the Property.
4.4 Additional Environmental Record Sources
4.4.1 Supplemental Database Listings
Hillmann reviewed the regulatory database report for listings on supplemental databases that were searched in addition to the Standard Environmental Record Sources. Any property or adjoining property listings on such databases, if identified, would be discussed in Section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.
None of the other supplemental database listings identified by the regulatory database report are considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.
4.4.2 Local Agency & Internet Research
Hillmann has submitted requests to local and municipal agencies for pertinent records pertaining to the Property, particularly with regard to potential environmental concerns such as petroleum storage tanks, storage, and usage of hazardous substances and petroleum products, and/or known or suspected environmental contamination. Hillmann also conducted online research of government environmental regulatory databases where available, as well as a general cursory internet search of the Property address, for information indicative of a REC. The following table summarizes the findings of the research:
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -22- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
Source Type of
Request Outcome
Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA)
FOIA
Request
The Property address was searched. No results for the Property were found.
Irvine Ranch Water
District
FOIA
Request
The Property address was searched. No results for the Property were found.
Department of Toxic
Substances Control
(DTSC)
FOIA
Request
The Property address was searched. No results for the Property were found.
Regional Water
Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) – Santa
Ana Region (8)
FOIA
Request
The Property address was searched. No results for the Property were found.
South Coast Air
Quality Management
District (SCAQMD)
FOIA
Request
The Property address was searched. No results for the Property were found.
Orange County
Geographical
Information System
(GIS)
On-line
search
No information indicative of a REC was identified.
CA DTSC EnviroStor
database
http://www.envirostor.
dtsc.ca.gov/public/
Internet
The Property address was searched. No results for the Property were found.
CA GeoTracker
database
http://geotracker.water
boards.ca.gov/
Internet
The Property address was searched. No results for the Property were found.
USEPA Envirofacts
search
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/i
ndex.html
Internet
The Property address was searched. No results for the Property were found. www.google.com On-line
search
The Property address search returns no results
www.realquest.com On-line
search
Basic Property information such as parcel number, date of construction, and building square footages were collected. Pertinent information, where obtained, is referenced in the appropriate sections of this report.
Other: NA
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -23- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
The site reconnaissance consisted of visual and/or physical observations of the Property and improvements, adjoining properties as viewed from the Property boundaries and the surrounding area based on visual observations from adjoining public thoroughfares. Building exteriors were observed at ground level unless otherwise indicated. Where applicable, Hillmann accessed and observed representative areas of building interiors to the extent they were made safely accessible with the cooperation of the site escort.
Site Inspection Personnel: Ms. Shilpa Sunil
Property Escort/Company: Mr. Steve Guzowski/ Great Scott Tree Service, Inc.
Inspection Date: August 27, 2020
Weather Conditions: Clear Sunny, 85 degrees F
5.1.1 Significant Inaccessible Areas
Hillmann was not able to access the western portion of the Property due to thick and overgrown vegetation.
5.2 General Site Setting
5.2.1 Site and Vicinity Characteristics
The Property consists of irregular shaped is approximately 6.71-acres in size. Property consists of three parcels. Serrano Creek borders the Property to the north side of the Property. There are hiking trails observed along the border of the creek. The southern parcel is developed with two single-family residential houses and a barn.
The vicinity of the Property is improved primarily by commercial/light industrial properties.
5.2.2 Topographic Characteristics
The terrain of the Property appeared to be relatively flat that slopes to the north. Serrano Creek borders northern portion of the Property.
5.2.3 General Description of Structures
The southern parcel is developed with a single story single-family residential house that has 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and approximately 2,400 square feet of floor space; and a barn. A singlestory wooden barn and a single-family residential house that is converted to office use are located at the northeast of the Property.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -24- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
5.2.4 Sources of Heating and Cooling
Heating and cooling are provided by natural gas and electric powered systems.
5.2.5 Potable Water Source/Sewage Disposal System
Potable water and sewer services are provided via the public utility.
5.2.6 Current Use(s) of the Property
The current owner of the property currently resides at the residential home. The northwest portion of the site is used for storage of farm animals and horses. The northeastern portion of the Property is currently been occupied by the tenant- Richard Cohen Landscape and Construction, Inc.
5.2.7 Past Use(s) of the Property
No obvious indication of past Property usage likely to have involved the use, treatment, storage, disposal or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products was observed at the time of the site visit. Please refer to Section 4.2 for findings of historical site use research.
5.2.8 Current Use(s) of the Adjoining Properties
The following table describes the current uses of the adjoining properties:
Dir Street Address Description
NW 20697 Prism Pl, Lake Forest XPO Logistics
NE 20692 Prism Place Global Power Technologies Group
S 20845 Canada Road Camilo Corporation
SW 20941 Canada Road American mini Storage
No visual observations indicative of a potential environmental concern was noted on the adjoining properties.
5.2.9 Past Use(s) of the Adjoining Properties
No indication of past uses of the adjoining properties was noted at the time of the site visit. Please refer to Section 4.2 for the findings of historical site use research.
5.2.10 Current/Past Uses of Surrounding Area
The vicinity of the Property consists primarily of commercial and light industrial properties. No indications of past Property use that differ substantially from current conditions were observed at the time of the site visit.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -25- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations
5.3.1 Storage/Usage of Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products The following hazardous substances and petroleum products were observed to be stored and used by property occupants:
Occupant Substance Qty/Container Type Storage Conditions 20795 Canada Rd
(Robert Cohen
Landscape)
Misc. Lubricants Approximately 15 containers
of various sizes
Stored on shelves inside the garage.
No signs of staining or leaking
Various Large amounts of pesticides are
stored in a storage building and a
shed in the pesticide storage area by
the maintenance area.
5.3.2 Drums
No drums were identified on the Property.
5.3.3 Unidentified Substance Containers
No unidentified containers suspected of containing hazardous substances or petroleum products were noted on the Property.
5.3.4 Other Hazardous Substances/Petroleum Products
No other containers of hazardous substances or petroleum products were noted on the Property at the time of the site visit.
5.3.5 Bulk Petroleum/Hazardous Material Storage Tanks
The following storage tanks for bulk petroleum or hazardous material storage were identified or reported to be present; or are suspected to be present based on visual observations:
AST/
UST
Product Capacity Construction Year Installed Status Location/Notes UST None 500-gal Steel Unknown Inactive Owner of Property reported the former UST was located at the front of the
residential building 20865 Canada Road.
AST Motor oil 110-gal Steel Unknown Inactive Stored on secondary containment inside the barn. There were no spills or leaks
observed by the above ground storage
tank.
5.3.6 PCBs in Electrical/Hydraulic Equipment
There were no transformers noted on the Property. No signs of leaking or staining were observed in the area of the transformers.
No other electrical or hydraulic equipment suspected of containing PCBs was identified at the Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -26- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
Property.
5.3.7 Odors
No strong, unusual or pungent odors were noted on the Property.
5.3.8 Pools of Liquid
No standing water or pools of liquid likely to contain hazardous substances or petroleum products were noted at the Property.
5.3.9 Interior Stains or Corrosion
Hillmann observed de-minimis oil staining in the barn building.
5.3.10 Interior Drains/Sumps
No floor drains or sump pits were noted at the Property other than for storm water or sewage management.
5.3.11 Exterior Pits/Ponds/Lagoons
No evidence of exterior pits, ponds or lagoons was identified on the Property in connection with waste treatment or disposal.
5.3.12 Stained Soil, Pavement/Stressed Vegetation
No stained soil, pavement or stressed vegetation was observed at the Property.
5.3.13 On-Site Solid Waste Disposal/Fill Material
No evidence of any on-site solid waste dumping was noted at the Property.
No evidence of recently deposited fill materials was observed at the Property.
5.3.14 Wastewater
Sanitary sewage and storm water runoff generated on-site are discharged into municipal sewer systems. No other waste discharges were noted at the Property.
5.3.15 Septic Systems
Mr. Steve Guzowski mentioned that the residential property had a septic system in place. Due to the overgrown vegetation, septic system was not visible. There were new sewer lines in place laid out by the city observed in the vicinity of the Property. Hillmann recommends to remove the septic system and it be capped under current regulations.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -27- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
Additionally, Hillmann observed a septic system cleanout that exists at the north side of the Property (20795 Canada Rod); however, the capacity of the septic tank is unknown. The only pertinent information Hillmann was able to obtain was that the septic tank is serviced by vacuuming out the contents periodically, approximately twice a month.
5.3.16 Wells
No indication of a well was noted on the Property.
5.3.17 Railroad Spurs
No railroad spurs were noted on the Property at the time of the assessment.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -28- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
6.0 INTERVIEWS
6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants Subject Name/Affiliation Summary
Property Owner /
Representative
Mr. Steve
Guzowski/Great Scott
tree Service Inc.
Mr. Steve Guzowski, of Great Scott Tree Service Inc., was provided with an environmental questionnaire with instructions to have it completed by a party knowledgeable of the Property.
As of the date of this report, the environmental questionnaire has not been returned.
Property Occupants Not applicable Property occupants were not available for interview at the time of the assessment.
Past Owners,
Occupants, Operators
Not applicable Past owners/occupants of the Property were not available for interview at the time of the assessment.
Owners/Occupants of
Adjoining or Nearby
Properties
Not applicable The Property was not an abandoned property with evidence of unauthorized uses or uncontrolled access; therefore, interviews with adjoining or nearby property owners or occupants were not conducted.
6.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials Written and on-line requests for environmental records of the Property from State and Local governmental agencies are detailed in Section 4.4.2.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -29- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
7.0 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
In accordance with the contract agreement for this assessment, Hillmann has performed cursory reviews of several potential Business Environmental Risks (also known as “Non-Scope Considerations”). The ASTM E1527-13 standard defines the term business environmental risk (BER) 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 in this practice.”
7.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM)
The contracted scope of work included a cursory visual screening of the accessed portions of buildings at the Property built prior to 1990 for suspect asbestos containing materials (ACM). The information provided in this section, where applicable, is limited to identification of potential suspect materials and their general condition. This is not intended to be a comprehensive survey for the presence of ACM, and no testing has been conducted.
Suspected ACM noted during a cursory visual screening of 20865 Canada Road included sheetrock wall systems, ceiling acoustical spray on material, suspended ceiling tiles, carpet mastics, and floor tile with associated mastics. Although not observed, the roofing materials may contain asbestos. Additional types of suspect ACM may exist in enclosed areas or areas not accessed during the assessment. It is emphasized that this limited screening does not constitute a comprehensive asbestos survey of the premises and is meant only to provide a cursory evaluation regarding the potential presence of ACM at the Property.
7.2 Lead-Based Paint
The contracted scope of work included a cursory visual screening of the condition of painted surfaces in the accessed areas of residential buildings/units built prior to 1980. This is not intended to constitute a comprehensive survey for LBP or potential lead hazards, and no testing has been conducted.
In general, interior painted surfaces within the space were observed to be in fair condition.
7.3 Radon
Hillmann reviewed data compiled by the USEPA, as summarized by the regulatory database report, which indicated that the Property is located in an area with a low potential for radon concentrations that exceed current USEPA action guidelines. Orange County is classified as a Zone 3 or ‘low risk’ area for radon.
7.4 Mold/Microbial Damage
As per the contracted scope of work, Hillmann conducted a cursory visual screening of the accessed areas of the building for evidence of significant damage to building materials and finishes as result of moisture intrusion and/or mold/microbial growth. Hillmann did not observe any other evidence of significant problems with moisture intrusion or mold/microbial growth at the Property.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -30- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
Hillmann did not observe any evidence of significant problems with moisture intrusion or mold/microbial growth at the Property.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -31- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
8.0 REFERENCES
ASTM E1527-13-Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process; ASTM International, 2013
ASTM E12600-15-Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transaction, ASTM International, 2015
EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheckTM, Environmental Data Resources, 2019 EDR City Directory Abstract Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2019 EDR Sanborn Map Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2019 www.historicaerials.com
Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property Potentially Impacted by Vapor Migration from Nearby Contaminated Sources; A. Buonicore, 2011 Orange County’s On-line Geographical Information System Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 20865 Canada Road, Lake Forest, California 92630 prepared by Hillmann Consulting and dated December 2, 2019.
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -32- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
9.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Diagram / Vicinity Map
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Questionnaires / User Provided Information
Appendix D Historical Records Documentation
Appendix E Regulatory Records Documentation
Appendix F Other Documents
Appendix G Project Personnel Qualifications
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -33- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
APPENDIX A
SITE DIAGRAM / VICINITY MAP
Figure 1: SITE VICINITY MAP SCALE: (Not to Scale) N
Project
Location:
Project No.:
20865 -20795 Canada Road
Lake Forest, CA 92630
C3-8091
Property
Figure 2: SITE DIAGRAM SCALE: (Not to Scale) N
Project
Location:
Project No.:
20865 -20795 Canada Road
Lake Forest, CA 92630
C3-8091
Property
UST location
Septic System
Barn
Horse
Stalls
Horse
Corral
Septic System
Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -34- Hillmann Project No. C3-8091 20865- 20795Canada Road, Lake Forest, CA
APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO LOG
20865-20795 Canada Road
Lake Forest, CA 92360
C3-8091