Agenda packet — Orange City Council, April 11, 2023 (part 6 of 14)

4.2 • Coastal
dunes
(mesic)
• Meadows
and seeps
(alkaline
seeps)
• Marshes
and swamps
(coastal salt)
3 m 900 m (Mar)MayJun
Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields Asteraceae annual herb 1B.1
• Marshes
and swamps
(coastal salt)
• Playas
• Vernal
pools
1 m 1220 m Feb-Jun
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass
Brassicaceae annual herb 4.3
• Chaparral
• Coastal
scrub
1 m 885 m Jan-Jul
Nama
stenocarpa mud nama Namaceae annual /
perennial herb 2B.2
• Marshes
and swamps
(lake
margins,
riverbanks)
5 m 500 m Jan-Jul
Nasturtium
gambelii
Gambel's
water cress Brassicaceae
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
FE CT 1B.1
• Marshes
and swamps
(freshwater
or brackish)
5 m 330 m Apr-Oct
Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate
vernal pool
navarretia
Polemoniaceae annual herb 1B.1
• Coastal
scrub
• Meadows
and seeps
• Valley and
foothill
grassland
(alkaline)
• Vernal
pools
3 m 1210 m Apr-Jul
Nemacaulis
denudata var.
denudata
coast woollyheads Polygonaceae annual herb 1B.2 • Coastal dunes 0 m 100 m Apr-Sep
Orcuttia
californica
California
Orcutt grass Poaceae annual herb FE CE 1B.1 • Vernalpools 15 m 660 m Apr-Aug Phacelia hubbyi Hubby's
phacelia Hydrophyllaceae annual herb 4.2
• Chaparral
• Coastal
scrub
• Valley and
foothill
grassland
0 m 1000 m Apr-Jul
Phacelia
ramosissima var.
austrolitoralis
south coast
branching
phacelia
Hydrophyllaceae perennial herb 3.2 • Chaparral
• Coastal
dunes
• Coastal
5 m 300 m Mar-Aug
1160
10/9/2020 CNPS Inventory Results
www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3311881:3311788:3311787:3311871:3311778:3311777:3311861:3311768:3311767#cdisp=1,2,3,4,1… 5/6 scrub
• Marshes
and swamps
(coastal salt)
Phacelia
stellaris
Brand's star
phacelia Hydrophyllaceae annual herb 1B.1
• Coastal
dunes
• Coastal
scrub
1 m 400 m Mar-Jun
Quercus
engelmannii
Engelmann
oak Fagaceae perennialdeciduous tree 4.2
• Chaparral
•
Cismontane
woodland
• Riparian
woodland
• Valley and
foothill
grassland
50 m 1300 m Mar-Jun
Ribes
divaricatum var.
parishii
Parish's
gooseberry Grossulariaceae
perennial
deciduous
shrub
1A • Riparian
woodland 65 m 300 m Feb-Apr
Romneya
coulteri
Coulter's
matilija poppy Papaveraceae
perennial
rhizomatous
herb

4.2 • Chaparral
• Coastal
scrub
20 m 1200 m MarJul(Aug)
Sagittaria
sanfordii
Sanford's
arrowhead Alismataceae
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
(emergent)
1B.2
• Marshes
and swamps
(assorted
shallow
freshwater)
0 m 650 m MayOct(Nov)
Senecio
aphanactis
chaparral
ragwort Asteraceae annual herb 2B.2
• Chaparral
•
Cismontane
woodland
• Coastal
scrub
15 m 800 m JanApr(May)
Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom Malvaceae perennial herb 2B.2
• Chaparral
• Coastal
scrub
• Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
• Mojavean
desert scrub
• Playas
15 m 1530 m Mar-Jun
Suaeda esteroa estuary
seablite Chenopodiaceae perennial herb 1B.2
• Marshes
and swamps
(coastal salt)
0 m 5 m (May)JulOct(Jan)
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San
Bernardino
aster
Asteraceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
1B.2 •
Cismontane
woodland
• Coastal
scrub
• Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
• Meadows
and seeps
• Marshes
and swamps
• Valley and
foothill
grassland
(vernally
mesic)
2 m 2040 m JulNov(Dec)
1161
10/9/2020 CNPS Inventory Results
www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3311881:3311788:3311787:3311871:3311778:3311777:3311861:3311768:3311767#cdisp=1,2,3,4,1… 6/6 Search the Inventory
Simple Search
Advanced Search
Glossary
Information
About the Inventory
About the Rare Plant Program
CNPS Home Page
About CNPS
Join CNPS
Contributors
The Calflora Database
The California Lichen Society
California Natural Diversity Database
The Jepson Flora Project
The Consortium of California Herbaria
CalPhotos
Questions and Comments
[email protected]
Suggested Citation
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 09 October 2020]. © Copyright 2010-2018 California Native Plant Society. All rights reserved. 1162
Appendix C:

Cultural Resources Supporting Information
1163

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1164
C-1: NAHC Results
1165

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1166
Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Type of List Requested
☐ CEQA Tribal Consultation List (AB 52) – Per Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subs. (b), (d), (e) and 21080.3.2 ☐ General Plan (SB 18) - Per Government Code § 65352.3.

Local Action Type:
___ General Plan ___ General Plan Element ___ General Plan Amendment ___ Specific Plan ___ Specific Plan Amendment ___ Pre-planning Outreach Activity Required Information
Project Title:____________________________________________________________________________ Local Government/Lead Agency: ___________________________________________________________ Contact Person: __________________________________________________________________________ Street Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ City:_____________________________________________________ Zip:__________________________ Phone:____________________________________ Fax:_________________________________________ Email:_____________________________________________
Specific Area Subject to Proposed Action
County:________________________________ City/Community: ___________________________ Project Description:

Additional Request
☐ Sacred Lands File Search - Required Information:

USGS Quadrangle Name(s):____________________________________________________________ Township:___________________ Range:___________________
Section(s):___________________ 1167
53150001 • 09/2020 | 53150001_Record_search.mxd
Record Search Map
Source: USGS Anaheim 7.5' Quadrangle / Land Grants: Las Bolsas & Santiago De Santa Ana

STREET LIGHTS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

RECORD SEARCH MAP
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Project Area
Half-Mile Radius
1168
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

September 25, 2020
Stefanie Griffin
City of Orange
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, 5315.0001 Street Lights Residential Project, Orange County Dear Ms. Griffin:

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

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]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
1169

Page 2 of 2 ends

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.

3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
1170
Campo Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Ralph Goff, Chairperson
36190 Church Road, Suite 1
Campo, CA, 91906
Phone: (619) 478 - 9046
Fax: (619) 478-5818
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 445 - 6315
Fax: (619) 445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Robert Pinto, Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 445 - 6315
Fax: (619) 445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
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 Acjachemen Nation -
Belardes
Matias Belardes, Chairperson
32161 Avenida Los Amigos
San Juan Capisttrano, CA, 92675
Phone: (949) 293 - 8522
[email protected]
Juaneno
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Javaughn Miller, Tribal
Administrator
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 478 - 2113
Fax: (619) 478-2125
[email protected]
Diegueno
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 478 - 2113
Fax: (619) 478-2125
[email protected]
Diegueno
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 Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed 5315.0001 Street Lights Residential Project, Orange County.

PROJ-2020-
005146
09/25/2020 12:55 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Orange County
9/25/2020
1171
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay
Nation
Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1302
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 766 - 4930
Fax: (619) 766-4957
Diegueno
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Michael Linton, Chairperson
P.O Box 270
Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070
Phone: (760) 782 - 3818
Fax: (760) 782-9092
[email protected]
Diegueno
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
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
Scott Cozart, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92583
Phone: (951) 654 - 2765
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation
Cody Martinez, Chairperson
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA, 92019
Phone: (619) 445 - 2613
Fax: (619) 445-1927
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
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 Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed 5315.0001 Street Lights Residential Project, Orange County.

PROJ-2020-
005146
09/25/2020 12:55 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Orange County
9/25/2020
1172

UNITED STATES
T +1 888 826 5814
T +1 714 508 4100
F +1 714 508 4110
E [email protected]
Irvine
250 Commerce
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92602
Bay Area
1350 Treat Boulevard
Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Central Valley
7726 N. First Street
Suite 413
Fresno, CA 93720
Inland Empire
650 E. Hospitality Lane
Suite 125
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Sacramento Valley
2204 Plaza Drive
Suite 210
Rocklin, CA 95765
Utah
2901 Bluegrass Boulevard
Suite 200-62
Lehi, UT 84043
Connecticut
2 Corporate Drive
Suite 450
Shelton, CT 06484
New York
10 Monument Street
Deposit, NY 13754
56 Broome Corporate Parkway
Conklin, NY 13748
CANADA

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Ralph Goff, Chairperson
Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
36190 Church Road, Suite 1
Campo, CA 91906
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Goff:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

The proposed residential development (project) located at 840 The City Drive, on the northwest corner of The City Drive and Garden Grove Boulevard, in the City of Orange. The Project Applicant proposes to demolish the existing retail center in the parking lot of a large multi‐building office complex and construct a 6‐story, 226‐ unit apartment building with 8,935 square feet of mixed‐use retail. In addition to the mixed‐use multifamily building, the Applicant proposes to construct two standalone parking structures for the landowner’s office buildings. The landowner will own these two standalone parking structures exclusively. The approximately 1.83‐acre project site is currently designated as Urban Mixed Use 30‐60 dwelling units per acre (UMIX) in the City of Orange 2010 General Plan Land Use Map and zoned as Urban Mixed Use (UMU).

As part of the cultural resources assessment, FCS conducted a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) search, which produced a negative result. The results of the SLF records search was negative and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) suggested you might be able to provide further information. If you have any additional information regarding potential historic or cultural resources in proximity or relation to the proposed project area, we would greatly appreciate yourinput.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA 91901
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Garcia:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Robert Pinto, Chairperson
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA 91901
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Pinto:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA 91723
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Salas:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA 90707
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Dorame:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.
#231
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Goad:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA 91778
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Morales:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Charles Alvarez
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA 91307
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Alvarez:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Matias Belardes, Chairperson
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation-Belardes 32161 Avenida Los Amigos
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Belardes:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Javaughn Miller
La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA 91905
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Miller:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA 91905
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Ms. Parada:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
P.O. Box 1302
Boulevard, CA 91905
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Ms. Santos:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Michael Linton, Chairperson
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
P.O. Box 270
Santa Ysabel, CA 92070
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Linton:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Shasta Gaughen
Pala Band of Mission Indians
PMB 50
35008 Pala Temecula Road
Pala, CA 92059
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Ms. Gaughen:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Lovina Redner
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Ms. Redner:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Scott Cozart, Chairperson
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92583
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Cozart:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

UNITED KINGDOM

PORTUGAL
FRANCE
KENYA

AUSTRALIA

PHILIPPINES
CHINA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE
Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com October 12, 2020
Cody Martinez, Chairperson
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA 92019
Subject: Street Lights Residential Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA Dear Mr. Martinez:

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Street Lights Residential Project on the behalf of the City of Orange.

As part of the environmental review process, we are searching for records pertaining to cultural resources in the area surrounding the project site described below.

Please note that this letter is a request for information pertaining to a cultural resources assessment and is not notification of a project under Senate Bill (SB) 18, Assembly Bill (AB) 52 or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Designated lead agencies under CEQA and NEPA are handling project notification and consultation requirements. Please feel free to contact me at 209.608.0028 or via email at [email protected] and thank you for your valuable assistance.
1205
2 Request Letter
North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com Sincerely,
Stefanie Estell Griffin, MA, Archaeologist
FirstCarbon Solutions
250 Commerce, Suite 250
Irvine, Ca 92602
Enc: Attachment A: Project Location Map
1206
From: Joyce Perry
To: Stefanie Griffin
Subject: Re: Street Lights Residential Project
Date: Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:35:33 AM
Happy New Year! Thank you for your response. We ask that, should the conditions of approval include native monitoring, the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation are included in monitoring activities. Thank you.

Húu'uni 'óomaqati yáamaqati.

Teach peace
Joyce Stanfield Perry
Payomkawichum Kaamalam - President
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation
Tribal Manager, Cultural Resource Director
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 3:23 PM Stefanie Griffin <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Joyce,
Happy New Year! I obtained the information from the client regarding the maximum ground disturbance depth. The depth is 16 feet (15ft below ground and adding tolerances for the slabs). I hope this help. Thanks!
Stefanie Griffin, M.A.

Archaeologist
From: Joyce Perry <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 10:15 AM
To: Stefanie Griffin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Street Lights Residential Project
Good Morning,
Thank you for the information. Can you please tell me what depth ground disturbance is expected to reach? We ask that if the conditions of approval for this project require Native monitoring, the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation- Belardes are considered to provide monitoring services. Thank you
1207
Húu'uni 'óomaqati yáamaqati.

Teach peace
Joyce Stanfield Perry
Payomkawichum Kaamalam - President
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation
Tribal Manager, Cultural Resource Director
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 1:13 PM Stefanie Griffin <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Ms. Stanfield Perry,
Sorry for the delayed response. The commercial building was built circa 1989. I hope that helps and if you have any other questions please let me know.

Thanks,
Stefanie Griffin, M.A.

Archaeologist
From: Ibeth Natalie Adame <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:08 PM
To: Stefanie Griffin <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Street Lights Residential
Reply from Juaneno Band on Mission Indians, concerning Street Lights Residential Project
From: Joyce Perry <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:23 AM
1208
To: Ibeth Natalie Adame <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Street Lights Residential
Good Morning Ms. Adame,
I am the Cultural Resource Director for the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation- Belardes. Please accept this response on behalf of Chairman Belardes and myself. Can you please provide additional information about then the existing retail structure slated for demolition was constructed? If it was built before 1980 whe CEQA guidelines were in place, the soil was likely not monitored. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.

Húu'uni 'óomaqati yáamaqati.

Teach peace
Joyce Stanfield Perry
Payomkawichum Kaamalam - President
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation
Tribal Manager, Cultural Resource Director
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 1:59 PM Ibeth Natalie Adame <[email protected]> wrote:

Attn: Chairperson Matias Belardes
Information and request for upcoming project.
1209

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1210
C-2: SCCIC Results
1211

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1212
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form
1 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
ACCESS AND USE AGREEMENT NO.:_______________ IC FILE NO.:________________________ To: ___________________________________________________________________ Information Center Print Name: ____________________________________________________ Date: _____________________ Affiliation: ________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________________ State: ________________ Zip: __________________ Phone: __________________ Fax: __________________ Email: ____________________________________ Billing Address (if different than above): _________________________________________________________ Billing Email: _______________________________________________ Billing Phone: ___________________ Project Name / Reference: ___________________________________________________________________ Project Street Address: ______________________________________________________________________ County or Counties: ________________________________________________________________________ Township/Range/UTMs: _____________________________________________________________________ USGS 7.5’ Quad(s): ________________________________________________________________________ PRIORITY RESPONSE (Additional Fee): yes / no
TOTAL FEE NOT TO EXCEED: $___________________________
(If blank, the Information Center will contact you if the fee is expected to exceed $1,000.00) Special Instructions:

Information Center Use Only
Date of CHRIS Data Provided for this Request: ___________________________________________________ Confidential Data Included in Response: yes / no
Notes: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 37 Stefanie Griffin 9/24/2020 FirstCarbon Solutions 250 Commerce, Suite 250 Irvine CA 92602 714-508-4100 [email protected] Street Lights Residential Project (5315.0001) Orange Land Grants: Las Bolsas & Santiago De Santa Ana Anaheim South Central Coastal 1213
2 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form
Mark the request form as needed. Attach a PDF of your project area (with the radius if applicable) mapped on a

7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle to scale 1:24000 ratio 1:1 neither enlarged nor reduced and include a shapefile of your project area, if available. Shapefiles are the current CHRIS standard for submitting digital spatial data for your project area or radius. Check with the appropriate IC for current availability of digital data products.
• Documents will be provided in PDF format. Paper copies will only be provided if PDFs are not available at the time of the request or under specially arranged circumstances. • Location information will be provided as a digital map product (Custom Maps or GIS data) unless the area has not yet been digitized. In such circumstances, the IC may provide hand drawn maps. • In addition to the $150/hr. staff time fee, client will be charged the Custom Map fee when GIS is required to complete the request [e.g., a map printout or map image/PDF is requested and no GIS Data is requested, or an electronic product is requested (derived from GIS data) but no mapping is requested].

For product fees, see the CHRIS IC Fee Structure on the OHP website.

1. Map Format Choice:

Select One: Custom GIS Maps  GIS Data  Custom GIS Maps and GIS Data  No Maps  Any selection below left unmarked will be considered a "no. " Within project area Within ______ radius
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
Within ______
radius

2. Location Information:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Locations1
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Locations
Report Locations1
“Other” Report Locations2

3. Database Information:
(contact the IC for product examples, or visit the SSJVIC website for examples) Within project area
ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Database1
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
List (PDF format)
Detail (PDF format)
Excel Spreadsheet yes / no yes / no
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Database
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
List (PDF format)
Detail (PDF format)
Excel Spreadsheet yes / no yes / no
Report Database1
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
List (PDF format)
Detail (PDF format)
Excel Spreadsheet
Include “Other” Reports 2
yes / no yes / no

4. Document PDFs (paper copy only upon request):

Within project area Within ______
radius
ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Records1 yes / no yes / no
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Records yes / no yes / no
Reports1 yes / no yes / no
“Other” Reports2 yes / no yes / no
■
■
■

0.5 0.5■
■ ■
■
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
mi. mi. ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■
■
■ ■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■

0.5 mi. ■
1214
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form

5. Eligibility Listings and Documentation:

Within project area Within ______
radius
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory3:

Directory listing only (Excel format)
Associated documentation4
OHP Archaeological Resources Directory1,5:

Directory listing only (Excel format)
Associated documentation4
California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976):

Directory listing only (PDF format)
Associated documentation4
yes / no yes / no

6. Additional Information:

The following sources of information may be available through the Information Center. However, several of these sources are now available on the OHP website and can be accessed directly. The Office of Historic Preservation makes no guarantees about the availability, completeness, or accuracy of the information provided through these sources. Indicate below if the Information Center should review and provide documentation (if available) of any of the following sources as part of this request.

Caltrans Bridge Survey yes / no
Ethnographic Information yes / no
Historical Literature yes / no
Historical Maps yes / no
Local Inventories yes / no
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps yes / no
Shipwreck Inventory yes / no
Soil Survey Maps yes / no
1 In order to receive archaeological information, requestor must meet qualifications as specified in Section III of the current version of the California Historical Resources Information System Information Center Rules of Operation Manual and be identified as an Authorized User or Conditional User under an active CHRIS Access and Use Agreement. 2 “Other” Reports GIS layer consists of report study areas for which the report content is almost entirely non-fieldwork related (e.g., local/regional history, or overview) and/or for which the presentation of the study area boundary may or may not add value to a record search.
3 Provided as Excel spreadsheets with no cost for the rows; the only cost for this component is IC staff time. Includes, but not limited to, information regarding National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and historic building surveys. Previously known as the HRI and then as the HPD, it is now known as the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD). The Office of Historic Preservation compiles this documentation and it is the source of the official status codes for evaluated resources. 4 Associated documentation will vary by resource. Contact the IC for further details. 5 Provided as Excel spreadsheets with no cost for the rows; the only cost for this component is IC staff time. Previously known as the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, now it is known as the Archaeological Resources Directory (ARD).

The Office of Historic Preservation compiles this documentation and it is the source of the official status codes for evaluated resources.
3 of 3
2-29-2020 Version

0.5 mi. ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1215
53150001 • 09/2020 | 53150001_Record_search.mxd
Record Search Map
Source: USGS Anaheim 7.5' Quadrangle / Land Grants: Las Bolsas & Santiago De Santa Ana

STREET LIGHTS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

RECORD SEARCH MAP
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Project Area
Half-Mile Radius
1216
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources OR-00270 1975 Description and Evaluation of Cultural
Resources Within the US Army Corps of
Engineers' Santa Ana River Project
Archaeological Research
Unit, UC Riverside
Leonard, Nelson N. III
and Mathew C. Hall
30-000277
OR-00778 1976 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the
Santiago Creek Specific Plan Property
Drover, Christopher E. Golden West College 30-000369
OR-00801 1985 Phase Ii Archaeological Studies Prado Basin and the Lower Santa Ana River
Langenwalter, Paul E.
and James Brock
30-000089, 30-000817
OR-00846 1986 Historic Properties Survey Report, Bristol Street Between First Street and Memory
Lane, City of Santa Ana, Orange County
Bissell, Ronald M. 30-176650, 30-176651, 30-176652,
30-176653, 30-176992, 30-176993,
30-176994, 30-176995, 30-176996,
30-176997, 30-176998, 30-176999,
30-177000, 30-177001, 30-177002,
30-177003, 30-177004, 30-177005,
30-177006, 30-177007, 30-177008,
30-177009, 30-177010
OR-01836 1998 Cultural Resource Review for Groundwater
Replenishment System Program EIR/Tier
I/EIS, Orange County Water District and
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
Padon, Beth Discovery Works, Inc.

OR-01949 1995 Cultural Resource Assessment for the City of Garden Grove
Padon, Beth, McLean, LSA Associates, Inc.

Deborah, and Strudwick,
Ivan
30-000392, 30-001260, 30-001261,
30-001262, 30-001263, 30-001264,
30-001265, 30-001266, 30-001267,
30-001268, 30-001269, 30-001270,
30-001307
OR-01971 1987 Historic Property Survey Report for the
Proposed Widening of Bristol Street From
Warner Avenue to Santiago Creek
Anonymous Willdan Associates 30-161830
OR-02272 2000 Historic Property Survey Report: Negative Findings: Memeory Lane
Unknown Caltrans District 12
OR-02273 2000 Dahdul, Mariam Historic Property Survey Report: Bristol Street Caltrans District 12 OR-02734 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment Cingular
Wireless Facility No. Sm 187-02 Garden
Grove, Orange County, California
Duke, Curt LSA Associates, Inc.

OR-02899 2003 McKenna, Jeanette A. Block at Orange Expansion Project McKenn et al.

OR-03281 1990 Proposed Widening of Bristol Street, From Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, in the City
of Santa Ana, Final Environmental Impact
Statement
Blodgett, John Willdan Assoc.

Page 1 of 2 ends

1217
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources OR-03371 2000 Determination of Effect State Route 22/west Orange County Connnection
Ritchie, Michael Caltrans District 12 19-000392, 19-001352 OR-03890 2000 Historic Property Survey Report and Historic Property Survey Report - Reduced Build
Alternative Addendum
Greenwood and Associates;
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Quade & Douglas, Inc.

Slauson, Dana 30-157430, 30-161847, 30-177022,
30-177023, 30-177024, 30-177025,
30-177026, 30-177027, 30-177028,
30-177029, 30-177030, 30-177031,
30-177032, 30-177033, 30-177034
OR-03896 2010 AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Site OC
0159 (Crown Castle Colo), 595 The City
Drive, Orange, California
Cellular, Archaeological,
Research, Evaluation
Wlodarski, Robert
OR-04085 2001 Jurisdictional Delineation - Memory Lane
Bridge Widening Project, City of Santa Ana,
Orange County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Cope, Alissa
OR-04087 1998 Program EIR/Tier 1 EIS, Groundwater
Replenishment System
Orange County Water
District & Orange County
Sanitation District
Salenius, Sylvia
OR-04121 2010 879005 So. Santa Ana, 595 The City Drive
So., Orange, Orange Co.

Practical Environmental
Solutions
Laroque, Mark
OR-04174 2011 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidate
LA02609-A (SCE Lampson Substation),
12703 South Lewis Street, Garden Grove,
Orange County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne
OR-04259 2007 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report,
Orange County Water District Groundwater
Replenishment System, Orange County,
California
Becker, Kenneth, SRI
Goodman, John, Sewell,
Kristin, and Van Galder,
Sarah
30-001670, 30-001671, 30-100402
OR-04266 2000 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange
County, California
Bissell, Ronald M. RMW Paleo Associates 30-000058, 30-000076, 30-000145, 30-000163, 30-000283, 30-000302,
30-000356, 30-000428, 30-000429,
30-000430, 30-000506, 30-000516,
30-000517, 30-001524
OR-04391 2012 Cultural Resources Assessmemnt Vista Del
Rio Housing and Off-Site Storm Drain Project
Santa Ana, Orange County, California
Brunzell, David BCR Consulting

Page 2 of 2 ends

1218
C-3: Pedestrian Survey Site Photos
1219

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1220
5315.0001 Street Light project
Street Light Residential Project
ISMND Appendix C.3
First Carbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5315/53150001/ISMND/appendices/Appendix C - Cultural Resources Supporting Information/C.3 - Pedestrian Survey Photolog.docx
Photograph 1: Facing north, start of transect 1 on the southern edge at the corner of city drive south and garden grove boulevard.

Photograph 2: Overview facing south end of transect 1
1221
5315.0001 Street Light project
Street Light Residential Project
ISMND Appendix C.3
First Carbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5315/53150001/ISMND/appendices/Appendix C - Cultural Resources Supporting Information/C.3 - Pedestrian Survey Photolog.docx
Photograph 3: Overview photo of southern edge end of transect 1, facing west.

Photograph 4: Southern edge overview facing south. On the western in the area of the proposed fitness area. 1222
5315.0001 Street Light project
Street Light Residential Project
ISMND Appendix C.3
First Carbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5315/53150001/ISMND/appendices/Appendix C - Cultural Resources Supporting Information/C.3 - Pedestrian Survey Photolog.docx
Photograph 5:.Overview photo of area of the proposed South parking structure. Facing west Photograph 6: Overview photo of area of the proposed South parking structure. Facing east 1223
5315.0001 Street Light project
Street Light Residential Project
ISMND Appendix C.3
First Carbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5315/53150001/ISMND/appendices/Appendix C - Cultural Resources Supporting Information/C.3 - Pedestrian Survey Photolog.docx
Photograph 7: Overview photo of area of the proposed Northern parking structure. Facing east Photograph 8: Overview photo of area of the proposed Northern parking structure. Facing west half waypoint of transect 1
1224
5315.0001 Street Light project
Street Light Residential Project
ISMND Appendix C.3
First Carbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5315/53150001/ISMND/appendices/Appendix C - Cultural Resources Supporting Information/C.3 - Pedestrian Survey Photolog.docx
Photograph 9: End of transect , facing west Overview photo of area of the proposed Northern parking structure
Photograph 10: Overview photo of area of the proposed Northern parking structure. Facing south west 1225

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1226
Appendix D:

Energy Calculations
1227

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1228
Appendix D: Energy
Table of Contents
Energy Consumption Summary ............................................................................................. D-1 Construction Vehicle Fuel Calculations ................................................................................. D-2 Construction Equipment Fuel Calculations............................................................................ D-3 Construction Office Electricity Calculations .......................................................................... D-4 Project Operational Fuel Calculations ................................................................................... D-5 Project Operational Natural Gas Use .................................................................................... D-6 Project Operational Electricity Use ....................................................................................... D-7 CalEEMod Construction Trailer (Annual) .............................................................................. D-8 1229
840 The City Drive South Apartments Project—Energy Consumption Summary FCS Project Number: 5315.0001
Date of Last Revision: March 8, 2021
Summary of Energy Use During Construction (Annually)
Construction vehicle fuel 54,665 gallons (gasoline, diesel) Construction equipment fuel 23,954 gallons (diesel)
Construction office trailer electricity 15,068 kilowatt hours Summary of Energy Use During Proposed Operations (Annually) Operational vehicle fuel consumption 197,865 gallons (gasoline, diesel) Operational natural gas consumption 2,725,300 kilo-British Thermal Units Operational electricity consumption 2,153,163 kilowatt hours Appendix D D-1
1230
840 The City Drive South Apartments Project - Construction Vehicle Fuel Calculations EMFAC2014 (v1.0.7) Emissions Inventory VMT = Vehicle Miles TraveledRegion Type: County FE = Fuel EconomyRegion: OrangeCalendar Year: 2021Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption VehClass MdlYr Speed Fuel Population
VMT
(mi/day)
Fuel
Consumption
(1000
gallons/day)
FE
(mi/gallon) VMT*FE
LDA Aggregated Aggregated GAS 128.5852278 16258.6102 3.367125243 4.82863245 78506.853LDA Aggregated Aggregated DSL 10366.9214 1340590.53 235.3444459 5.69629136 7636394.3 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 1329656.224 43244684.6 1463.14846 29.5559103 1.278E+09LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 13941.44533 477034.89 12.19932783 39.1033749 18653674LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 104645.1444 3542957.13 141.4706663 25.043758 88728961LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 92.33053988 2263.74465 0.075168213 30.1157171 68174.293 MDV Aggregated Aggregated GAS 450769.0631 17061486.1 770.2546703 22.1504481 377919564 MDV Aggregated Aggregated DSL 807.4190903 33663.603 1.131281772 29.7570453 1001729.4 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 23021.07059 641361.294 57.95815643 11.0659368 7097263.5LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 19458.83182 671287.251 32.50589988 20.6512434 13862916LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 4982.18312 166918.047 16.19124443 10.3091549 1720784LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 8012.573359 304884.887 16.08205812 18.9580764 5780031 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 4525.452253 195383.666 27.93092235 6.99524576 1366756.8MHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 32187.70291 1877904.21 215.5058397 8.71393652 16363938 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 128.5852278 16258.6102 3.367125243 4.82863245 78506.853HHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 10366.9214 1340590.53 235.3444459 5.69629136 7636394.3 Worker
Weighted Average FE 26.966702
Vendor
Weighted Average FE 10.33765
Haul
Weighted Average FE 5.6858945
840 The City Drive South Apartments Project—Construction Parameters Models:840 The City Drive South - Apt Bldg Unmitigated Con Only - Orange County, AnnualDate: 2/26/2021 1:58 PM840 The City Drive South - N.P.S. Unmitigated Con Only - Orange County, AnnualDate: 2/26/2021 10:42 AM840 The City Drive South - S.P.S. Unmitigated Con Only - Orange County, AnnualDate: 2/26/2021 1:51 PMConstruction ScheduleActivity Name Activity Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week Num Days
Demolition Demolition 12/31/2021 2/28/2022 5 42Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/1/2022 4/15/2022 5 34Grading Grading 4/16/2022 6/30/2022 5 54 Building Construction Building Construction 7/1/2022 6/30/2023 5 261Paving Paving 2/1/2023 6/30/2023 5 108Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/13/2023 6/30/2023 5 100 Construction Trips and VMT
Total Trips
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker
Trips
Vendor
Trips
Hauling
Trips Worker Trips
Vendor
Trips
Hauling
Trips
Demolition 36 0 397 14.7 6.9 20 42 1,512 0 397 22,226 0 7,940 824.22 0.00 69.82 Site Preparation 21 0 0 14.7 6.9 20 34 714 0 0 10,496 0 0 389.21 0.00 0.00 Grading 26 0 0 14.7 6.9 20 54 1,404 0 0 20,639 0 0 765.34 0.00 0.00 Building Construction 257 61 0 14.7 6.9 20 261 67,077 15,921 0 986,032 109,855 0 36,564.79 10,626.68 0.00 Paving 44 0 0 14.7 6.9 20 108 4,752 0 0 69,854 0 0 2,590.39 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 52 0 0 14.7 6.9 20 100 5,200 0 0 76,440 0 0 2,834.61 0.00 0.00 Total Project Construction VMT (miles)
1,303,482
Total Project Fuel Consumption (gallons)
54,665
California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2021. EMFAC2014 Web Database. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2014/. Accessed March 8, 2021.

Construction Trip Length in Miles Fuel Consumption (gallons) Number of
Days per
Activity Name Phase
Calculations
Trips per Day Trips per Phase VMT per Phase
Appendix
D D-2
1231
840 The City Drive South Apartments - Construction Equipment Fuel Calculation Models:
840 The City Drive South - Apt Bldg Unmitigated Con Only - Orange County, Annual Date: 2/26/2021 1:58 PM
840 The City Drive South - N.P.S. Unmitigated Con Only - Orange County, Annual Date: 2/26/2021 10:42 AM
840 The City Drive South - S.P.S. Unmitigated Con Only - Orange County, Annual Date: 2/26/2021 1:51 PM
Construction Schedule
Activity Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Demolition Demolition 12/31/2021 2/28/2022 5 42
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/1/2022 4/15/2022 5 34 Grading Grading 4/16/2022 6/30/2022 5 54
Building Construction Building Construction 7/1/2022 6/30/2023 5 261 Paving Paving 2/1/2023 6/30/2023 5 108
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/13/2023 6/30/2023 5 100 Construction Equipment
Construction Activity Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load
Factor Number of Days HP Hours
Diesel Fuel
Usage
Construction of Main Apartment Building:

Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 3.8 81 0.73 42 9,437.15 0.042 396.76 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 3.8 247 0.4 42 15,768.48 0.020 311.65 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 3.8 97 0.37 42 17,184.13 0.020 351.14 Site Preparation Graders 1 0.5 187 0.41 34 1,303.39 0.020 26.63 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.4 247 0.4 34 1,343.68 0.019 25.56 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.5 97 0.37 54 969.03 0.020 19.15 Grading Graders 1 0.4 187 0.41 54 1,656.07 0.021 35.06
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.4 247 0.4 54 2,134.08 0.020 43.61 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.5 97 0.37 54 969.03 0.019 18.43 Building Construction Cranes 1 4.6 231 0.29 261 80,428.19 0.015 1,198.05 Building Construction Forklifts 1 4.6 89 0.2 261 21,370.68 0.021 444.81 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 6.1 84 0.74 261 98,964.94 0.042 4,195.79 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 4.6 97 0.37 261 43,089.53 0.019 819.72 Building Construction Welders 3 6.1 46 0.45 261 98,869.41 0.026 2,558.67 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 0.6 9 0.56 108 326.59 0.032 10.47 Paving Pavers 1 0.6 130 0.42 108 3,538.08 0.022 76.16
Paving Paving Equipment 1 0.7 132 0.36 108 3,592.51 0.018 65.86 Paving Rollers 1 0.6 80 0.38 108 1,969.92 0.019 38.24
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.7 97 0.37 108 2,713.28 0.019 51.62 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 0.6 78 0.48 100 2,246.40 0.028 62.08 Construction of Northern Parking Structure:

Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 1.9 81 0.73 42 4,718.57 0.042 198.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.2 247 0.4 42 829.92 0.020 16.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 1.4 97 0.37 42 4,220.66 0.020 86.24 Site Preparation Graders 1 0.2 187 0.41 34 521.36 0.020 10.65 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.2 97 0.37 34 244.05 0.020 4.82 Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 0.3 81 0.73 54 957.91 0.042 40.27 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.1 247 0.4 54 533.52 0.020 10.54 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0.2 97 0.37 54 775.22 0.020 15.84 Building Construction Cranes 1 1.5 231 0.29 261 26,226.59 0.015 390.67 Building Construction Forklifts 2 2.3 89 0.2 261 21,370.68 0.021 444.81 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 3.1 97 0.37 261 58,077.20 0.019 1,104.84 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 0.3 9 0.56 108 653.18 0.032 20.94 Paving Pavers 1 0.3 130 0.42 108 1,769.04 0.022 38.08
Paving Rollers 1 0.3 80 0.38 108 984.96 0.019 19.12
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.3 97 0.37 108 1,162.84 0.019 22.12 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 0.3 78 0.48 100 1,123.20 0.028 31.04 Total Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption (gallons) 23,953.70 Notes:

Equipment assumptions are provided in the CalEEMod output files.

Source of usage estimates: California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2020. OFFROAD2017 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/orion/. Accessed March 8, 2021.

Fuel Usage Factors
California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2020. OFFROAD2017 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/orion/. Accessed March 8, 2021.

OFFROAD2017 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Orange
Calendar Year: 2021
Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust
Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2017 Equipment Types
Units: Emissions: tons/day, Fuel Consumption: gallons/year, Activity: hours/year, HP-Hours: HP-hours/year Calculations:

Region Calendar Year Vehicle Class Model Year HP_Bin Fuel Fuel
(gallons/year)
Total Activity
(hours/year)
Horsepower
Hours (HPhours/year)
Fuel
(gallons/HPhour)
Orange 2021 ConstMin - Cranes Aggregated 300 Diesel 119139.1189 36224.13131 8000121.52 0.0148922 Orange 2021 ConstMin - Graders Aggregated 175 Diesel 215092.781 68322.14122 10146584.97 0.0211985 Orange 2021 ConstMin - Pavers Aggregated 175 Diesel 46511.90002 13696.88754 2162039.349 0.0215130 Orange 2021 ConstMin - Paving Equipment Aggregated 175 Diesel 19462.52527 7277.462048 1061804.28 0.0183297 Orange 2021 ConstMin - Rollers Aggregated 100 Diesel 112273.3393 66297.84725 5782316.266 0.0194167 Orange 2021 ConstMin - Rough Terrain Forklifts Aggregated 100 Diesel 285577.5087 142628.9441 13723699.87 0.0208091 Orange 2021 ConstMin - Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregated 300 Diesel 14680.43456 3287.547684 717466.2605 0.0204615 Orange 2021 ConstMin - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Aggregated 100 Diesel 1721499.768 1083469.9 90070516.58 0.0191128 Orange 2021 OFF - ConstMin - Cement and Mortar Mixers Aggregated 25 Diesel 8913.3 26955.25 278221.25 0.0320367 Orange 2021 OFF - ConstMin - Concrete/Industrial Saws Aggregated 50 Diesel 4533.3 3270.4 107923.2 0.0420049 Orange 2021 OFF - Light Commercial - Air Compressors Aggregated 50 Diesel 90315.6 88370.15 3269695.55 0.0276220 Orange 2021 OFF - Light Commercial - Generator Sets Aggregated 50 Diesel 248747.5 177871.8 5869769.4 0.0423777 Orange 2021 OFF - Light Commercial - Welders Aggregated 50 Diesel 414592.55 348447.25 16028573.5 0.0258658 Fuel
(gallons/HPhour)
Appendix D D-3
1232
Construction Office Electricity Calculation
Energy Appendix: CalEEMod Typical Construction Trailer
Typical Construction Trailer - Orange County, Annual
Date: 3/8/2021 1:17 PM
kWh/yr = kilowatt hours per year
Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Annual 10,073 kWh/yr
Total Over Construction 15,068 kWh
Total Construction Schedule
Start 12/31/2021
End 6/30/2023
Total Calendar Days 546
Years 1.50
Appendix D D-4
1233
Project Operational Fuel Calculation
California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2020. EMFAC2014 Web Database. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2014/. Accessed March 8, 2021.EMFAC2014 (v1.0.7) Emissions Inventory VMT = Vehicle Miles TraveledRegion Type: County FE = Fuel EconomyRegion: OrangeCalendar Year: 2023Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel ConsumptionGiven VehClass MdlYr Speed Fuel Population VMT
Fuel
Consumption FE VMT*FE
HHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 145.4019746 17923.15909 3.655334434 4.903288445 87882.41888 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 10641.09864 1430424.183 237.6643553 6.018673608 8609256.278LDA Aggregated Aggregated GAS 1364138.975 43121435.57 1372.732993 31.4128354 1354566558LDA Aggregated Aggregated DSL 15511.6321 508660.4229 12.27813801 41.4281402 21072855.31 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 106368.6985 3551417.225 132.6830004 26.76618115 95057876.78LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 88.82006337 2217.429515 0.068847695 32.20775263 71418.42129LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 465035.3856 17241234.43 723.0413949 23.84543202 411124683.7LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 908.0321112 35793.78986 1.132714429 31.60001228 1131084.199LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 20658.02345 561477.0077 50.34871139 11.1517652 6261459.758LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 20237.80074 677961.4126 32.29674084 20.99163553 14231518.88LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 4822.142831 159886.9282 15.32978791 10.42981997 1667591.877LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 8604.570617 317536.3152 16.45437942 19.29798184 6127810.046MCY Aggregated Aggregated GAS 64120.97864 407888.5277 11.31258037 36.05618827 14706905.55MDV Aggregated Aggregated GAS 293383.3033 8879001.022 513.5497805 17.28946513 153513178.5MDV Aggregated Aggregated DSL 5712.534196 197780.3578 8.157417453 24.24546236 4795276.219MH Aggregated Aggregated GAS 7230.946028 56581.12216 7.58675803 7.457878838 421975.1536MH Aggregated Aggregated DSL 2301.286404 18011.48059 1.754928985 10.2633672 184858.4391MHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 4497.946224 189348.7459 26.81050514 7.062483342 1337272.364 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 34379.34242 1971892.392 223.1497741 8.836631808 17424887.03OBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 1714.55383 76355.41873 10.40521531 7.338187286 560310.3629 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 836.2524493 70147.91328 9.337971722 7.512114555 526959.1604SBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 454.4293147 16617.9221 1.448869635 11.46957718 190600.5402SBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 864.9496749 32755.19302 4.504388091 7.271840783 238190.5485UBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 524.4652635 56920.23829 11.2273648 5.069777219 288572.9274UBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 634.8418996 68899.41951 13.15325765 5.238201923 360909.0718 Sum of VMT*FE 2114559891
Total VMT 79668167.63
Weighted Average FE (miles/gallon) 26.5421
Total VMT840 The City Drive South - Unmitigated Operation Only - Orange County, AnnualDate: 3/4/2021 2:36 PM Annual VMT
(miles)
Fuel
Consumption
Total VMT 5,251,755 197,865 gallons per year
Calculations
Appendix
D D-5
1234
Project Operations Natural Gas Use
Source: AQ/GHG Appendix, CalEEMod Output840 The City Drive South - Unmitigated Operation Only - Orange County, AnnualDate: 3/4/2021 2:36 PM kBTU/yr = kilo-British Thermal Units/year
Natural Gas Use (kBTU/yr)
Apartments Mid-Rise 2,582,610General Office Building 51,202Health Club 73,150Strip Mall 18,338Total 2,725,300 kBTU/yr Appendix
D D-6
1235
Project Operations Electricity Use
Source: AQ/GHG Appendix, CalEEMod Output840 The City Drive South - Unmitigated Operation Only - Orange County, AnnualDate: 3/4/2021 2:36 PMProject Electricity Use kWh/yr = kilowatt hours per year
Electricity Use
Land Use (kWh/yr)Apartments Mid-Rise 898,418Enclosed Parking Structure 401,073Enclosed Parking Structure with Elevator 640,832General Office Building 78,372Health Club 29,575Strip Mall 104,893Total 2,153,163 kWh/yr Appendix
D D-7
1236
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 0.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 534 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 0.00
Vehicle Trips - Run for energy estimation only

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - CalEEMod Note 1Land Use - Upper range of typical single-wide mobile office trailer = 720 square feet.Construction Phase - Typical construction trailer for energy use estimates - estimates would be included in the operational component of the resultsOff-road Equipment - Zeroed out construction equipment CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
534 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 30
Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2021
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 0.72 1000sqft 0.02 720.00 0

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/8/2021 1:17 PM
Typical Construction Trailer - Orange County, Annual
Typical Construction Trailer
Orange County, Annual
Appendix
D D-8
1237

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Highest

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Bio- CO2
PM10
Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2021 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2021 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 0.00
Appendix
D D-9
1238
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Architectural Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle
Class
Hauling
Vehicle
Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power 0 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,080; Non-Residential Outdoor: 360; Striped Parking Area: 0 End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/1/2021 3/31/2021 5 Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
Appendix
D D-10
1239

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Appendix
D D-11
1240
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
MT/yr
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.3512 0.3512 1.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.3533

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000

1.0000e005 0.3533
Total 4.0000e005 3.2000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 0.0000

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3512 0.3512 1.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
General Office
Building
6580.8 4.0000e005 3.2000e- 004
PM2.5
Total
SO2 Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO

0.3512 1.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.3533
Mitigated

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3512

0.3533
Total 4.0000e005 3.2000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 005

2.0000e005 0.0000 0.3512 0.3512 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 General Office Building 6580.8 4.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10

0.0000 0.3512 0.3512 1.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 0.3533 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 NaturalGas Unmitigated 4.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 0.0000

0.0000 0.3512 0.3512 1.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 0.3533 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 NaturalGas Mitigated 4.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.4398 2.4398 0.0000 0.0000 2.4398 Unmitigated
Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.4398 2.4398 0.0000 0.0000 2.4398 Mitigated
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Appendix
D D-12
1241

0.0000 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 Total 2.9300e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000

0.0000 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 005 0.0000 Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

2.6000e003
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

3.3000e004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 Unmitigated 2.9400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000

0.0000 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 Mitigated 2.9400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10

2.4398
Total 2.4398 0.0000 0.0000 2.4398
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
MT/yr
General Office
Building
10072.8 2.4398 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

2.4398
Total 2.4398 0.0000 0.0000 2.4398
General Office
Building
10072.8 2.4398 0.0000 0.0000
Appendix
D D-13
1242
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.7889
Total 0.6553 4.1700e003 1.0000e- 004 0.7889
Land Use Mgal t
o
MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.127968 /

0.0784322

0.6553 4.1700e003 1.0000e- 004

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 0.6553 4.1700e003 1.0000e- 004 0.7889
Category t
o
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.6553 4.1700e003 1.0000e- 004 0.7889

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.0000 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 Total 2.9300e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000

2.6000e003
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

3.3000e004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Appendix
D D-14
1243

0.3369
Land Use tons t
o
MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.67 0.1360 8.0400e003 0.0000
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.3369
Total 0.1360 8.0400e003 0.0000 0.3369
Land Use tons t
o
MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.67 0.1360 8.0400e003 0.0000

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 0.1360 8.0400e003 0.0000 0.3369
to
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1360 8.0400e003 0.0000 0.3369

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.7889
Total 0.6553 4.1700e003 1.0000e- 004 0.7889
Land Use Mgal t
o
MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.127968 /

0.0784322

0.6553 4.1700e003 1.0000e- 004
Appendix
D D-15
1244
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power
Total 0.1360 8.0400e003 0.0000 0.3369
Appendix
D D-16
1245

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1246
Appendix E:

Geology and Soils Supporting Information
1247

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1248
E-1: Geotechnical Report
1249

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1250

DUE DILIGENCE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

PROPOSED MIXED-USE

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
840 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH

ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For SLR ORANGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4180 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE 125
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037
Prepared By LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
17781 COWAN
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
Project No. 12423.005
Revised August 17, 2021
1251
July 18, 2019
(Revised August 17, 2021)
Project No. 12423.005
SLR Orange Development, LLC
4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 125
La Jolla, California 92037
Attention: Mr. Scott Levy
Subject: Due Diligence Geotechnical Report
Proposed Mixed-Use Residential Development
840 The City Drive South
Orange, California
Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) is pleased to present this due diligence geotechnical report summarizing geotechnical conditions pertinent to development of the subject mixed-use multi-family residential-commercial-retail project at the subject site.

Our report was updated to address revisions to the conceptual project design.

The current development plan adds a third level of subterranean parking within the footprint of the residential structure on the southeastern quadrant of the property. Only one detached 2-story on-grade parking structure (PS) is now planned, located on the south site margin. A previously planned PS on the north side of the site was excluded from the current concept.

This report contains preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site grading, foundation design, shoring and other elements of project design, for your use during the due diligence process of property acquisition. Structural loading information for proposed buildings was not available at the time of this report.

Based on our current understanding of site geotechnical conditions, we consider the current development concept feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Should planning be advanced, supplemental design-level geotechnical data will need to be obtained to satisfy requirements for building permit application. We anticipate such services will include but not be limited to additional soil borings, Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. 1252
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005 Cover Letter Page 2
We appreciate this opportunity to submit this report and look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions or if we can be of further service, please contact us at (866) LEIGHTON; specifically, at the phone extensions or e-mail addresses listed below.

Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Joe A. Roe, PG, CEG
Senior Principal Geologist
Ext. 4263; [email protected]
Carl Kim, PE, GE 2620
Senior Principal Engineer
Ext. 4262; [email protected]

JAR/CCK/lr
Distribution: (1) Addressee
1253
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005 TOC Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Site Description.......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Proposed Development ............................................................................. 2

1.3 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................... 2

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS............................................................................... 5

2.1 Regional Geologic Setting ......................................................................... 5

2.2 Site Geology .............................................................................................. 5

2.3 Expansive Soils ......................................................................................... 6

2.4 Corrosion ................................................................................................... 7

2.5 Groundwater.............................................................................................. 8

2.6 Infiltration ................................................................................................... 9

3.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION ..................................... 12

3.1 Surface Fault Rupture.............................................................................. 12

3.2 Seismicity and Ground Shaking............................................................... 12

3.3 Liquefaction Potential............................................................................... 13

3.4 Seismically-Induced Settlement............................................................... 14

3.5 Seismically-Induced Lateral Displacements............................................. 15

3.6 Seismically-Induced Landslides............................................................... 15

3.7 Flooding................................................................................................... 15

3.8 Seiches and Tsunamis............................................................................. 16

3.9 Environmental Impact Evaluation (CEQA Screening).............................. 16

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 17

4.1 Site Grading............................................................................................. 18

4.1.1 Site Preparation ............................................................................ 18

4.1.2 Overexcavation ............................................................................. 19

4.1.3 Subgrade Preparation................................................................... 19

4.1.4 Fill Materials.................................................................................. 19

4.1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction..................................................... 19

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Design................................................................ 20

4.2.1 Conventional Spread Footings...................................................... 20

4.2.2 Mat Foundations ........................................................................... 21

4.3 Slabs-on-Grade ....................................................................................... 21

4.4 Temporary Excavation and Shoring Design............................................. 22

4.5 Drainage and Landscaping...................................................................... 23

4.6 Ground Improvement............................................................................... 23 1254
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
TOC Page ii

4.7 Future Geotechnical Exploration.............................................................. 24

5.0 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................... 25

6.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 26 TABLES
Table 1 – Soil Corrosivity as a Function of Resistivity..................................................... 7 Table 2 – Sulfate Concentration and Exposure............................................................... 7 Table 3 – Corrosivity Test Results .................................................................................. 8 Table 4 – Groundwater Depths by Elevation................................................................... 8 Table 5 – Measured Infiltration Rate ............................................................................. 10 Table 6 – 2019 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Parameters................................................ 13

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 – Site Location Map Rear of Text
Figure 2 – Geotechnical Map Rear of Text
Figure 3 – Regional Geology Map Rear of Text
Figure 4 – Regional Fault and Historical Seismicity Map Rear of Text Figure 5 – Seismic Hazard Map Rear of Text
Figure 6 – Flood Hazard Zone Dam Inundation Map Rear of Text Appendix A – Boring Logs
Appendix B – Percolation Test Data
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – CEQA Checklist Form
Appendix E – Liquefaction Analysis
1255
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 1 ends

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site Description
Our understanding of site geotechnical conditions is based on a review of sitespecific geotechnical reports prepared by other consultants, and the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses (Leighton, 2019a, 2021a).

The address of the site is 840 The City Drive South in Orange, California, located at (latitude N33.7752°, longitude W117.8910°). The site location and immediate vicinity are shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. The property is currently developed for commercial use. Existing improvements include three multi-story office buildings centrally located on the site, surrounding an automotive roundabout. A 3-story hotel and retail strip mall occupy the northeast and southeast site corners. An office/retail building and above-ground parking structure occupy the southwest and west site margin. Areas of interconnecting paved parking/drive-aisles and scattered enclosed landscape elements surround the existing improvements. A small one-story utility building is located in the parking lot north of the business complex. The layout of existing and planned improvements is depicted on attached Figure 2, Geotechnical Map.

Abutting the property in offsite areas to the west and north are tracts of existing residential homes. To the east and south are The City Drive South and Garden Grove Boulevard, respectively.

The property occupies a relatively flat to gently southeasterly sloping non-marine river terrace, representing a remnant of the Santa Ana River (SAR) now lower in elevation and confined to a channel a short distance east of the site. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Anaheim Quadrangle (USGS, 1981) indicates the site surface spans elevations (El.’s) ranging from approximately El.+118 to El.+120 feet relative to mean sea level (msl).

Based on our review of historical aerial imagery, circa 1953 and 1963 (NETR, 2019), the site was formerly used for agricultural purposes, evident from visible tree-rows, until the early 1970’s. The first modifications to the property included grading in 1971 associated with construction of two (2) buildings and surface parking. The existing commercial building located in the southern portion of the site (840 The City Drive South) is visible in 1995 imagery. 1256
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 2 ends

1.2 Proposed Development
Our understanding of the current project layout is based on review conceptual rendering plans, titled Granite Orange, dated July 8, 2021, prepared by Streetlights Creative Studio, LLC. Improvements include a mixed-use residential building complex within a parking lot on the east margin of the site, to occupy a trapezoidal shape and encompass an area of approximately 1.83 acres. Demolition of a onestory multi-tenant strip mall building at the southeast site corner will be required.

The new structure will be five-stories in height, contain 226 units, 9,200 square feet of ground-level retail space, a 3,500-square-foot fitness center, 5,000-squarefoot lobby, and a centrally located pool and courtyard. Three levels of subterranean parking (levels B1, B2 and B3) are planned beneath the footprint of the residential complex.

Additional improvements on the site will include a 2-story on-grade parking structure, planned within existing parking lot area to the south of a central office complex. We anticipate ancillary improvements will include pavement, flatwork, landscaping, utility installations, and a proposed stormwater infiltration system.

1.3 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of our study was to evaluate geotechnical conditions and geologic hazards associated with the project site and assess their impacts to the currently proposed development concept. At different times throughout the due diligence period, to date, we have explored subsurface conditions on the site using hollowstem auger borings, performed infiltration testing, conducted testing of soils within our laboratory, performed engineering analyses to evaluate geologic hazards, and reviewed site conditions from a CEQA perspective. This report represents a compilation of each study, presenting findings and preliminary geotechnical recommendations for due diligence purposes. The scope of our studies has included the following:
• Research: We reviewed published geologic reports/maps historical aerial photographs and topographic maps relevant to the site readily available inhouse or accessible on-line. We obtained site-specific documents on-file with the City of Orange including prior geotechnical reports documenting past site grading activities, for a list of pertinent documents reviewed in preparation of this study see References at end of text.
1257
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 3 ends

• Field Exploration: Advanced two (2) on-site hollow-stem auger borings (LB1 and LB-2) on June 26, 2019, within the planned residential portion of the development, extending to depths of approximately 36.5 to 81.5 feet bgs, respectively. The upper 5 feet of each boring was advanced using a handauger to avoid damaging unmarked utilities. During drilling, bulk and relatively undisturbed drive samples were collected at regular intervals for geotechnical laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected from the borings using a Modified California Ring sampler conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Method D3550. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were also performed within the hollow-stem auger borings in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1586. The samplers were driven for a total penetration of 18 inches, unless practical refusal was encountered, using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling freely for 30 inches. The number of blows per 6 inches of penetration was recorded on the boring logs. The borings were logged in the field by a member of our technical staff under the direct supervision of a State of California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG). Soil samples were reviewed and described in the field in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with a mixture of soil and bentonite and patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete (AC) at the ground surface. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2, Geotechnical Map. Boring logs are presented in Appendix A, Boring Logs.
• Infiltration Testing: For the purposes of shallow infiltration testing, two additional hollow-stem auger borings (LP-1 and LP-1a) were advanced within the planned residential area of the development on November 25, 2020, to depths of approximately 11 and 20 feet bgs, respectively. The borings were converted into temporary test wells by installing 2-inch-diameter slotted (0.020- inch slots) PVC well casing, and placing No. 3 Monterey Sand in the annular space of the well within the test zone. Pre-soaking and percolation testing of the LP-1a well was performed on November 29 and 30, 2020. Testing was performed in general accordance with the Orange County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Programs (WQMPs) (OCPW, 2013). Results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B, Percolation Test Data.

Refer to the discussion of infiltration rate presented in Section 2.6, Infiltration Rate.
1258
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 4 ends

• Laboratory Testing: Laboratory testing was performed on a select suite of samples collected from borings to determine moisture, in-situ density and corrosion potential properties. The results of preliminary corrosion testing are discussed in Section 2.4 and full results are provided in Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results. Moisture content and in-situ density are presented within our boring logs, see Appendix A.
• Engineering Analyses: Using the findings of our literature review and data obtained from our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, we conducted engineering analyses to evaluate geologic hazards and develop preliminary recommendations for design and construction.
• Environmental Impact Evaluation (CEQA Screening): We completed a CEQA-level screening of the site for geology and soils, per CEQA Checklist Form Appendix G, Section VII. A copy of the form noting impact designations, and explanations of answers, are attached in Appendix D, CEQA Checklist Form. • Report Preparation: This revised report was prepared to document findings and conclusions, and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations addressing the currently proposed development concept.
1259
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 5 ends

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS

2.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The subject site is located in the Downey Plain within the southeastern margin of the Los Angeles Basin, a large structural depression within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. In general, the Downey Plain is bordered by the Coyote and Peralta Hills on the north, the Santa Ana Mountains and Tustin Plain to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the south and Los Angeles Coastal Plain to the west. Several broadly warped coastal mesas represent uplifted areas along the active Newport-Inglewood structural fault zone. These mesas are separated by erosional gaps created by historic routes of the Santa Ana River.

From a more local perspective, the site lies within the upper outwash plain of the Santa Ana River, in close proximity to where the river exits Santa Ana Canyon and discharges onto the Downey Plain, see Figure 3, Regional Geology Map. The surface distribution of Holocene sediments, as recorded in early editions of regional soil survey maps (Eckmann and others, 1919), suggest the main channel of the Santa Ana River has often meandered across the Downey Plain from Alamitos Bay to Newport Bay during the Holocene epoch (last 11,000 years).

Historical accounts, documents, and results of our study further support widespread sheet flooding and marine transgression as being the dominant depositional process associated with the Santa Ana River floodplain.

2.2 Site Geology
Our findings indicate the site surface is underlain by deposits of engineered fill, the observation and testing of which was documented in a series of geotechnical reports (LeRoy Crandall, 1971, 1985, 1986a/b, 1987 and 1988a/b). The fill is underlain by deposits of Holocene alluvium, and in turn by older Pleistocene age alluvium beyond the maximum depth explored (81.5 feet). Descriptions of on-site soil units are presented in Appendix A.

Engineered Fill (Ef): Site-specific geotechnical reports indicate the site is generally mantled by a blanket of engineered fill to depths of approximately 4 feet bgs. The thickness of the fill is expected to vary across the site, and likely be thickest in areas of existing buildings. Where encountered, the fill consists of silty sands with local fractions of crushed aggregate. No drive samples of fill were obtained during our field exploration, given their shallow depths. We anticipate the 1260
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 6 ends

fill will be removed within the footprint of the residential building as part of the basement excavation. In the area of the planned 2-story parking structure, remedial grading is expected to remove and recompact the previously placed fill.

Holocene Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf): Deposits of young alluvial fan sediments (Map Symbol: Qyf), of Holocene age (11,000 years to present), underlie fill on the site to a depth of approximately 76 feet bgs. To depths of around 15 feet bgs we encountered materials of unconsolidated silty sand with gravel that is massive, and generally loose to medium dense. Directly below 15 feet is a deposit of clay that may extend laterally across the site. Below the clay are alternating lenses of sands, silty clays and silts of variable thickness, moisture and density/stiffness.

Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof): The contact between Young and Old Alluvial Fan units is inferred from our boring logs to exist at a depth of around 76 feet. The presence of the older alluvial unit is based on a change in soil color to reddish brown and increase in density and lithology to a sandy gravel that is poorly to well graded and oxidized. This unit is likely Pleistocene in age (1.8 million to 11,000 years).

2.3 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are typically categorized as containing higher fractions of clay particles subject to swelling when wetted, and shrinkage when dried. The higher the expansive clay content, the greater the potential their ability to impart forces such as uplift upon foundations within their influence. Without proper mitigation measures, heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade could result. Based on our exploration, site soils within the upper 15 feet consist of silty sand with gravel. At around 15 feet the sands abruptly transition to a silty clay to sandy clay and silt. Accordingly, the upper onsite soils are assumed to possess a low expansion potential.

In order to confirm the expansion potential findings presented in this report, future expansion index testing is recommended as part of future design-level exploration, and upon completion of grading. This includes earth materials anticipated at basement subgrade for the residential structure. Standard engineering and earthwork construction practices such as proper foundation design and controlled moisture conditioning or mixing with non-expansive soils, is expected to reduce impacts associated with expansive soils.
1261
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 7 ends

2.4 Corrosion
Soil Resistivity: In general, soil resistivity, which is a measure of how easily electrical current flows through soils, is the most influential factor for ferrous corrosivity. Based on findings of studies presented in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) STP 1013 titled “Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion” (February, 1989), an approximate relationship between soil resistivity and soil corrosiveness was developed as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 - Soil Corrosivity as a Function of Resistivity Soil Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Classification of
Soil Corrosiveness
0 to 900 Very severe corrosion
900 to 2,300 Severely corrosive
2,300 to 5,000 Moderately corrosive
5,000 to 10,000 Mildly corrosive
10,000 to >100,000 Very mildly corrosive
Sulfate Exposure: Sulfate ions in the soil can lower the soil resistivity and can be highly aggressive to Portland cement concrete by combining chemically with certain constituents of the concrete, principally tricalcium aluminate. This reaction is accompanied by expansion and eventual disruption of the concrete matrix. A potentially high sulfate content could also cause corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete. Section 1904A of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) defers to the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI’s) ACI 318-14 for concrete durability requirements. Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-14 lists “Exposure categories and classes,” including sulfate exposure as follows:

Table 2 - Sulfate Concentration and Exposure
Soluble Sulfate in Water
(parts-per-million)
Water-Soluble Sulfate (SO4)
in soil (percentage by weight)
ACI 318-14 Sulfate
Class
0-150 0.00 - 0.10 S0 (negligible)
150-1,500 0.10 - 0.20 S1 (moderate*)
1,500-10,000 0.20 - 2.00 S2 (severe)
>10,000 >2.00 S3 (very severe)
*or seawater
1262
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 8 ends

A representative bulk sample of near surface soil collected between 0 and 5 feet bgs was tested to evaluate corrosion potential. The chemical analysis test results for the onsite soil from our geotechnical exploration are included in Appendix C. The results of chemical analysis are summarized below.

Table 3 - Corrosivity Test Results
Test Parameter
Test Results
General Classification of Hazard
LB-1 @ 0-5’
Water-Soluble SulfateSO4 in Soil (ppm) 288 Moderate sulfate exposure to buried concrete-S1 Exposure Class
Water-Soluble Chloride
in Soil (ppm) 200 Non-corrosive to buried concrete (per Caltrans Specifications) pH 8.7 Mildly alkaline
Minimum Resistivity
(saturated, ohm-cm)
3,135 Moderately Corrosive to buried
ferrous pipes
The corrosion results listed above are considered preliminary and should be confirmed during future design-level investigation, and during earthwork construction.

2.5 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in borings at the depths noted in Table 4 below.

The groundwater depths are also indicated on our boring logs in Appendix A, Boring Logs.

Table 4 – Groundwater Depths by Elevation
Boring
Approximate
Boring
Elevation
(feet msl)
Depth to
Groundwater
during Drilling
(feet bgs)
Depth to
Measured
Groundwater
(feet bgs)
Approximate
Groundwater
Elevation
(feet msl)
LB-1 121 35 41 80
LB-2 120 33 32 88
Review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach

7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California (SHZR 003) indicates the 1263
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 9 ends

historically shallowest groundwater depth beneath the site occurred between approximately 25 to 30 feet bgs (CGS, 2001).

Based on the above information, we recommend a groundwater depth of 30 feet bgs be assumed for the purposes of project design. To verify the occurrence of groundwater levels elsewhere beneath the site, additional site-specific groundwater information should be obtained as part of future design-level geotechnical exploration. Fluctuations in groundwater level, and the occurrence of localized zones of temporary perched water and increases in soil moisture should be anticipated during/following winter seasons or periods of locally intense rainfall or storm water runoff.

Based on the depth to groundwater measured in our borings, at the time of drilling, dewatering may be required to accommodate project construction. For purposes of this report, we have assumed the deepest planned improvements (B3 garage level of the residential structure) will terminate at approximately 30 to 40 feet bgs.

The measured groundwater and B3 floor levels are close in elevation.

Although groundwater was not encountered during drilling of our shallow percolation test borings, the sand-over-clay stratigraphy at encountered in boring LP-1 (Appendix A) may promote accumulation of temporary perched groundwater conditions above the less permeable clayey strata at around 15 feet bgs.

Based on the discussion above, dewatering will likely be required.

2.6 Infiltration
Percolation tests were performed within in-situ soils on the site in general accordance with the Orange County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Programs (WQMPs) (OCPW, 2013).

Borings LP-1 and LP-1a were drilled for the purpose of percolation testing within the eastern area of the planned residential improvements. Two-inch-diameter perforated PVC casing was placed into the boreholes within the zone to be tested (see Table 5 below) and solid PVC pipe was placed above the perforated section.

The annulus of the borehole was filled with clean sand (#3 Monterey Sand) to approximately 1-foot above the screen zone. The percolation test wells were presoaked prior to the testing in an attempt to model the behavior of stormwater quality 1264
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 10 ends

control devices during a design storm event. After the conclusion of the percolation testing, the well casing was removed and the test holes backfilled with excess soil cuttings.

Based on the results of pre-soaking and initial field tests, test well LP-1 warranted use of a falling head test procedure, where the drop of water levels inside the well is recorded over the testing period. Measured percolation rates and un-factored infiltration rates were calculated by dividing the rate of discharge (cubic inches per hour) by the infiltration surface area, or flow area (square inches). Discharge volume was calculated by adding the total volume of water that dropped within the PVC pipe and annulus incorporating a porosity reduction factor to account for the filter pack material. The flow area was based on the average water height within the slotted pipe section of the test well only.

For the LB-1a percolation well, a constant-head method, or high flowrate test was conducted due to the high permeability characteristics of the sandy soil within the test zone. The infiltration rate was calculated by recording the approximate volume of water delivered to the test zone while maintaining a relatively constant height of water in the well over the testing period. A water source (on-site garden hose) was used to deliver water to the wells at a relatively constant rate. The measured infiltration rate was calculated according to the procedure for a high flowrate percolation test, by dividing the total volume of water by the total duration of the test, and dividing by the percolation surface area.

Results of the infiltration testing are presented below in units of inches per hour (in/hr) in Table 5. Test data are also presented in Appendix B, Percolation Test Data.

Table 5 – Measured Infiltration Rate
Percolation Test
Boring/Well Designation
Approximate Depth of Test
Zone Below Ground Surface
(feet)
Unfactored*
Infiltration Rate
(inches per hour)
LP-1 15-20 0.01
LP-1a 6-11 105
Note: Invert of any stormwater infiltration shall be set back at least 15 feet, and outside a 1:1 plane drawn down and out from the bottom of adjacent foundations.

Based on our testing, the sandy unit within the upper 15 feet of the site exhibits a high rate of infiltration (105 inches per hour) relative to that of the underlying clay unit (0.01 1265
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 11 ends

in/hr). For reference, a rate of 0.3 in/hr is generally considered the limit above which infiltration is considered feasible. Rates less than 0.3 in/hr are considered unfeasible.

As mentioned in Section 2.1 and depicted on boring logs, (see Appendix A), the upper 15 feet of alluvial soils consist of sand and silty sand, which tend to be favorable for infiltration purposes. This upper sandy unit is abruptly underlain by stiff silty clays and sandy silts of significantly lower permeability and negligible infiltration rates.

Considering the design depth of groundwater is 30 feet, and regulatory requirements are such that invert depths be separated from underlying groundwater by at least 10 feet, it appears the upper sand unit beneath existing graded fill deposits is a feasible for shallow infiltration.

The contact between the upper sand unit and underlying clay is expected to daylight within the basement excavation. Placement of infiltration BMP’s directly adjacent to the residential development should be avoided where possible, to minimize potential seepage conditions hydraulically impacting planned basement walls. 1266
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 12 ends

3.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION

3.1 Surface Fault Rupture
Our review of available in-house literature indicates that no known active faults have been mapped across the site, and the site is not located within a designated AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2018; Bryant and Hart, 2007). Therefore, a surface fault rupture hazard evaluation is not mandated for this site and the potential for surface fault rupture at the site is low.

The location of the closest active faults to the site was evaluated using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program National Seismic Hazard Maps (USGS, 2008). The closest active faults with surface expression to the site are the Newport-Inglewood and Whittier fault zones located approximately

9.0 miles and 10.2 miles from the site, respectively. The Puente Hills fault is a blind thrust fault that is concealed at depth, without the potential for surface fault rupture. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 42 miles northeast of the site, and considered the largest active fault in California. Major regional faults with surface expression in proximity to the site are shown on Figure 4, Regional Fault and Historical Seismicity Map.

3.2 Seismicity and Ground Shaking
The principal seismic hazard to the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along any of several major active and potentially active faults in southern California, see Figure 4. The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the source, and the site response characteristics.

To accommodate effects of ground shaking produced by regional seismic events, seismic design can be performed by the project structural engineer in accordance with the 2019 Edition of the California Building Code (CBC 2019). Table 6, 2019 CBC Seismic Parameters (below), lists seismic design parameters based on the 2019 CBC, Section 1613A.3 (ASCE 07-16) methodology:
1267
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 13 ends

Table 6 - 2019 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Parameters
Categorization/Coefficients CodeBased (1) (2)
Site Longitude (decimal degrees) West -117.8910
Site Latitude (decimal degrees) North 33.7752
Site Class D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss 1.346 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, S1 0.478 Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.0
Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, Fv null*
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 1.346 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM1 null* Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 0.898 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SD1 null* PGAM 0.626

1. All were derived from the SEA web page: https://seismicmaps.org/

2. All coefficients in units of g (spectral acceleration)

3. See Appendix E for details of the seismic evaluation.

4. *Requires Cs calculation, see below.

Based on the 2019 CBC Table 1613.2.3(2), the long period site coefficient should be determined in accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 since the mapped spectral response acceleration at 1 second is greater than 0.2g for Site Class D. In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, a site-specific seismic analysis is required; however, the values provided herein may be utilized if design is performed in accordance with exception (2) in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, with special requirements for the seismic response coefficient (Cs). The project structural engineer should review the seismic parameters. A site-specific seismic analysis can be performed upon request.

3.3 Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density, fine, clean sandy soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose and medium dense, near-surface 1268
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 14 ends

cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential.

As shown on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones map for the Anaheim Quadrangle (CGS, 2001), the project site is located within an area defined by the State of California as susceptible to liquefaction, see Figure 5, Seismic Hazard Map. Groundwater was encountered at a depth as shallow as 32 feet below ground surface. Historic high groundwater was mapped between 25 to 30 feet bgs.

A site-specific liquefaction analysis was performed for the residential area of the site, using a historic high groundwater level of 30 feet bgs, a PGAM 0.63g and a modal earthquake magnitude of 7.3. The results indicate the potential for liquefaction at the site as moderate. The results of liquefaction analysis are presented in Appendix E, Liquefaction Analysis.

3.4 Seismically-Induced Settlement
Seismically induced settlement consists of dry dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and liquefaction-induced settlement (below groundwater). The settlement occurs primarily within loose to moderately dense sandy soil due to reductions in soil volume during and shortly after an earthquake event.

Based on our analysis, the total seismically induced settlement is expected to be on the order of 2 inches. Accordingly, seismically induced differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 1 inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. As existing liquefaction analyses are based on the results of hollow-stem auger drilling, we recommend additional analyses of liquefaction potential be performed using CPT soundings, to further refine the magnitude of potential seismic-induced settlement.

Following the recommended remedial earthwork at the site and in consideration of the project’s conformance with standard structural design requirements from the current building code, potential impacts relating to seismically induced settlement would be reduced to less than significant.
1269
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 15 ends

3.5 Seismically-Induced Lateral Displacements
Theoretically, lateral ground displacement resulting from liquefaction can include lateral spreading on sites with surface gradients less than six percent, flow failure where gradients are steeper than six percent, and ground oscillation. Although the subsurface soils at the site are susceptible to liquefaction, the potential for development of lateral spreading and flow failure is considered low since the site is relatively flat and constrained (not directly abutting an open-face or outboard slope),and, actual groundwater was measured below a depth of 32 feet bgs.

Ground oscillation is a phenomenon typically resulting in the development of random cracks and ridge formations at the surface, due to variable vertical and lateral movements of broken blocks of non-liquefiable soils overlying liquefiable soil in response to earthquake motion. Ground oscillation usually occurs on relatively level ground surfaces where lateral spreading does not occur. The occurrence of ground oscillation may cause damage to pavements, walkways, pipelines, and other lightly loaded near-surface structures. Since the potential for damaging liquefaction is low on the site, the potential for ground oscillation occurrence at the site is also considered low.

3.6 Seismically-Induced Landslides
The potential for seismically-induced landsliding is not considered to be a hazard at the site due to the absence of slopes. In addition, based on the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Anaheim Quadrangle (CGS, 2001), the site is not located within an area defined by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to seismically-induced landslides, see Figure 5, Seismic Hazard Map. Proposed slopes, while not anticipated, should be engineered and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter.

3.7 Flooding
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps the site is located outside the limits of the 500-year flood zone, see Figure 6, Flood Hazard Zone and Dam Inundation Map. Based on the above, we consider the potential flooding hazard to be low on the site.

Strong seismic ground motion can cause dams and levees to fail, resulting in damage to structures and properties located downstream. The site is located within the inundation zone of Prado Dam, located on the lower Santa Ana River, 1270
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 16 ends

approximately 20 miles upstream from the site (Figure 6). The potential for earthquake induced flooding exists if Prado Dam were to fail during a large earthquake.

Prado Dam, owned and operated by the Los Angeles District of the Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps), has been continuously improved and is regularly maintained by the Army Corps to maintain operational capacity. There is no evidence, reports or documentations that indicate the dam has a high potential for failure during an earthquake. Catastrophic failure of this dam is expected to be a very unlikely event in that dam safety regulations exist and are enforced by the Division of Safety of Dams, Army Corps and Department of Water Resources.

Therefore, the potential for flooding or earthquake-induced flooding due to dam failure is considered less than significant.

3.8 Seiches and Tsunamis
Seiches are large waves usually generated within enclosed on-land bodies of freshwater in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis are waves typically generated within oceans in response to displacement of the sea floor or major ground movement. Based on the inland location of the site, impacts to the site due to seiches or tsunamis is not considered to be a hazard.

A swimming pool is proposed as part of the residential development. Dependent upon the magnitude and duration of a seismic event in the area, waves could be generated sizeable enough for water to escape the confines of the pool.

3.9 Environmental Impact Evaluation (CEQA Screening)
As part of our site evaluation, Leighton assessed environmental impacts of the project and completed CEQA checklist, Section VII, Geology and Soils. The completed form with pertinent explanations is attached as Appendix D, CEQA Checklist Form. In summary, site conditions categorized as having “no impact” include the potential for surface fault rupture, expansive soil, substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, soils incapable of supporting a waste water disposal system use, and loss of any unique paleontological resource or geologic feature.

Potential impacts classified as “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” include strong ground shaking, ground failure including liquefaction, and development upon an unstable geologic/soil unit potentially resulting in off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. 1271
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 17 ends

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the geotechnical information available at this due diligence stage, it is our opinion that development of the revised subject project concept is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint.

The impact of adverse geotechnical conditions on proposed improvements can be minimized provided the project is designed in accordance with standard engineering practice, requirements of the 2019 California Building Code (current edition of the code), and recommendations of the project civil, structural, and geotechnical engineering consultants.

Should the property be acquired and project planning move forward, supplemental design-level geotechnical exploration using soil borings and cone penetrometer testing, laboratory testing and further engineering analyses of site conditions should be performed in the pursuit of project permits through the local building official.

Presented below are preliminary geotechnical recommendations for your use in due diligence project planning and budgeting.
• Our preliminary liquefaction analysis indicates alluvial soils underlying the site could be subject to about 2 inches of settlement. Mitigation of this hazard will be required using either ground improvement or other enhanced foundation design measures.

Additional site exploration and refined analysis is recommended in an effort to further constrain the magnitude of settlement and potentially reduce the correlative cost of construction materials.
• The residential building and parking structure may be supported on mat foundations, or, spread footings over improved ground. Deep foundations (piles) may also be used to support the building and parking structure.
• Portions of the residential basement excavation may require shoring to protect adjacent structures, where the horizontal limits of the excavation encroach within a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward from the near edge of adjacent buildings. There may be existing underground utilities that will also be impacted.

Information on these utilities should be provided to Leighton for evaluation. • Basement floor slabs and walls should consider a historic high groundwater depth of approximately 30 feet bgs. Depending upon the finalized basement depth, foundation drains may be required to prevent build-up of hydrostatic pressure on the basement 1272
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 18 ends

slab. Alternatively, a continuous, waterproofed mat foundation may be used in lieu of foundation drains.
• Construction dewatering is not anticipated for the project as currently planned, however, given the possibility of groundwater fluctuations, the need for dewatering cannot be entirely precluded.
• Site soils should be easily excavated using conventional grading equipment. Soft soils may be encountered during excavation for the B3 level foundations. • Conventional grading can be performed to provide structural support of the parking structure.
• We anticipate onsite alluvium will have a low expansion potential (EI 20 to 50). • Use of infiltration BMP elements is feasible on the site provided the invert of such are confined to the sand unit, above a depth of approximately 15 feet below existing grades, and, they are located where down-gradient migration of disposal waters does not pose any adverse impacts to the subterranean basement.

4.1 Site Grading
All site grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable local codes and in accordance with the project specifications that are prepared by the appropriate design professional.

4.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to construction, the site should be cleared of any vegetation, trash and/or debris within the area of proposed grading. These materials should be removed from the site. Any underground obstructions onsite should be removed. Efforts should be made to locate any existing utility lines to be removed or rerouted where interfering with the proposed construction. Any resulting cavities should be properly backfilled and compacted. After the site is cleared, the soils should be carefully observed to verify all unsuitable deposits have been removed. All unsuitable deposits should be excavated and removed from the proposed building/structure footprint prior to fill placement.
1273
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 19 ends

4.1.2 Overexcavation
Any unsuitable material or disturbed soils should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. For budgeting purposes, it may be assumed that the upper 4 feet of earth materials will require removal and recompaction.

Local areas of deeper overexcavation may be recommended during grading by a Leighton representative depending on exposed subsurface conditions.

4.1.3 Subgrade Preparation
Upon excavation the moisture content of the soils should be determined. The moisture content of soils intended for use as new fill should be slowly and uniformly adjusted (moistened or dried) as necessary, to establish a uniformly moist condition. The moisture content of clayey soils should be established at about 4 percent over optimum moisture content. The moisture content of any relatively non-expansive and predominantly granular soils should be established at about 2 percent over optimum moisture content. In subgrade areas, the above noted moisture contents should be established to a depth of 18 inches, to be verified and approved by Leighton prior to placement of any new fill.

4.1.4 Fill Materials
The onsite soil, free of organic material, cobbles, boulders, rubble, and rock less than 8 inches in largest dimension, is generally considered suitable to be used as fill from a geotechnical perspective. The on-site soils between approximately 15 to 25 feet bgs may be potentially expansive. If on-site soils are used as fill, care must be used during grading and construction to not allow the soils to become dry or desiccated. Soils that become dry should be removed and replaced with compacted fill or properly moisture conditioned. Any imported fill soil should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement as fill.

4.1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction
Fill soils should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches, moistureconditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content for sandy soils and at least 4 percent above optimum moisture content for clayey soils, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as 1274
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 20 ends

determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Design
Conventional spread footings over improved ground or mat foundations over existing soils may be used to support the proposed structures.

4.2.1 Conventional Spread Footings
If ground improvement is implemented to mitigate liquefaction induced settlement to less than 1 inch, spread footings may be used to support the proposed structures.

Footings should be embedded a minimum 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for footings with a minimum width of 12 inches for continuous footings and 18 inches for isolated footings. A onethird increase in the bearing value for short duration loading, such as wind or seismic forces may be used. The ultimate bearing capacity can be taken as 18,000 psf, which does not incorporate a factor of safety. A resistance factor of 0.5 should be used for initial bearing capacity evaluation with factored loads.

Differential settlement can be taken as half the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. Since settlement is a function of footing size and contact bearing pressure, differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. Leighton should review the settlement estimates when final foundation plans and loads for the proposed structures become available.

Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by a combination of friction between the soil and structure interface and passive pressure acting against the vertical portion of the footings structures. For calculating lateral resistance, a passive pressure of 200 psf per foot of depth to a maximum of 2,000 psf and a frictional coefficient of 0.30 may be used. We have assumed that the passive resistance will be provided by soils below the design groundwater level of 30 feet bgs.
1275
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 21 ends

Note that the passive and frictional coefficients do not include a factor of safety. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils can be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.

4.2.2 Mat Foundations
A mat foundation may be designed using an average allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf and a modulus of subgrade reaction of 25 pounds per cubic inch (pci). Maximum localized allowable bearing pressures should not exceed 4,000 psf.

Differential settlement of the mat foundation due to the static loads is expected to be on the order of ½ inch over a distance of 30 feet. The bearing capacity may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading.

The perimeter of the mat foundation should have a minimum embedment of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.

The ultimate bearing capacity can be taken as 12,000 psf, which does not incorporate a factor of safety. A resistance factor of 0.5 should be used for initial bearing capacity evaluation with factored loads. The recommended bearing values are net value, and the weight of concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf); the weight of soil backfill can be neglected when determining the downward loads.

4.3 Slabs-on-Grade
Concrete slabs may be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci provided the subgrade is prepared as described in Section 4.1. From a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend slab-on-grade be a minimum 6 inches thick with No. 3 rebar placed at the center of the slab at 24 inches on center in each direction. The structural engineer should design the actual thickness and reinforcement based on anticipated loading conditions. Where moisture-sensitive floor coverings or equipment is planned, the slabs should be protected by a minimum 10-mil-thick vapor barrier between the slab and subgrade. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 can be used between the floor slab and the vapor barrier.

Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to drying and shrinkage is normal and should be expected; however, concrete is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small 1276
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 22 ends

nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low-slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. Additionally, our experience indicates that the use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations can generally reduce the potential but not eliminate for concrete cracking.

To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided with construction or weakened plane joints at frequent intervals. Joints should be laid out to form approximately square panels.

4.4 Temporary Excavation and Shoring Design
All temporary excavations, including utility trenches, retaining wall excavations and foundation excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and all OSHA requirements. Excavations 5 feet or deeper should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel are allowed to enter.

No surcharge loads should be permitted within a horizontal distance equal to the height of cut or 5 feet, whichever is greater from the top of the cut, unless the cut is shored appropriately. Excavations that extend below an imaginary plane inclined at 45 degrees below the edge of any adjacent existing site foundation should be properly shored to maintain support of the adjacent structure.

The permanent shoring system for the site may consist of soldier piles and lagging.

Soldier piles may consist of steel H-beams set in pre-drilled holes and backfilled with lean-mix concrete to the ground surface. The steel H-beams may also be installed with a vibratory hammer if vibration monitoring is performed during initial installation to establish that peak particle velocity thresholds are not exceeded. We can provide details for vibration monitoring if this option is selected. If pre-drilling is required, the pre-drilling auger diameter should be smaller than the diagonal dimension of the Hbeam. Tieback anchors, or internal bracing are expected to be required or will require some form of bracing. The potential raveling and caving of sand layers, and the presence of dense sand and hard silt and clay layers may pose difficulties in the installation of the soldier piles and tie-back anchors. Accordingly, the shoring contractor should be prepared to use special techniques and measures, if necessary, to permit the proper installation of the soldier piles and tie-back anchors. 1277
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 23 ends

Typical cantilever shoring should be designed based on the active fluid pressure of 35 pcf. If excavations are braced at the top and at specific design intervals, the active pressure may then be approximated by a rectangular soil pressure distribution with the pressure per foot of width equal to 25H, where H is equal to the depth of the excavation being shored.

Adjacent to existing buildings, shoring should be designed to accommodate the surcharge pressure from existing foundations. A uniform horizontal pressure equal to ½ of the foundation bearing pressure may be assumed for preliminary design.

The stratigraphy of soils exposed in shoring excavations should be documented by a member of the Leighton geotechnical staff.

4.5 Drainage and Landscaping
Building walls below grade should be waterproofed or at least damp-proofed, depending upon the degree of moisture protection desired. Surface drainage should be designed to direct water away from foundations and toward approved drainage devices. Irrigation of landscaping should be controlled to maintain, as much as possible, consistent moisture content sufficient to provide healthy plant growth without overwatering. Infiltration is not recommended near the subterranean parking structure. WQMP plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure infiltration does not cause issues to the proposed design.

4.6 Ground Improvement
Beneath the footprint of proposed structures, ground improvement measures may be employed to mitigate the effects of seismically induced settlement. The ground improvement would be required to reduce soil compressibility, improve bearing capacity, and allow use of spread footings.

Provided below are Preliminary Performance Criteria for ground improvement below residential improvements. Areas of recommended ground improvement mitigation will depend upon future building loads. Ground improvement below settlement sensitive structures should also be considered.

Preliminary Performance Criteria: The embedment depth to control liquefaction induced settlement (groundwater at historic high 30 feet bgs) for at-grade 1278
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 24 ends

structures can be assumed to extend from the ground surface (less foundation embedment depth) to 60 feet below current grade.

A field verification program using SPT and CPT should be used to provide data to estimate the post ground improvement settlement. If the total static and seismic settlement after ground improvement is determined to be greater than 1.5 inches, a mat foundation will be required. Otherwise conventional foundations may be used. Field verification procedures should be reviewed by and be acceptable to Leighton.

In addition, we recommend that an experienced ground improvement contractor estimate settlements, analyze ground conditions and prepare a site-specific ground improvement plan that will contain the location of improvement including design diameter and spacing, and a field test or trial installation program to verify the ground improvement success (i.e., verified by ASTM D1586 (SPT) and/or ASTM D3441 (CPT).

We recommend Shop drawings should include the following:
• Plans showing building foundation outline and ground improvement type, depths and locations;
• Installation equipment; and
• Installation specifications.

4.7 Future Geotechnical Exploration
Geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are preliminary and based on information gathered from our limited subsurface explorations, review of available documents, engineering analyses, and our understanding of the currently proposed development concept. Supplemental geotechnical investigation of the site should be performed, including additional soil borings, CPT soundings, laboratory testing and engineering analysis to develop design-level geotechnical recommendations with respect to the site grading, foundation design, ground improvement or deep foundations (if required) and other geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. This additional geotechnical investigation will be required for the project by the reviewing agency in pursuit of building permits. 1279
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 25 ends

5.0 LIMITATIONS
Leighton and Associates, Inc.’s work was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in California at this time. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in this report.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or a duly authorized agent acting on behalf of the owner, to ensure that information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the necessary design consultants for this project and incorporated into plans and specifications.

The findings of this report are considered valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on the subject or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.

Accordingly, the findings of this report may at some future time be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside Leighton’s control. Conditions revealed in construction excavations may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by Leighton and Associates, Inc. and additional recommendations may be warranted based on additional observations and findings.

The conclusions and preliminary recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a necessarily limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples and tests. Such information can be obtained only with respect to the specific locations explored, and therefore may not completely define all subsurface conditions throughout the site. The nature of many sites is that differing geotechnical and/or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Furthermore, changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time.

Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report should be considered preliminary if unanticipated conditions are encountered and additional explorations, testing and analyses may be necessary to develop alternative recommendations.

Any persons using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such independent investigations as they deem necessary to satisfy themselves as to the surface and/or subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of work on the subject site.
1280
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 26 ends

6.0 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary, an ACI Standard, reported by ACI Committee 318.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, Errata Incorporated through March 15.

Barrows, A.G., 1974, A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the NewportInglewood Structural Zone, Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 114, 115 p.

Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., Interim Revision 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: California Geological Survey, Special Publications 42, 42p.

California Building Standards Commission, 2019, 2019 California Building Code (CBC).

California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), 2020, Interactive Wellfinder Website, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx California Geological Survey (CGS, previously known as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 1998, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones – Anaheim Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000.
, 2000, CD-ROM containing digital images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones that affect the Southern Region, DMG CD 2000-003 2000. , 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, to be used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, February, 1998.
, 2001, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California, 1997 (Revised 2001) Seismic Hazard Zone Report 003.
, 2018b, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018. 1281
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 27 ends

Chaker, V., J., and Palmer, D., 1989, Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion, ASTM STO 1013.

California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB), GeoTracker, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Eckmanm E.C., Strahorn, A.T., Holmes, L.C., and Guersney, J.E., 1919, Soils Map of the Anaheim Area, California: United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils, in cooperation with the University of California, Agricultural Experiment Station, scale 1:62,000.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Angeles County and Incorporated Areas, Map Number 06037C1595G, dated December 21, 2018.

Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR), 2019, Historic Aerials by NETR Online, website: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed February 2019.

Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2019a, Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Proposed Multi-Family and Commercial Retail Development, 840 The City Drive South, Orange, California, dated July 18, 2019. _____, 2019b, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 840 The City Drive South, Orange, California, DRAFT dated July 18.
_____, 2021a, Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Proposed MultiFamily and Commercial Retail Development, 840 The City Drive South, Orange, California, dated January 24.
_____, 2021b, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Parking Garages, 750 and 790 The City Drive South, Orange, California, DRAFT dated January 27.

LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1971, [Report of Compacted Fill, Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive, Orange, California,] Job Number B-69175, dated March 16, 1971 (report not on-file at City of Orange).
_____1985, Report of Foundation Investigation, Proposed Nexus City Square, Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive, Orange, California, Job Number A-85360, dated December 2, 1985.
1282
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 28 ends

_____, 1986a, Interim Report of Compacted Fill, Proposed Nexus City Square, 700 City Drive South, City of Orange, California, prepared for the Nexus Development Corporation Job Number B-86037, dated June 16, 1986.
_____, 1986b, Report of Supplementary Studies, Proposed Woodfin Suites Hotel and Business Center, Nexus City Square, Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive, Orange, California, prepared for Hartage Construction Corporation, Job Number B-85360-C, dated September 16, 1986.
_____, 1987, Soils Observation and Testing Services, Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and Paved Areas, Nexus City Square, 3631 Garden Grove Boulevard, Orange, California, prepared for Nexus, U.S.A., Job Number B-86037, dated April 1987. _____, 1988a, Observation and Testing of Compacted Fill, Observation of Foundation Excavations, and Observation and Testing of Asphaltic Paving, Parking Deck I, Nexus City Square, 3631 Garden Grove Boulevard, Orange, California, prepared for Nexus, U.S.A., Job Number B-86037, dated August 19, 1988. _____, 1988b, Supplement to Final Report, Soils Observation and Testing Services, Building Nos. 2, 3, and Paved Areas, Nexus City Square, 3631 Garden Grove Boulevard, Orange, California, prepared for Nexus, U.S.A., Job Number B-86037 & B-87174.

Orange County Public Work (OCPW), 2013, Technical Guidance Document for Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans, dated December 20, 2013.

Salkin Engineering, 1988, Grading Plan, Nexus City Square, City of Orange, California, Job number 3240, delta 11 dated July 8, 1988.

Streetlights Creative Studio, LLC, 2020, Architectural Plans, 840 The City, dated November 17, 2020. USGS, 1965, Photo revised 1981, 7.5 Minute Series, Anaheim Quadrangle, California-Orange County, Scale 1:24,000, 5-Foot Contour Interval, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.
_____, 1999, Preliminary Digital Geological Map of the Santa Ana 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, Open-File Report 99-172. _____, 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps – Fault Parameters, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm. 1283
Due Diligence Geotechnical Exploration Report – Revision 2 Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.005

Page 29 ends

_____, 2019, Unified Hazard Tool, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Wright, T.L., 1991, Structural Geology and Tectonic Evolution if the Los Angeles Basin, California, in Biddle, K.T. (editor), Active Margin Basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 52, pp. 35-134.

Yerkes, R.F., et al., 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California an Introduction:

US Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A.57p.
1284
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2021
Thematic Information: Leighton
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12423.005 Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\005\Maps\12423-005_F01_SLM_2021-08-16.mxd on 8/16/2021 10:44:22 AM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Date: August 2021

SITE LOCATION MAP
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South,
Orange, California
Approximate
Site Boundary
FIGURE 1
1285
LB-2
T.D.36.5'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
G.W.@32'
LB-1
T.D.81.5'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
Qof@76'
G.W.@41'
LP-1a
T.D.11'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
Test Interval 6-11'
LP-1
T.D.20'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
Test Interval 15-20'

APPROXIMATE

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
Bldg 2
Bldg 1
Bldg 3
Existing
Hotel
Existing
Parking
Structure
Ef

GEOTECHNICAL MAP
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South
Orange, California
Approximate location of hollow-stem auger boring
showing total depth (T.D.) depth to earth units and groundwater (G.W.) in feet below ground surface
Approximate location of hollow-stem auger boring
converted to temporary percolation test well
showing total depth (T.D.), depth to earth units and
percolation test interval in feet below ground surface
Engineered Fill (LeRoy Cransal & Associates)
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits
LEGEND
Ef
Qyf
Qof
LB-2
T.D.36.5'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
G.W.@32'
LP-1a
T.D.11'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
Test Interval 6-11'

SCALE FEET
0 50 100
V:\DRAFTING\12423\005\CAD\2021-08-13\12423-005_F02_GM_2021-08-16.DWG (08-16-21 8:37:23AM) Plotted by: btran Date: August 2021
Eng/Geol: JLH
Scale: 1"=50'
Proj: 12423.005
FIGURE 2
Reference: PDF As shown
1286
Qyf
Qw
Qyf
Qof
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2021
Thematic Information: Leighton, USGS
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12423.005 Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\005\Maps\12423-005_F04_RGM_2021-08-16.mxd on 8/16/2021 10:47:18 AM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Date: August 2021

REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South,
Orange, California
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
Qof, Old Alluvial Fan
Deposits
Qw, Alluvial Wash
Qyf, Young Alluvial Fan
Deposits
FIGURE 3
1287
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
W
fa
hittier
ult
Cherry-Hill
fault
Reservoir
Hill fault
THUMS-Huntington Beach
Los Alamitos fault
³ 0 510
Miles
Scale:1 " = 5 miles
Project: 12423.005 Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Date: August 2021
Approximate
Site Location

REGIONAL FAULT AND

HISTORICAL SEISMICITY MAP
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\005\Maps\12423-005_F05_RF&HSM_2021-08-16.mxd on 8/16/2021 10:51:00 AM Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2021
Thematic Information: Leighton, Bryant, W. A. (compiler), 2005, Digital Database of Quaternary and Younger Faults from the Fault Activity Map of California, version 2.0: CGS, USGS, SCEC.

Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South,
Orange, California
FIGURE 4
LEGEND
Earthquake Events (1769 - 2010)
! 4 - 5
! 5 - 6
! 6 - 7
Moment Magnitude Range (M )o
! 4 - 5
! 5 - 6
! 6 - 7
Historic (<200 years)
(Holocene (<10K years)
Quaternary (<1.6M years)
Pre-Quaternary (before 1.6 million years)
Fault Ages
1288
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2021
Thematic Information: Leighton, CGS
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12423.006 Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\005\Maps\12423-005_F06_SHM_2021-08-16.mxd on 8/16/2021 10:52:47 AM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Date: August 2021

SEISMIC HAZARD MAP
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South,
Orange, California
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
Liquefaction Susceptibility Zone
FIGURE 5
1289
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2021
Thematic Information: Leighton, CA DWR, FEMA
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12423.005 Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\005\Maps\12423-005_F07_FHM_2021-08-16.mxd on 8/16/2021 11:00:43 AM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Date: August 2021

FLOOD HAZARD ZONE AND

DAM INUNDATION MAP
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South, Orange, California
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
FEMA Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Plain
100 Year Flood Plain
DAM
Prado
Villa Park Dam
FIGURE 6
1290

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS
1291
SM
SMg
SM
SM/SP
CL
ML
CL
SM
CL
ML
SM
@0': 3.5-inches asphalt concrete over 2-inches base.

Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu):

Silty SAND with gravel, greyish brown, moist, predominantly fine sand, few medium sand, some fine to medium gravels, few clay.
@3': Gravelly silty SAND, greyish-brown, moist, fine sand, 3/4-inch subangular gravel.

Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf):
@5': Silty SAND, reddish brown, moist, medium dense,
predominantly fine sand, some medium to coarse sand,
some fine subrounded gravels.
@7': Silty SAND to SAND with silt, dark brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense, very fine sand, some fine sand, few medium sand, micaceous.
@10': Trace coarse sand.
@12': Very loose/soft.
@15': Silty CLAY, mottled greyish brown and orange, slightly moist to moist, firm, few medium sand, oxidized, laminated in lower 6-inches, moderate plasticity.
@20': Sandy SILT, grey-brown, moist, stiff, very fine sand. @20.75': Silty CLAY, mottled grey-brown and orange, moist, stiff, few very fine sand, few CaCO3 blebs, oxidation streaks and blebs, moderate plasticity.
@22.75': Silty SAND, pale tan, moist, loose, very fine sand, micaceous.
@25': Clayey SILT to silty CLAY, mottled grey-brown and orange, slightly moist, stiff, trace coarse sand, oxidation staining, micaceous, moderate plasticity.
@27': Sandy SILT, orangey-brown, moist, stiff, very fine sand. @28': Silty SAND, orangey-brown, moist, very fine sand, with a 3-inch zone of fine to medium SAND.
106
106
116
105
102
11 7
6 21
24 BB-1
R1
R2
R3
S1
R4
S2
R5
BB-2
S6
CR
5 10
9 5
9 7
5 7
12 2
2 3
1 2
4 3
6 9
2 4
5 4
7 10
2 6
7 120'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
6-26-19

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

Page 1 of 3 ends

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
120
115
110
105
100
95 90
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Plate 1, Geotechnical Map
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No. Bulk Driven
1292
SM
SP-SM
ML
SP-SM
SP
ML
SP
SM
@30': Silty SAND, dark brown, very moist, dense, predominantly fine sand, some medium sand, some FeO and MnO spotting
and staining, micaceous.
@35': SAND with silt to Silty SAND, pale tan, wet, loose, fine to medium sand, micaceous, perched groundwater
encountered.
@36.25': Sandy SILT, grey-brown, very moist, firm, very fine sand.
@40': SAND with silt, pale tan, very moist to wet, dense, fine to medium sand, micaceous.
@41': Goundwater encountered at 41.8 feet, rose to 41 feet bgs. @45': SAND, brown, wet, loose, very fine to fine sand in upper 6-inches, becoming tan, medium to coarse sand.
@46.5': Sandy SILT, mottled brown and orange, wet, stiff, very fine sand, laminated.
@50': SAND, brown, wet, loose, very fine to medium sand, few coarse sand, few silt, micaceous, massive.
@55': Increased SILT content.
@56.25': Silty SAND, brown, wet, loose, very fine to fine sand. 120
103
13 21
R6
S4
R7
S5
S6
S7
9 19
28 2
3 4
6 17
30 2
3 6
1 2
3 2
3 5
120'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
6-26-19

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

Page 2 of 3 ends

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
90 85
80 75
70 65
60 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Plate 1, Geotechnical Map
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No. Bulk Driven
1293
SP-SM
ML
SP
ML
SP
ML
SP
GM
SP-SM
@60': SAND to SAND with silt, brown, wet, loose, fine to medium sand, zones of medium to coarse sand, micaceous. @61.25': SILT, mottled brown and orange, wet, firm, gleyed, with few CaCO3 stringers.
@65': SAND, brown, wet, loose, fine to coarse sand, micaceous. @65.5': SILT, strong brown, very moist to wet, stiff, regions mottled grey and brown, trace medium sand.
@70': SAND, brown, wet, medium dense, fine to coarse sand. @71': SILT, strong brown, very moist to wet, stiff, trace medium sand.
@75': SAND, brown, wet, medium dense, fine to coarse sand.

Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
@76': Silty Sandy GRAVEL, reddish brown, wet, medium dense, very fine sand, fine subrounded gravels (predominantly black slate), single mechanically broken medium gravel,
matrix-supported.
@80': Varied gravel lithology (granitoids and various medium- to high- grade metamorphic lithologies).
@80.25': SAND with silt, dark brown, wet, medium dense, with significant black medium sand, slightly micaceous.
@81': SAND with silt, brown, wet, medium dense, very fine to medium sand, some coarse sand.

Total Depth: 81.5 feet bgs
Perched groundwater encountered at approximately 35 feet bgs at 0800
Groundwater measured at 41.8 feet bgs at 0805; rising to 41 feet bgs by 0815
Boring backfilled with bentonite, surface patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete.

S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
1 2
4 2
4 5
3 6
9 5
9 20
7 14
16 120'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 Soil Class.
6-26-19

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

Page 3 of 3 ends

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Plate 1, Geotechnical Map
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No. Bulk Driven
1294
SP-SM
SPg
SP
SM-ML
CL
ML
SM
@0': 3.5-inches asphalt concrete over 4-inches base.

Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu):

SAND with silt, yellowy-brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, some medium sand, few coarse sand.
@3': Gravelly SAND with silt, greyish-brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, 3/4-inch subangular gravel.

Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf):
@5': SAND, pale tan, slightly moist, medium dense, very fine to fine sand, poorly graded.
@7': SAND, pale tan, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, few fine subrounded gravels, micaceous,
grading finer to fine sand with some medium sand, no gravel. @10': SAND, pale tan, slightly moist to moist, medium dense, predominantly medium sand, some coarse sand, trace fine gravels, grading finer to fine sand.
@12': Sandy SILT to silty SAND, medium brown, very moist, very loose, very fine to fine sand.
@15': Silty CLAY, mottled orangey-brown and brown, moist to very moist, very soft, trace coarse sand, some blocky
structure, moderate plasticity.
@20': Soft, trace root casts.
@22': Firm, with few coarse sand, MnO spotting, rootlet casts. @25': Clayey SILT, mottled orangey-brown and brown, moist to very moist, soft, MnO spotting, few regions of CaCO3 blebs. @27': Sandy SILT, mottled orange and grey, very moist, very stiff, very fine sand.
@27.75': Silty SAND, dark brown, very moist, medium dense, very fine to fine sand, micaceous.
108
106
102
91 93
97 115
5 8
4 29
30 27
15 BB-1
R1
R2
R3
R4
S1
R5
S2
R6
S3
R7
11 15
24 8
11 13
7 11
16 2
3 3
1 1
1 3
4 5
1 1
2 2
6 7
1 1
2 4
8 16
120'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
6-26-19

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

Page 1 of 2 ends

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
120
115
110
105
100
95 90
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Plate 1, Geotechnical Map
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No. Bulk Driven
1295
SP-SM
SP
@30': Silty SAND to SAND with silt, dark brown, very moist, medium dense, very fine to fine sand, trace fine gravels. @32': Perched groundwater encountered at 32.7 feet, rose to 32 feet bgs.
@35': SAND, tan, wet, medium dense, predominantly fine to medium sand, some very fine and coarse sand, micaceous. @36.25': Sandy SILT, brown, very moist, fine to very fine sand.

Total Depth: 36.5 feet bgs
Perched groundwater encountered at 32.7 feet bgs at 1105, measured at 32.0 feet bgs at 1115
Boring backfilled with bentonite, surface patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete.
104 21
S4
R8
3 6
8 8
17 20
120'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
6-26-19

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

Page 2 of 2 ends

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
90 85
80 75
70 65
60 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Plate 1, Geotechnical Map
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No. Bulk Driven
1296
SM
SP
CL
CL
CL-SM
@0': 4-Inches asphalt concrete over 5-inches base
Artificial Fill, Undocumented (afu)
Silty SAND, olive brown, very moist, fine to medium sand, some coarse sand, some fine to medium gravel, some clay, trace coarse gravel
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5': SAND, light tan, moist, medium dense, mostly fine sand, some medium sand, micaceous
@10': SAND, tan, moist, medium dense, mostly medium sand, some coarse sand
@11': Silty SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine sand, some clay
@15': Silty CLAY, olive brown, very moist, stiff, gleyed, with calicum carbonate nodules
@16.5': Silty CLAY, olive brown, very moist, stiff, gleyed, with calicum carbonate nodules
@18.5': Silty CLAY, olive brown, very moist, stiff, gleyed, with calicum carbonate nodules
Total Depth: 20 feet
Converted to temprary percolation test well
Test zone screened from 15-20 feet
Boring backfilled upon completion
R-1
R-2
BB-1
R-3
R-4
R-5
7 13
15 8
11 9
4 6
10 3
6 7
3 6
7 120'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
11-25-20

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

Page 1 of 1 ends

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
120
115
110
105
100
95 90
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Plate 1, Geotechnical Map
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No. Bulk Driven
1297
@0': 4-Inches asphalt concrete over 5-inches base
Artificial Fill, Undocumented (afu)
Silty SAND, olice brown, very moist, fine to medium sand, some coarse sand, some fine to medium gravel, some clay, trace coarse gravel
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5': SAND, light tan, moist, medium dense, mostly fine sand, some medium sand, micaceous
@10': SAND, tan, moist, medium dense, mostly medium sand, some coarse sand
Total Depth: 11 feet
Converted to temprary percolation test well
Test zone screened from 6-11 feet
Boring backfilled upon completion
120'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
11-25-20

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

Page 1 of 1 ends

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-1a
Logged By
Date Drilled
120
115
110
105
100
95 90
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Plate 1, Geotechnical Map
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No. Bulk Driven
1298

APPENDIX B

PERCOLATION TEST DATA
1299
Project Number: 12423.003 Test Hole Number: LP-1
Project Name: SLR City Drive Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 20
Tested By: KMD Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 15 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
30 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
*P1 started 11/24/2020; **P2 started 11/29/2020
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
12:15 15.00 60.0
10:45 16.15 46.2
10:46 15.00 60.0
8:37 15.42 55.0
8:38 15.00 60.0
9:08 15.02 59.8
9:08 14.94 60.7
9:38 14.96 60.5
9:38 14.96 60.5
10:08 15.00 60.0
10:08 15.00 60.0
10:38 15.03 59.6
10:38 14.94 60.7
11:08 14.96 60.5
11:08 14.96 60.5
11:38 14.98 60.2
11:38 14.98 60.2
12:08 15.00 60.0
12:08 15.00 60.0
12:38 15.02 59.8
12:38 14.99 60.1
13:08 15.01 59.9
13:08 14.99 60.1
13:38 15.01 59.9
13:38 15.01 59.9
14:08 15.03 59.6
14:08 15.00 60.0
14:38 15.02 59.8
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.01 in./hr.
6 30 0.2 125.00
7 30 0.2 125.00
12 30 0.2 125.00
11 30 0.2 125.00
Infiltration Rate (I) = Flow Volume/Flow Area/Δt
5 30 0.2

0.01 0.01
8 30 0.2 125.00 0.01
9 30 0.2 125.00
3 30 0.5 62.50 0.01
4 30 0.4 83.33 0.01
P2** 1311 5.0 260.12 0.00
1 30 0.2 125.00 0.01
2 30 0.2 125.00 0.01
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
11/24/2020
11/30/2020

0.00 Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Percolation Data
P1* 5670 13.8 410.87
10 30 0.2 125.00 0.01

0.01 12:15 on 11/24/2020
8:38 on 11/30/2020

0.01 125.00 0.01

0.01 1300
Project Number: 12423.003 Test Hole Number: LP-1a
Project Name: SLR City Drive Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 11
Tested By: KMD Radius of boring, r (in): 4
Diameter of casing (in): 2
Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5
Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 5.78
Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (minutes)
Depth to
Water
(feet bgs)
Water Height,
H (inches)
Cumulative
Water Volume
Delivered
(gallons)
Total Volume of Water Delivered (gallons) 897.1
Total Volume of Water Delivered (cubic inches) 207230.1 Average Water Height (inches) 65.3
Average Percolation Surface Area (cubic Inches) 1692.7
Duration of Test (minutes) 70
Duration of Test (hours) 1.17
Measured Infiltration Rate (inches per hour) = 104.9
High Flowrate Percolation Test Calculation
8 11:42 10 5.40 67.2 897.1
7 11:32 10 5.46 66.5 770.5
6 11:22 10 5.49 66.1 643.3
5 11:12 10 5.54 65.5 517.0
4 11:02 10 5.60 64.8 389.6
3 10:52 10 5.66 64.1 261.5
2 10:42 10 5.73 63.2 133.1
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
11/25/2020
11/25/2020
Field Percolation Data
1 10:32 - - - 0.0
Measured Infiltration Rate = (Total Volume)/(Test Duration)/(Surface Area) 1301

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1302
Project Name: SLR Orange Tested By : GEB/GB Date: 07/02/19 Project No. : 12423.002 Input By: J. Ward Date: 07/16/19 Boring No. LB-1
Sample No. BB-1
Sample Depth (ft) 0-5
181.32
170.34

59.09 9.87
100.06
309
10 860
9:50/10:35
45 20.6419

20.6356

0.0063
259.24
288
ml of Extract For Titration (B) 15
ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C) 1.1
PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 180
PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 200

8.66 21.1
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
Soil Identification:

Temperature °C
pH Value
pH TEST, DOT California Test 643
Dark brown SM
Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Duration of Combustion (min)
Moisture Content (%)
Beaker No.

Crucible No.

Furnace Temperature (°C)
Time In / Time Out
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)
CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422
Wt. of Crucible (g)
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
1303
Project Name: Tested By : Date:

Project No. : Input By: J. Ward Date:

Boring No.: Depth (ft.) :

Sample No. :

Soil Identification:*
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.

26.72 3900 Wt. of Container (g)

9.87 181.32
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Specimen
No.
1 2
Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
20 Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
3900

1.000
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)

51.99 Moisture Content Sulfate Content
5 Min. Resistivity
DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 643 (%) (ppm) (ppm)
DOT CA Test 643
4 30
40 50
3 43.57 3200 130.42
3200
3135 38.6 288 200 8.66 21.1

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
pH Temp. (°C)
Soil pH
3200
3200
170.34

59.09 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
SLR Orange 07/03/19
07/16/19
0-5
12423.002
LB-1
G. Berdy
BB-1
Container No.

Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
3500 3500 Box Constant
Dark brown SM
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)

35.14 Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000

25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Moisture Content (%)
1304
LB-1 5.0 11.2 106.4
LB-1 7.0 7.4 105.6
LB-1 10.0 6.4 115.8
LB-1 20.0 21.1 104.8
LB-1 25.0 23.6 102.3
LB-1 30.0 12.9 119.5
LB-1 40.0 21.3 103.3
LB-2 5.0 5.0 108.2
LB-2 7.0 8.4 105.9
LB-2 10.0 4.1 102.4
LB-2 12.0 29.1 91.0
LB-2 17.0 30.3 92.7
LB-2 22.0 26.7 97.5
LB-2 27.0 14.5 115.5
LB-2 35.0 21.2 104.4
Classification
Water
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Maximum
Size
(mm)
%<#200
Sieve
Saturation
(%)
Void
Ratio Depth
Summary of Laboratory Results
Sheet 1 of 1
Borehole
Figure No. 1
Project Name:

Project Number:

Date:

SLR Orange
12423.002
7/16/2019 11:55:42 AM
US_LAB_SUMMARY 840 THE CITY DRIVE.GPJ ROCKLOG2012.GDT 7/16/19 1305
Project Name: SLR Orange
Project No.: 12423.002
Summary of Pocket Penetrometer Test Results
Tested by: R. Manning, 07-03-19
Prepared by G. Bathala, 07-09-19
Boring No. Sample No. Depth Readings Remarks
LB-1 R-1 5 3.25
R-2 7 2.50
R-3 10 3.25
R-4 20 3.00
R-5 25 3.75
R-6 30 >4.50
R-7 40 3.50
LB-2 R-1 5 1.50
R-2 7 N/A Described as loose
R-3 10 N/A Described as loose
R-4 12 1.50
R-5 17 1.50
R-6 22 1.75
R-7 27 >4.50
R-8 35 1.25
1306

APPENDIX D

CEQA CHECKLIST FORM
1307
CEQA Guidelines Appendices Association of Environmental Professionals 2020 307
APPENDIX G:

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
NOTE: The following is a sample form that may be tailored to satisfy individual agencies’ needs and project circumstances. It may be used to meet the requirements for an initial study when the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines have been met. Substantial evidence of potential impacts that are not listed on this form must also be considered. The sample questions in this form are intended to encourage thoughtful assessment of impacts, and do not necessarily represent thresholds of significance.

1. Project title:

2. Lead agency name and address:

3. Contact person and phone number:

4. Project location:

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

6. General plan designation: _______________________ 7. Zoning:

8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? _____________________ Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic 1308
CEQA Guidelines Appendices Association of Environmental Professionals 2020 315
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are
1309
Association of Environmental Professionals 2020 CEQA Guidelines Appendices 316
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
1310
CEQA Checklist Section VII, Geology and Soils - Supporting Comments/Answers • Item a-i) Fault Surface Rupture
“No Impact”
Designation based on absence of active faults or fault zones noted on California State Geological Survey Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map.
• Item a-ii) Strong Ground Shaking
“Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated” Effects of strong ground shaking impacts to be mitigated through application of code-based structural engineering design, using 2019 California Building Code values.
• Item a-iii)Seismic-Related Ground Failure
“Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated” The liquefaction potential of the site has been analyzed and will be further constrained using data collected in future site evaluation. Ground improvement measures will be performed within the structural influence of structures prone to excessive settlement (residential building) to mitigate impacts. Mitigation of this hazard below parking structures will be accomplished through application of remedial grading methodology. • Item a-iv)Landslides
“No Impact”
Designation is based on the geographic location of the site within a relatively flat alluvial plain. The Environmental Geology of Orange County Map published by the California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, depicts no landslides on the site or within the surrounding area.
• Item b) Substantial Soil Erosion or the Loss of Topsoil “No Impact”
No topsoil remains on the site due to the history of earthwork grading since the early 1970’s. The original topsoil was thin and weakly developed due to the youthful age of the alluvial material. Topsoil has been mixed with underlying alluvium and incorporated into an existing blanket of engineered fill which presently underlies existing improvements. Civil engineering 1311
design will incorporate use of an on-site storm-water control system that will minimize runoff and potential erosion to a negligible level. • Item c) Geologic Unit Unstable, or Would Become Unstable due to the Project “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated” Designation is based on the potential liquefaction hazard on the site. The potential for liquefaction exists regardless of whether the project is implemented on not. Through the process of ground improvement, the potential effects of liquefaction will be reduced in building areas. Outside building areas, the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement will remain unchanged.
• Item d) Located on Expansive Soil
“No Impact”
Designation is based on stratigraphy encountered in borings and engineering properties for generally low soil expansiveness documented by the California Department of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 79-8 LA, in accompanying text of Environmental Geology of Orange County, California (CDMG, 1976). The upper 15 feet of the site consist of a noncohesive silty sand that is assumed to be non-expansive. The expansive potential of clayey earth materials anticipated at basement subgrade in the residential building area will be tested to verify conformance with project design plans. Any impacts due to expansive soil will be mitigated by structural design and pose no impact to planned improvements or human life.
• Item e) Soils Incapable of Supporting Waste Water Disposal System “No Impact”
Borings and reports document upper 15 feet of site is underlain by a silty sand capable of accommodating waste water infiltration. • Item f) Destroy Unique Paleontological Resource or Geologic Feature “No Impact”
Designation based on description of paleontological resources by the California Department of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 79-8 LA, accompanying text of Environmental Geology of Orange County, California (CDMG, 1976). Younger Fossils in alluvial soils are Holocene age that are common and not unique or sensitive.
1312

APPENDIX E

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
1313

SPT BASED LI Q UEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::

Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Sampling method:

Borehole diameter:

Rod length:

Hammer energy ratio:

NCEER 1998
NCEER 1998
Standard Sampler
200mm

3.30 ft

1.00 G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Eq. external load:

Project title : SLR City Drive South at Orange
Location : NWC of City Drive South and Garden Grove Blvd.

Leighton and Associates, Inc.
17781 Cowan
Irvine, CA 92614
www.leightongroup.com
SPT Name: LB-1

0.00 ft

30.00 ft

7.30 0.63 g

0.00 tsf
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 Raw SPT Data CSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 FS Plot
During earthq.

LPI
Liquefaction potential
0 5
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 LPI
During earthq.

CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
C orrected Blow C ount N1(60),cs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Cyclic Stress Ratio*
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
0 .4
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
0 .0
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
F.S. color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Project File: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\2020 projects\SLR Orange PS\liquefaction 20201229.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.2.1 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 1 1314
This software is registered to: Leighton and Associates, Inc.

Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 2 01 0 5 04 03 0
Depth (ft)
565452504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
864
Raw SPT Data CSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1
Depth (ft)
5452504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
86 CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2
Depth (ft)
5452504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
86 FS Plot
During earthq.

Vertical Liq. Settlements
Cuml. Settlement (in)
0 .5 1 1 .5
Depth (ft)
5452504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
86 Vertical Liq. Settlements
During earthq.

Lateral Liq. Displacements
Cuml. Displacement (ft)
0 Depth (ft)
5452504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
86 Lateral Liq. Displacements
During earthq.
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::

Project File: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\2020 projects\SLR Orange PS\liquefaction 20201229.lsvs 1315 LiqSVs 2.0.2.1 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1316
E-2: Paleontological Resources Records Search Results
1317

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1318
Research & Collections
e-mail: [email protected]
September 26, 2020
FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS)
Attn: Stefanie Griffin
re: Paleontological resources for the 5315.0001 Street Lights Residential Project Dear Stefanie:

I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for proposed development at the Street Lights Residential project area as outlined on the portion of the Anaheim USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on September 24, 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 4943
Glassell Ave & Fletcher
St
Unknown Formation
(Pleistocene)
Horse (Equus) 10 feet bgs
LACM VP 1652
Rio Vista Avenue south
of Lincoln Avenue
Alluvium
(Pleistocene) Sheep (Ovis) unknown
LACM IP 21488
S of the Santa Ana
River near Adams Ave
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene;
medium - coarse
limonitic stained
sand) Invertebrates Unknown
LACM VP 7657-
7659
Ellis Avenue &
Patterson Lane
Unknown Formation
(Pleistocene; gray
siltstone)
Fish
(Osteichthyes)
150 - 350 ft
bgs
LACM IP 23657
Huntington Central
Park West
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene; sands) Invertebrates surface
VP, Vertebrate Paleontology; IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs, below ground surface This records search covers only the records of the NaturalHistory Museum of Los Angeles County (“NHMLA”). It is not intended as a paleontological assessment of the project area for the purposes of CEQA or NEPA. Potentially fossil-bearing units are present in the 1319 project area, either at the surface or in the subsurface. As such, NHMLA recommends that a full paleontological assessment of the project area be conducted by a paleontologist meeting Bureau of Land Management or Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

Sincerely,
Alyssa Bell, Ph.D.

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
enclosure: invoice
1320
Appendix F:

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information
1321

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1322
F-1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 840 The City Drive South 1323

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1324
DRAFT

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
840 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH,

ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:

SLR DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, LLC
4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 125
La Jolla, California 92037
Project No. 12423.001
July 18, 2019
1325
DRAFT
July 18, 2019
Project No. 12423.001
SLR Development California, LLC
4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 125
La Jolla, California 92037

Attention: Mr. Adam Covington
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
840 The City Drive South
Orange, California
Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) is pleased to present this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for the property located at 840 The City Drive South in the city of Orange, California (subject site). Leighton declares that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 312, and the ASTM International (ASTM) Standard E1527-13.

Leighton has the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject site. Leighton has developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

If you have questions regarding this report, please contact us. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to SLR Development California, LLC.

Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Brynn McCulloch, PG 8798
Principal Geologist
BFM
Distribution: (1 PDF) Addressee
1326
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Authorization ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Scope of Work ................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Significant Assumptions .................................................................................... 2

1.5 Limitations and Exceptions ................................................................................ 2

1.6 Special Terms and Conditions .......................................................................... 3

1.7 User Reliance .................................................................................................... 4

1.8 Important Information about Geoenvironmental Reports .................................. 4

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Location and Legal Description ......................................................................... 5

2.2 Subject Site Vicinity General Characteristics .................................................... 5

2.3 Current Use of the Subject Site ......................................................................... 5

2.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads and Other Improvements on the Property .. 5

2.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties ................................................................ 6

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ............................................................................ 7

3.1 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ........................................ 7

3.2 Specialized Knowledge ..................................................................................... 7

3.3 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information ........................... 7

3.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ................................................. 7

3.5 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information ..................................... 8

3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA ................................................................. 8

3.7 Other .................................................................................................................. 8

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Physical Setting Source(s) ................................................................................ 9

4.1.1 Topography ............................................................................................ 9

4.1.2 Surface Water ........................................................................................ 9

4.1.3 Geology and Soils .................................................................................. 9

4.1.4 Hydrogeology ....................................................................................... 10

4.1.5 Oil and Gas Fields ................................................................................ 11

4.2 Standard Environmental Record Sources ....................................................... 11 1327
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
- ii -

4.2.1 Subject Site .......................................................................................... 11

4.2.2 Offsite ................................................................................................... 12

4.2.3 Vapor Encroachment ........................................................................... 14

4.2.4 Regulatory Agency Contacts ............................................................... 14

4.2.5 Other Reports ....................................................................................... 15

4.3 Historical Use Information on the Property...................................................... 18

4.3.1 Aerial Photographs ............................................................................... 18

4.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps ............................................................... 19

4.3.3 Fire Insurance Maps ............................................................................ 20

4.3.4 Historical City Directories ..................................................................... 21

4.3.5 Building Department Records .............................................................. 21

4.3.6 Other Historical Sources ...................................................................... 21

4.3.7 Summary of Historical Land Use ......................................................... 22

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ........................................................................................ 23

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ............................................................. 23

5.2 General Property Setting ................................................................................. 23

5.3 Exterior and Interior Observations ................................................................... 23

5.3.1 Hazardous Substances, Drums, and Other Chemical Containers ....... 23

5.3.2 Storage Tanks ...................................................................................... 23

5.3.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ....................................................... 24

5.3.4 Waste Disposal .................................................................................... 24

5.3.5 Dumping ............................................................................................... 24

5.3.6 Pits, Ponds, Lagoons, Septic Systems, Wastewater, Drains, Cisterns, and Sumps ...................................................................................................... 24

5.3.7 Pesticide Use ....................................................................................... 24

5.3.8 Staining, Discolored Soils, Corrosion ................................................... 24

5.3.9 Stressed Vegetation ............................................................................. 25

5.3.10 Unusual Odors ..................................................................................... 25

5.3.11 Onsite Wells ......................................................................................... 25

5.3.12 Other Observations ............................................................................. 25

6.0 INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................ 26

6.1 Interview with Owner ....................................................................................... 26 1328
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
- iii -

6.2 Interview with Property Manager ..................................................................... 26

6.3 Interviews with Occupants ............................................................................... 26

6.4 Interviews with Local Government Officials..................................................... 26

6.5 Interviews with Others ..................................................................................... 26

7.0 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 27

7.1 Onsite .............................................................................................................. 27

7.2 Offsite .............................................................................................................. 28

7.3 Data Gaps ....................................................................................................... 28

8.0 OPINION ................................................................................................................... 29

8.1 Onsite .............................................................................................................. 29

8.2 Offsite .............................................................................................................. 29

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 30

10.0 DEVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 31

11.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .......................................................................................... 32

12.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS ............................... 33

12.1 Corporate ......................................................................................................... 33

12.2 Individual ......................................................................................................... 33

12.3 Environmental Professional Statement ........................................................... 33 List of Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Plan
Appendix A – References
Appendix B – Site Reconnaissance Photos
Appendix C – Interview Forms
Appendix D – Environmental Lien and AUL Search Report
Appendix E – Environmental Radius Report and Vapor Encroachment Screen Appendix F – Historical Research Documentation
Appendix G – GBA Geoenvironmental Report
1329
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 1 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Authorization
Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property located at 840 The City Drive South in the city of Orange, Orange County, California (subject site – Figure 1) in accordance with the authorization of SLR Development California, LLC (SLR).

1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify, to the extent feasible and pursuant to the processes prescribed in ASTM International (ASTM) E1527-13, recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical RECs (HRECs), or controlled RECs (CRECs) in connection with the subject site.

RECs are defined, according to ASTM E1527-13 as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any 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. De minimis conditions are not RECs.”
HRECs are defined, according to ASTM E1527-13 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.” CRECs are defined, according to ASTM E1527-13 as “a REC 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.” (ASTM E1527-13, 2013). 1330
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 2 -

1.3 Scope of Work
The scope of work was performed in accordance with Leighton’s proposal dated June 11, 2019 and included the following tasks:
 A reconnaissance-level visit of the subject site for evidence of the release(s) of hazardous materials and petroleum products and to assess the potential for onsite releases of hazardous materials and petroleum products;  Records review (including review of previous environmental reports, selected governmental databases, and historical review);
 Interviews; and
 Preparation of this report presenting our findings.

1.4 Significant Assumptions
Leighton assumes that the purpose of this Phase I ESA is to provide appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and use of the subject site so that the Client may qualify for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) landowner liability protections as defined in CERCLA, 42 USC §9601(35)(B). Leighton also assumes that the information provided by the Client and its agents, regulatory database provider, and regulatory agencies is true and reliable.

1.5 Limitations and Exceptions
Leighton performed the Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E1527-13 of the subject site. Other than the non-scope items shown in Section 1.6 that were not applicable, there were no exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice.

Property specific activities performed by Leighton and information collected regarding these activities are summarized within this report. The findings of the Phase I ESA are presented in Section 7.0. Opinions, and conclusions drawn by Leighton, based on the information collected as part of the Phase I ESA, are presented in Sections 8.0 and 9.0, respectively. References are included as Appendix A. Subject site photographs are presented in Appendix B. Completed interview forms are included as Appendix C. The Environmental Lien and 1331
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 3 -
Activities and Use Limitations (AUL) Search report is included in Appendix D.

The Environmental Radius Report and Vapor Encroachment Screen are included as Appendix E. Historical documentation is provided in Appendix F.

This Phase I ESA was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions.

The observations and conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on the scope of activities, work schedule, and information obtained through the Phase I ESA described herein. Opinions presented herein apply to property conditions existing at the time of our study and cannot necessarily be taken to apply to property conditions or changes that we are not aware of or have not had the opportunity to evaluate. It must be recognized that conclusions drawn from these data are limited to the amount, type, distribution, and integrity of the information collected at the time of the investigation, the methods utilized to collect and evaluate the data, and that a full and complete determination of environmental risks cannot be made. Although Leighton has taken steps to obtain true copies of available information, we make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this information.

This practice does not address whether requirements in addition to all appropriate inquiry have been met in order to qualify for the landowner liability protections including the continuing obligation not to impede the integrity and effectiveness of activity and use limitations, or the duty to take reasonable steps to prevent releases, or the duty to comply with legally required release reporting obligations. Users should also be aware that there are likely to be other legal obligations with regard to hazardous substances or petroleum products discovered on the subject site that are not addressed in this practice and that may pose risks of civil and/or criminal sanctions for non-compliance.

1.6 Special Terms and Conditions
The scope of work for this Phase I ESA did not include testing of electrical equipment for the presence of PCBs or collection of other environmental samples such as soil, groundwater, air, building materials, paint, or other media; assessment of natural hazards such as naturally occurring asbestos, radon gas or methane gas; assessment of the potential presence of radionuclides; or 1332
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 4 -
assessment of nonchemical hazards such as the potential for damage from earthquakes or floods, or the presence of endangered species or wildlife habitats. This Phase I ESA also did not include an extensive assessment of the environmental compliance status of the subject site or of businesses operating at the subject site.

1.7 User Reliance
This report is for the exclusive use of SLR. Use of this report by any other party shall be at such party’s sole risk.

1.8 Important Information about Geoenvironmental Reports SLR is referred to Appendix G regarding important information provided by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) on geoenvironmental studies and reports.
1333
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 5 -

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location and Legal Description
The subject site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Garden Grove Boulevard (West Memory Lane) and The City Drive South at the address of 840 The City Drive South in the city of Orange, Orange County, California (Figure 1). The Orange County Assessor’s office designated the subject site as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 231-261-13 and a portion of APN 231-261-17.

The address of 790 The City Drive South is also associated with a portion of the subject site (APN 231-261-17. A legal description for the subject site APNs is included in the Environmental Lien and AUL Search Report attached in Appendix D.

2.2 Subject Site Vicinity General Characteristics
The subject site vicinity is generally developed for residential and commercial use.

2.3 Current Use of the Subject Site
The subject site is an approximately 1.83-acre rectangular lot that is currently developed with a single-story, multi-tenant commercial building and associated asphalt-paved parking lot (Appendix B, Photos 1 through 7).

Current tenants include Tropical Smoothie Café (Suites A, B, and C), Venus Hair and Nails (Suite D), a gym (Suites E and F, also referred as Complex Common), Yogi’s restaurant (Suite G), Pepito’s Mexican restaurant (Suite H), and Choco Latte (Suite J). Suite I is currently vacant.

2.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads and Other Improvements on the Property The subject site is developed with one, approximately 9,500-square foot, singlestory building and an asphalt-paved parking lot. The building was constructed circa 1989.

The following utilities provide service to the subject site.

Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company
1334
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 6 -
Source of Potable Water: City of Orange
Electric: Southern California Edison
Sewage Disposal: City of Orange
Solid Waste Disposal: CR&R

2.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
The subject site is bordered to the east by The City Drive South, followed by a parking lot and the Santa Ana River; to the south by Garden Grove Boulevard (West Memory Lane), followed by residential properties; to the west by commercial office building and parking lots; and to the north by a hotel (Best Western).

1335
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 7 -

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
The user of this Phase I ESA is identified as SLR. As a part of the ASTM E1527-13 process, Mr. Adam Covington of SLR, completed a questionnaire for the subject site. A copy of this questionnaire is provided in Appendix C.

3.1 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations Mr. Covington indicated that he was not aware of environmental liens and AULs filed or recorded for the subject site.

No environmental liens or AULs were identified in the Environmental Lien and AUL Search report provided by NETR, dated July 3, 2019. A copy of the Environmental Lien and AUL Search report is included in Appendix D.

3.2 Specialized Knowledge
Mr. Covington acknowledged that he was aware of the existing retail, office, and parking use of the subject site. The planned use of the subject site is mixed residential and commercial, similar in nature to the existing use. Mr. Covington was aware of the former dry cleaning facility located at the subject site and his knowledge regarding this facility is further described below in Section 3.3.

3.3 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information Mr. Covington was aware of the past use of the property as a dry cleaning facility and the storage and use of chemicals associated with the dry cleaning facility.

Mr. Covington has knowledge of the ongoing investigation of the release of chemicals to the environment related to the past use of the property as a dry cleaning facility. Mr. Covington supplied several reports regarding current and past environmental assessments completed at the subject site. A summary of these assessments is provided in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.5 of this report.

3.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
Mr. Covington indicated that the purchase price being paid for the subject site is based on fair market value.
1336
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 8 -

3.5 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information
According to Mr. Covington and the Environmental Lien and AUL Search report, the subject site is currently owned by GPI-OCS, LLC (Granite Properties, Inc.) and managed by ABM. The subject site is occupied by several restaurants, a salon, and a gym.

3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA
According to Mr. Covington, the reason for requesting this Phase I ESA is for due diligence purposes related to the purchase of the subject site.

3.7 Other
Previous environmental assessments completed at the subject site were provided by SLR and are summarized in Section 4.2.5 of this report. 1337
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 9 -

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW

4.1 Physical Setting Source(s)
Leighton reviewed pertinent maps and readily available literature for information on the physiography and hydrogeology of the subject site. A summary of this information is presented in the following subsections.

4.1.1 Topography
The subject site is located in Section 35 of Township 4 South, Range 10 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. Topographic map coverage of the subject site vicinity is provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Anaheim, California Quadrangle (2012). The elevation of the subject site is approximately 118 feet above mean sea level and the topography is relatively flat.

4.1.2 Surface Water
Surface water was not observed on the subject site. The Santa Ana River is located approximately 430 feet east of the subject site.

4.1.3 Geology and Soils
The subject site is located in the Downey Plain within the southeastern margin of the Los Angeles Basin, a large structural depression within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. In general, the Downey Plain is bordered by the Coyote and Peralta Hills on the north, the Santa Ana Mountains and Tustin Plain to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the south and Los Angeles Coastal Plain to the west. Several broadly warped coastal mesas represent uplifted areas along the active NewportInglewood structural fault zone. These mesas are separated by erosional gaps which were created by historic routes of the Santa Ana River (Leighton, 2019).

The subject site lies near the lower reaches of the Santa Ana River and associated floodplain. The surface distribution of Holocene sediments, as recorded in early editions of regional soil survey maps, suggests that the Santa Ana River has recently wandered back and forth across the Downey Plain from Alamitos Bay to Newport Bay. Historical accounts, 1338
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 10 -
documents, and results of our study further support widespread sheet flooding and marine transgression as being the dominant depositional process associated with the Santa Ana River floodplain (Leighton, 2019).

Generally, the near-surface Quaternary age young Holocene age (11,000 years to present) alluvial range in depths from 5 to 55 feet below ground surface (bgs) and are characterized as thinly bedded to massive, loose to medium dense, fine to coarse grained sands with varying proportions of silt and clay capping the site to thinly bedded, to massive, firm to stiff, laminated silt and clay with occasional thin beds of predominately fine grained sands. A transition to older Pleistocene age (1.8 million to 11,000 years) sediments, characterized by the dominantly reddish brown, dense sandy gravel was encountered at approximately 76 feet bgs (Leighton, 2019).

4.1.4 Hydrogeology
During on concurrent geotechnical investigation of the subject site, groundwater was encountered and measured during drilling activities at the following depths:

Boring
Approximate
Boring
Elevation
(feet msl)
Depth to
Perched
Groundwater
(feet bgs)
Depth to
Measured
Groundwater
(feet bgs)
Approximate
Groundwater
Elevation
(feet msl)
LB-1 121 35 41 80
LB-2 120 33 32 89
Review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California indicates the historically shallowest groundwater depth is reported to occur between approximately 25 to 30 feet bgs in the subject site vicinity (CGS, 2001).

Geotracker, a State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) online data warehouse which tracks regulatory data about underground fuel tanks, fuel pipelines, and public drinking water supplies, was reviewed regarding reported depths to groundwater in the vicinity. Groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site was reported at depths between 40 and 50 feet bgs.

Based on surface topography and the location and flow direction of the 1339
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 11 -
adjacent Santa Ana River, it is likely that the flow direction of groundwater in the subject site vicinity is generally towards the southwest.

4.1.5 Oil and Gas Fields
Leighton reviewed the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), Online Mapping System, on July 2, 2019. Evidence of oil wells or oil field-related facilities was not indicated on the subject site or within 0.25-miles of the subject site.

4.2 Standard Environmental Record Sources
A search of selected government databases was conducted by Leighton using the EDR Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck® environmental database report system. Details and descriptions of the database search are provided in the EDR database report. The database report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The database listings were reviewed within the specified radii established by the ASTM E1527-

13. A copy of this report is included in Appendix E.

4.2.1 Subject Site
Cecilia’s Cleaners, a former dry cleaner, was identified in the EDR databased report at the subject site address of 840 The City Drive South, Orange, California. Cecilia’s Cleaners (and its predecessor Round Clock Cleaners, Inc.) was located at the subject site from at least 1989 to sometime after 2000. Historical information indicates that the cleaners used tetrachloroethene (PCE) from at least 1989 through 1999. A release of PCE occurred at the subject site and has affected soil and soil gas at the property. The current property owner entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) with the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) in November 2017, for assistance and direction in assessing and potentially remediating the release of the PCE at the subject site. The EDR database report indicates that a Risk Assessment Report is projected to be completed in March 2019 and the Remedial Investigation Report is projected to be completed in 2020. Additional information regarding the former Cecilia’s Cleaners is included in Section

4.2.5 of this report.
1340
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 12 -

4.2.2 Offsite
Information in the EDR database report was reviewed for facilities of potential environmental concern to the subject site. Additionally, the SWRCB Geotracker website and DTSC Envirostor website were used to supplement the information in the EDR database report.

The database search results for offsite properties, including those found within the “orphaned” unmapped listings, with potential to adversely impact the subject site are listed in the table below:
1341
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 13 -
Table 1 - Databases Searched
Database Search Distance
(radius)
Properties of Potential
Concern
Federal NPL List 1.0-mile No
Delisted NPL List 1.0-mile No
Federal CERCLIS List 0.5-mile No
CERCLIS – No Further Action 0.5-mile No
CORRACTS 1.0-mile No
Federal RCRA TSDF List 0.5-mile No
RCRA Generators List 0.25-mile Yes (2)
US ENG Controls List 0.5-miles No
US INST Controls List 0.5-mile No
US Brownfields 0.5-mile No
Historic CAL-Sites 1.0-mile No
SWRCY 0.5-mile Yes (1)
Response 1.0-mile No
Envirostor 1.0-mile Yes (2)
SCH 0.25-mile No
SWF/LF Facilities 0.5-mile No
LUST Facilities 0.5-mile Yes (17)
CAL FID UST 0.25-mile Yes (1)
SLIC 0.5-mile No
UST 0.25-mile Yes (2)
Historical UST 0.25-mile Yes (2)
AST 0.25-mile Yes (1)
SWEEPS UST 0.25-mile Yes (2)
DEED 0.5-mile No
VCP 0.5-mile No
Drycleaners 0.25-mile No
Indian RESERV 1.0-mile No
Indian LUST 0.5-mile No
Indian UST 0.25-mile No
EDR Manufactured Gas Plants 1.0-mile No
EDR Historical Auto Stations 0.25-mile No
EDR Historical Cleaners 0.25-mile No
See EDR Radius Report (Appendix E) for list of acronyms and data sources 1342
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 14 -
The listings identified in the EDR database report were reviewed and not interpreted to represent an adverse effect to the subject site at the time of this report preparation based on one or more of the following:
 Type of release (soil only);
 Closure received from regulatory agency;
 Distance of the facility to the subject site; and
 Direction of groundwater flow (southwest) and location of the facility to the subject site (cross-gradient or down-gradient).

4.2.3 Vapor Encroachment
Leighton reviewed the Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) produced using EDR’s Vapor Encroachment Worksheet application that gathers regulatory database information from the accompanying Radius Report and allows the user to integrate groundwater information, regional geology, and other information to evaluate the concern for potential vapor encroachment from onsite activities and from adjacent properties. The VES application was designed by EDR to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of the ASTM Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Encroachment into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions (E2600-10), also referred to as the Tier 1 VES, as defined by ASTM E2600-10.

Based on the results of previous onsite soil gas assessments, vapor encroachment/intrusion is considered a concern and a REC. A summary of the previous soil gas assessments is included in Section 4.2.5 and a copy of the VES report has been included as Appendix E.

4.2.4 Regulatory Agency Contacts
On July 2, 2019, Leighton requested regulatory records for the addresses associated with the subject site. The following agencies were contacted or their respective online databases were researched:
 DTSC (Cypress and Chatsworth offices);
 Santa Ana Reginal Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB); 1343
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 15 -
 City of Orange Fire Department (OFD);
 Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA); and
 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

Records were not found for the subject site, except for one case activity log at the OCHCA discussing the results of the 1999 and 2014 environmental assessments completed at the subject site (discussed in Section 4.2.5 below) and the decision to not open a case. It should be noted that the DTSC Cypress Office is the current oversight agency associated with the cleanup of the former onsite dry cleaner release; however, the office responded that they are unable to located records. Records for the subject site were reviewed via the DTSC’s online database, Envirostor. These records were incorporated into Section 4.2.5 of this report.

National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS)
Leighton reviewed records posted on the National Pipeline Mapping System’s NPMS Public Map Viewer on July 2, 2019. No pipelines containing hazardous liquids were shown on or adjacent to the subject site (NPMS, 2019).

4.2.5 Other Reports
Cecilia’s Cleaners (and its predecessor Round Clock Cleaners, Inc.) was located at the subject site from at least 1989 to sometime after 2000.

Historical information indicates that the cleaners used PCE from at least 1989 through 1999. After 2000, PCE use ceased and the cleaner was reportedly a drop-off and wet laundry facility only. Cecilia’s Cleaners closed in 2012. The former dry cleaner’s location is currently occupied by a fitness center used by employees working in the surrounding office business park.

A 1999 soils investigation of the dry cleaner facility detected 15 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) of PCE in a soil sample collected in the area of the dry cleaning machine (SCS, 2019).
1344
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 16 -
In July 2014, URS Corporation (URS) completed a soil gas survey at the subject site to evaluate and address the potential vapor intrusion concern associated with the release of PCE at the subject site. The investigation consisted of the collection of eight soil gas samples from a depth of 3 feet bgs from within the former dry cleaner suite. PCE was detected at concentrations ranging from 0.77 to 2.66 micrograms per liter (µg/L). The URS investigation did not fully characterize the lateral extent of the PCE contamination in soil gas (URS, 2014).

In March 2015, SCS Engineers (SCS) completed an additional subsurface soil gas investigation at the subject site consisting of the collection of subslab and 5-foot bgs soil gas samples at seven locations throughout the subject site. The objective of the additional investigation was to further characterize the PCE impacts associated with the former dry cleaning facility and evaluate the vapor intrusion risk at the subject site. Based on the results of this and previous investigations, SCS concluded that the nature and extent of PCE in soil gas has been defined with PCE detected at a depth of 5 feet bgs at concentrations ranging from 0.16 to 0.98 μg/L and in sub-slab soil gas samples at concentrations ranging from 0.04 to

0.26 μg/L. SCS noted that PCE concentrations had significantly decreased within the nine month period since the prior URS soil gas survey, from a high of 2.66 μg/L in July 2014 to a high of 0.98 μg/L during the March 2015 investigation (SCS, 2015).

In November 2017, GPI-OCS, LLC entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the DTSC to oversee the assessment and cleanup activities associated with the release of PCE at the former Cecilia Cleaners. In March 2018, the DTSC requested indoor air sampling to assess the potential presence of PCE in indoor air samples collected from within the fitness center, now operating in the former dry cleaner suite.

Additional indoor air sampling was requested in September 2018 and an Indoor Air Quality Investigation Report was completed in March 2019 (SCS, 2019).

In March 2018 and November 2018, SCS collected indoor air samples from with the current fitness center (former dry cleaner) suite. Each sampling event consisted of the collection of two indoor air samples and two outdoor “ambient” air samples for background purposes. The indoor air samples were collected from representative locations within the 1345
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 17 -
building as agreed upon by SCS and DTSC staff. One indoor location (IA1) was located inside a fitness classroom bounded by glass walls in the northern portion of the fitness center. The second indoor location (IA-2) was located near the location of the former dry cleaning equipment, in the southern portion of the fitness center. Indoor air samples were collected within the breathing zone (approximately 3 to 5 feet above the floor level).

The outdoor ambient air samples were collected from the roof towards the upwind side of the building based on a prevailing wind direction from the west-northwest. Sample AA-1 was located near the HVAC intake situated above the southern portion of the fitness center tenant space. Sample AA-2 was collected from the upwind, southwestern corner of the building.

SCS concluded, based on the results of this investigation, that PCE, the primary VOC of concern at the subject site was not present in indoor air at concentrations above its residential or commercial/industrial DTSCRecommended screening levels and a concurrent health risk assessment (HRA) conducted for the commercial worker, gym goer/exerciser, and future resident did not identify cancer risk exceeding the EPA’s action level of 1x10-6 or hazard quotient greater than 1 (SCS, 2019). SCS also concluded that subsurface soil and soil gas sampling did not identify PCE at levels that would pose a significant risk to groundwater and subsurface concentrations of PCE were low, limited in extent, and well defined. Soil gas VOC concentrations over time show PCE concentrations are decreasing, suggesting that its presence is being removed by natural attenuation or diffusion (SCS, 2019).

While the assessments completed by others and described above concluded that there is no significant concern associated with the past release of PCE at the subject site, the previous assessments were completed primarily to determine the potential risk to current occupants/users based on the existing commercial land use and building configuration. Thirteen soil samples were collected from the subject site in 1999 and did not indicate a significant impact to subsurface soil. Several soil gas samples have been collected from the subject site in 2014, 2015, and 2019. The collection of soil gas samples has been limited to the upper 5 feet bgs at the subject site and the vertical and lateral extent of PCE concentrations in soil gas exceeding the residential land use scenario have not been adequately defined. In addition, the groundwater beneath the subject site is relatively shallow (approximately 35 to 40 feet bgs) and has not been assessed. Based on this information, it is 1346
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 18 -
Leighton’s opinion that the past release of PCE at the subject site is considered a REC.

4.3 Historical Use Information on the Property
Leighton reviewed selected historical information on the subject site. These references were reviewed for evidence of activities, which would suggest the presence of hazardous substances at the subject site and to evaluate the potential for the subject site to be impacted by offsite sources of contamination.

The following paragraphs are a chronological summary of the review.

4.3.1 Aerial Photographs
Historical aerial photographs were reviewed for information regarding past subject site uses. Aerial photographs dated 1938, 1947, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1977, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1995, 2005, 2009, 2012, and 2016, provided by EDR, were reviewed. Copies of these photographs are included in Appendix F.

In the 1938 aerial photograph, the subject site and surrounding properties to the north, east, and south are observed within the Santa Ana River limits.

The adjacent property to the west of the subject site is observed to be orchards. Garden Grove Boulevard is observed to the south of the subject site.

In the 1947 aerial photograph, the subject site and surrounding properties to the north and east are observed to be vacant land. The adjacent property to the west of the subject site is observed to be orchards. Garden Grove Boulevard is observed to the south of the subject site, followed by additional orchards and a few residences.

In the 1953 and 1963 aerial photographs, the subject site and surrounding properties to the north and east are observed to be vacant land. The City Drive South is observed to the east of the subject site. The adjacent property to the west of the subject site is observed to be orchards. Garden Grove Boulevard is observed to the south of the subject site, followed by additional orchards and a few residences. In the 1963 aerial photograph, the orchards to the south of the subject site have been replaced with residential properties.
1347
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 19 -
In the 1972 and 1977 aerial photographs, two small commercial buildings and a parking lot are observed on the subject site. The surrounding properties to the north and west of the subject site are observed to be part of a larger commercial and/or industrial complex. Land use changes are not observed on the surrounding properties to the east and south of the subject site.

In the 1987 aerial photograph, the southern portion of the subject site is observed to be vacant land. A building and asphalt-paved area are observed on the northern portion of the subject site. Construction of the present-day commercial complex is observed on the surrounding properties to the west and north of the subject site. Commercial redevelopment is observed to the east of the subject site, across The City Drive South.

Residential properties and vacant land are observed to the south of the subject site, across Garden Grove Boulevard.

In the 1989, 1990, 1995, 2005, 2009, and 2012 aerial photographs, the present-day commercial development is observed on the subject site and surrounding properties to the west, north, and east. Residential properties and vacant land are observed to the south of the subject site, across Garden Grove Boulevard.

In the 2016 aerial photograph, the subject site and surrounding properties are observed to be in their present-day use and configuration.

4.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps
Historical topographic maps provided in the EDR Historical Topographic Map Report were reviewed for information regarding past subject site uses, and include the following quadrangles: Anaheim (1896, 1898, 1901, 1942, 1949, 1950, 1965, 1972, 1981, and 2012), Corona (1902), and Garden Grove (1935). Copies of these maps are provided in Appendix F. 1896, 1898, 1901, 1902, and 1935: No structures, tanks, or wells are depicted on the subject site. The Santa Ana River is depicted to the east of the subject site. Present-day Garden Grove Boulevard is depicted to the south of the subject site.
1942: Orchards are depicted on the subject site and surrounding properties to the north, west, and south. The Santa Ana River is depicted to the east 1348
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 20 -
of the subject site. Present-day Garden Grove Boulevard is depicted to the south of the subject site. It should be noted that orchards were not observed on the subject site in the 1938 and 1947 aerial photographs. 1949 and 1950: The subject site is depicted as vacant land. Orchards are depicted to the north, west, and south of the subject site. The Santa Ana River is depicted to the east of the subject site. Present-day Garden Grove Boulevard is depicted to the south of the subject site. 1964: The subject site and surrounding properties to the north, east, and west are depicted as vacant land. Residences are depicted to the south of the subject site. Present-day Garden Grove Boulevard is depicted to the south of the subject site. Present-day The City Drive South is depicted to the east of the subject site, followed by the Santa Ana River. 1972 and 1981: The subject site is depicted as vacant land. A large commercial building is depicted northwest of the subject site. Residences are depicted to the south of the subject site. Present-day Garden Grove Boulevard is depicted to the south of the subject site. Present-day The City Drive South is depicted to the east of the subject site, followed by the Santa Ana River.
2012: Only landmark buildings are shown on the topographic map. No buildings are depicted on the subject site and surrounding properties.

Garden Grove Boulevard is depicted to the south of the subject site. The City Drive South is depicted to the east of the subject site.

4.3.3 Fire Insurance Maps
Fire insurance maps, or Sanborn® maps, are detailed city plans showing building footprints, construction details, use of structure, street address, etc. The maps were designed to assist fire insurance agents in determining the degree of hazard associated with a particular property.

Sanborn Maps were produced from approximately 1867 to the present for commercial, industrial, and residential sections of approximately 12,000 cities and towns in the United States.

Sanborn® Maps were not published for the subject site and surrounding properties.
1349
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 21 -

4.3.4 Historical City Directories
City Directories have been published for cities and towns across the US since the 1700s. Originally a list of residents, the City Directory developed into a tool for locating individuals and businesses in particular. For each street address listed, the directory recorded the name of the resident or business that operated from this addresses. While City Directory coverage is usually comprehensive for major cities, it may be sporadic for rural areas and small towns. The purpose of the City Directory research was to attempt to determine the businesses that were historically located at the subject site and adjacent addresses.

Leighton reviewed the EDR City Directory Abstract dated July 3, 2019 (Appendix F). Records were reviewed from 1920 to 2014 at approximate 5- year intervals. The following business of concern was listed in the City Directory Abstract:

Occupant Year(s)
Cecilia Cleaners 1991
Luxury Cleaners 2010

Several residences and commercial office were listed for the surrounding properties. No surrounding properties of concern were included in the city directory report.

4.3.5 Building Department Records
Leighton reviewed building permits for the subject site addresses on the city of Orange online permit database. No permits of environmental concern were noted in the report. Construction of the current onsite building was permitted in 1989.

4.3.6 Other Historical Sources
Other historical sources were not reviewed as a part of this Phase I ESA.

1350
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 22 -

4.3.7 Summary of Historical Land Use
Based on historical records, land usage is summarized as follows:

Time Period Land Usage Reference
Prior to 1896 Unknown None Available
Approximately 1898
to 1970 Vacant, undeveloped land Aerial Photographs Topographic Maps Approximately 1970
to 1989
Two commercial buildings and
parking lot
Aerial Photographs
Topographic Maps
Previous Reports
Approximately 1989
to present
One multi-tenant commercial building
and parking lot (dry cleaners from
1989 until 2010).

Site Reconnaissance
Aerial Photographs
Topographic Maps
City Directories
Previous Reports
1351
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 23 -

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
On July 1, 2019, a representative of Leighton conducted a reconnaissance–level assessment of the subject site, which consisted of observing and documenting existing conditions of the subject site and nature of the neighboring development.

Photographs of the subject site are presented in Appendix B and their view directions are noted on Figure 2. Items noted during the subject site reconnaissance are also depicted on Figure 2.

5.2 General Property Setting
The subject site vicinity is generally developed for residential and commercial use.

The subject site is an approximately 1.83-acre rectangular lot that is currently developed with a single-story, multi-tenant commercial building and associated asphalt-paved parking lot (Appendix B, Photos 1 through 7). The onsite structure is approximately 9,500-square foot and was constructed circa 1989.

5.3 Exterior and Interior Observations

5.3.1 Hazardous Substances, Drums, and Other Chemical Containers Other than small quantities (less than 5 gallons) of general cleaning supplies, no hazardous substance, drums, or other chemical containers were observed onsite.

5.3.2 Storage Tanks
Evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs) (such as vent lines, fill or overfill ports) and/or aboveground storage tanks was not observed on the subject site.
1352
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 24 -

5.3.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
One pad-mounted transformer was observed in the southwest portion of the subject site. No leaks or stains were observed on the ground beneath or around the transformer. This transformer is not considered a REC associated with the subject site.

5.3.4 Waste Disposal
General waste is stored in bins located in the eastern portion of the subject site and is regularly removed from the site by the CR&R.

One in-ground, food-grade grease trap was observed on the south side of the onsite building. The grease trap is not considered a REC associated with the subject site.

5.3.5 Dumping
Evidence of active dumping was not observed on the subject site.

5.3.6 Pits, Ponds, Lagoons, Septic Systems, Wastewater, Drains, Cisterns, and Sumps
Several floor drains were located in the kitchens and restrooms of the onsite building. The drains appeared to be free of oil or other hazardous substances.

Evidence of pits, ponds, lagoons, septic systems, wastewater, cisterns, and sumps was not observed on the subject site.

5.3.7 Pesticide Use
Evidence of pesticide use was not observed on the subject site.

5.3.8 Staining, Discolored Soils, Corrosion
Stained, discolored soil or evidence of corrosion was not observed on the subject site.
1353
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 25 -

5.3.9 Stressed Vegetation
Evidence of stressed vegetation was not observed on the subject site.

5.3.10 Unusual Odors
Unusual odors were not detected on the subject site.

5.3.11 Onsite Wells
Oil, gas production, or water wells were not observed on the subject site.

5.3.12 Other Observations
No other observations of environmental concern were noted at the subject site.
1354
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 26 -

6.0 INTERVIEWS
Leighton conducted interviews with persons having knowledge of current or past subject site usage. Interviews were conducted either orally or in the form of a written questionnaire. Written responses, if any, are included as Appendix C.

6.1 Interview with Owner
An owner interview form was forwarded to the current owner of the subject site.

As of the date of this report, a completed interview form has not yet been received by Leighton.

6.2 Interview with Property Manager
Mr. Jason Ferranti, a representative of ABM (the subject site property management company), was interviewed on July 1, 2019 during our completion of the site reconnaissance. Mr. Ferranti was not aware of any hazardous materials used or stored onsite. He stated that the only underground features he is aware of are electric vaults and a grease trap (clarifier) located on the south side of the existing structure. Mr. Ferranti was not aware of past uses of the subject site, other than the current commercial use.

6.3 Interviews with Occupants
Current restaurant employees were not interviewed as part of this Phase I ESA.

6.4 Interviews with Local Government Officials
Leighton did not interview employees with local government agencies to request information regarding historic and current uses of the subject site with the exception of those noted in Section 4.2.

6.5 Interviews with Others
Leighton did not conduct additional interviews for this Phase I ESA. 1355
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 27 -

7.0 FINDINGS
Leighton performed a Phase I ESA of the property located at 840 The City Drive South in the city of Orange, Orange County, California (subject site – Figure 1) in accordance with SLR’s authorization.

7.1 Onsite
Historically, the subject site was vacant land from at least 1896 until approximately 1970, when two commercial buildings and parking lot associated with a larger commercial development to the northwest of the subject site were constructed onsite. The use of those commercial buildings is unknown. The commercial buildings were demolished circa 1987 and the current commercial development was constructed in 1989.

Currently, the subject site is an approximately 1.83-acre rectangular lot that is developed with a single-story, multi-tenant commercial building and associated asphalt-paved parking lot (Appendix B, Photos 1 through 7). The onsite structure is approximately 9,500-square foot and was constructed circa 1989. Current tenants include Tropical Smoothie Café (Suites A, B, and C), Venus Hair and Nails (Suite D), a gym (Suites E and F, also referred as Complex Common), Yogi’s restaurant (Suite G), Pepito’s Mexican restaurant (Suite H), and Choco Latte (Suite J). Suite I is currently vacant.

Since its development in 1989, tenants of the subject site consist primarily of restaurants, hair salons, and various commercial offices. Cecilia Cleaners, a dry cleaning facility, operated onsite in the current gym suite from 1989 until 2012.

Historical information indicates that the cleaners used PCE from at least 1989 through 1999. A release of PCE to subsurface soil and soil gas has been documented in the southern portion of the subject site. Assessment and potential remediation activities are currently ongoing and are being completed under the oversight of the DTSC.

Previous environmental assessments completed by others have concluded that there is no significant concern associated with the past release of PCE at the subject site; however, the previous assessments were completed primarily to determine the potential risk to current occupants/users based on the existing commercial land use and building configuration. Thirteen soil samples were collected from the subject site in 1999 and did not indicate a significant impact to 1356
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 28 -
subsurface soil. Several soil gas samples have been collected from the subject site in 2014, 2015, and 2019 and PCE has been detected at concentrations exceeding the residential land scenario. The collection of soil gas samples has been limited to the upper 5 feet bgs at the subject site and the vertical and lateral extent of PCE concentrations in soil gas exceeding the residential land use scenario have not been adequately defined. In addition, the groundwater beneath the subject site is relatively shallow (approximately 35 to 40 feet bgs) and has not been assessed. Based on this information, it is Leighton’s opinion that the past release of PCE at the subject site is considered a REC.

7.2 Offsite
Historically, the adjacent properties to the west and south were orchards and to the north was vacant land until the 1970s, when a large commercial development was constructed to the north and west of the subejct site and residences were constructed to the south of the subject site. The large commercial development remained on the property to the north and west of the subject site until the late 1980s, when the current commercial development was constructed. The surrounding property to the east was vacant land until development for commercial use in the late 1980s.

Currently, the subject site is bordered to the east by The City Drive South, followed by a parking lot and the Santa Ana River; to the south by Garden Grove Boulevard (West Memory Lane), followed by residential properties; to the west by commercial office building and parking lots; and to the north by a hotel (Best Western).

No offsite properties with potential to impact the subject site were identified during the completion of this Phase I ESA.

7.3 Data Gaps
The following data gap was identified by Leighton:
 Completed Owner Interview has not been received by Leighton.

It is Leighton’s opinion, based on other reasonably obtained data, that this data gap is not significant to identifying RECs in connection with the subject site. 1357
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 29 -

8.0 OPINION

8.1 Onsite
It is Leighton’s opinion that the documented release of PCE that has affected subsurface soil and soil gas at the subject site is considered a REC.

It is Leighton’s opinion that no CRECs or HRECs were identified for the subject site.

8.2 Offsite
No offsite RECs were identified that would negatively impact the subject site. 1358
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 30 -

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Leighton has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E1527-13 of the property located at 840 The City Drive South in the city of Orange, Orange County, California. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.5 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs, HRECs, or CRECs in connection with the subject site, except for the following:
 The documented release of PCE that has affected subsurface soil and soil gas at the subject site is considered a REC. Thirteen soil samples were collected from the subject site in 1999 and did not indicate a significant impact to subsurface soil.

Several soil gas samples have been collected from the subject site in 2014, 2015, and 2019 and PCE has been detected at concentrations exceeding the residential land scenario. The collection of soil gas samples has been limited to the upper 5 feet bgs at the subject site and the vertical and lateral extent of PCE concentrations in soil gas exceeding the residential land use scenario have not been adequately defined. In addition, the groundwater beneath the subject site is relatively shallow (approximately 40 feet bgs) and has not been assessed.

No evidence of CRECs or HRECs was identified for the subject site.

Based on the findings of this Phase I ESA, Leighton recommends the following:
 Completion of additional soil gas and groundwater assessment at the subject site.

In general, observations should be made during future property development for areas of possible contamination such as, but not limited to, the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, waste drums, and tanks, stained soil or odorous soils. Should such materials be encountered, further investigation and analysis may be necessary at that time.

1359
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 31 -

10.0 DEVIATIONS
Leighton did not deviate from or alter the scope of work, as defined in Section 1.3 of this report. Significant data gaps were not identified that affect the ability of Leighton to identify RECs at the subject site.
1360
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 32 -

11.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Leighton did not perform work outside the scope of work as defined in Section 1.3 of this report.
1361
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
- 33 -

12.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS

12.1 Corporate
Leighton is a California corporation, providing geotechnical and environmental consulting services throughout California. We are solely a consulting firm without interests in real property other than our office locations in Southern California.

We provide professional environmental consulting services including application of science and engineering to environmental compliance, hazardous materials/waste assessment and cleanup, and management of hazardous, solid and industrial waste. Phase I Environmental Site Assessments are a part of this practice area and have been conducted by us.

12.2 Individual
The qualifications of the Principal Geologist and the other Leighton environmental professionals involved in this Phase I ESA meet the Leighton corporate requirements for performing Phase I ESAs as specified by ASTM E1527-13. In addition, Ms. Brynn McCulloch is a Professional Geologist (PG).

12.3 Environmental Professional Statement
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional, as defined by §312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312.

I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Site. I have developed and performed all the appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
_____________________
Brynn McCulloch, PG
Principal Geologist
1362
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Figure 1
Scale:

Leighton
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2019
Thematic Information: Leighton
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12423.001 Eng/Geol: BFM
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\002\Maps\12423-002_F01_SLM_2019-07-10.mxd on 6/28/2019 1:03:21 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Date: July 2019

SITE LOCATION MAP
840 The City Drive South,
Orange, California
Approximate
Site Boundary
1363

!
"#$

%&

1364
'
(
&
$

APPENDIX A
1365
DRAFT
Project No. 12423.001
A-1

APPENDIX A
References
ASTM International, 2013, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, Designation E1527-13, dated November 6, 2013
Bureau Veritas, 2012, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Orange City Square, 750 through 840 The City Drive South, Orange, California, dated November 5, 2012 California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Online Mapping System, Accessed July 2, 2019
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Online Database, Accessed July 2, 2019
EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, July 3, 2019
EDR Certified Sanborn Map Report, July 3, 2019
EDR City Directory Abstract, July 3, 2019
NETR Environmental Lien and AUL Search Report, July 3, 2019 EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, July 3, 2019
EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck®, July 3, 2019
SCS Engineers, 2015, Additional Site Characterization Report, Former Cecilia’s Cleaners, 840 The City Drive South, Orange, California 92868, dated April 2015 SCS Engineers, 2019, Indoor Air Quality Assessment, Former Cecilia’s Cleaners, 840 The City Drive South, Orange, California 92868, dated January 16, 2019, revised February 2019
State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Online Database, Accessed July 2, 2019
URS Corporation, 2014, Soil Vapor Survey Report: Orange City Square, 770 and 840 The City Drive South, Orange, California, dated August 25, 2014 1366

APPENDIX B
1367
Leighton and Associates, Inc. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
July 1, 2019
Client Name: SLR Site Location: 840 The City Drive South, Orange, CA Project No. 12423.001
Photo No. 1
View Direction of
Photo:

South
Description:

View of the structure
located in the
southern portion of
the subject site.

Photo No. 2
View Direction of
Photo:

Southeast
Description:

View of the structure
located in the
southern portion of
the subject site.
1368
Leighton and Associates, Inc. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
July 1, 2019
Client Name: SLR Site Location: 840 The City Drive South, Orange, CA Project No. 12423.001
Photo No. 3
View Direction of
Photo:

South
Description:

View of the eastern
portion of the subject
site.

Photo No. 4
View Direction of
Photo:

Southeast
Description:

View of the western
portion of the subject
site.
1369
Leighton and Associates, Inc. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
July 1, 2019
Client Name: SLR Site Location: 840 The City Drive South, Orange, CA Project No. 12423.001
Photo No. 5
View Direction of
Photo:

Northwest
Description:

View of the in-ground
grease trap located
on the south side of
the onsite structure.

Photo No. 6
View Direction of
Photo:

Northeast
Description:

View of the padmounted transformer
located in the
southwest portion of
the subject site.
1370
Leighton and Associates, Inc. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
July 1, 2019
Client Name: SLR Site Location: 840 The City Drive South, Orange, CA Project No. 12423.001
Photo No. 7
View Direction of
Photo:

NA
Description:

View of a standard
drain observed
throughout the
kitchen areas
associated with the
subject site.
1371

APPENDIX C
1372
1373
1374

APPENDIX D
1375
The NETR Environmental Lien
and AUL Search Report
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
Project Number: L19-01179

SLR ORANGE
790 AND 840 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH

ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
2055 East Rio Salado Parkway
Tempe, Arizona 85281
Telephone: 480-967-6752
Fax: 480-966-9422
1376

ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN AND AUL REPORT
The NETR Environmental LienSearch Report provides results from a search of available current land title records for environmental cleanup liens and other activity and use limitations, such as engineering controls and institutional controls.

A network of professional, trained researchers, following established procedures, uses client supplied property information to:
search for parcel information and/or legal description; search for ownership information;
research official land title documents recorded at jurisdictional agencies such as recorders' office, registries of deed, county clerks' offices, etc.;
access a copy of the deed;
search for environmental encumbering instrument(s) associated with the deed; provide a copy of any environmental encumbrance(s) based upon a review of key words in the instrument(s) (title, parties involved and description); and
provide a copy of the deed or cite documents reviewed;
Thank you for your business
Please contact NETR at 480-967-6752
with any questions or comments
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This report was prepared for the use of Nationwide Environmental Title Research, and Leighton and Associates, exclusively. This report is neither a guarantee of title, a commitment to insure, nor a policy of title insurance. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) specifically disclaims the making of any such warranties, including without limitation, merchantability or fitness for a particular use or purpose. The information contained in this report is retrieved as it is recorded from the various agencies that make it available. The total liability is limited to the fee paid for this report.

Copyright 2006 by Nationwide Environmental Title Research. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Nationwide Environmental Title Research, or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission
NETR and its logos are trademarks of Nationwide Environmental Title Research or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Orange City CouncilApril 11, 2023

Orange City Council
April 11, 2023