Agenda packet — Eastvale City Council, May 11, 2022 (part 6 of 8)

CASE NARRATIVE
Authorized Signature Name / Title (print) Ken Zheng, President Signature / Date Ken Zheng, President
07/21/2021 9:46:30 Laboratory Job No. (Certificate of Analysis No.) 2107-00086 Project Name / No. FORMER DAIRY
Dates Sampled (from/to) 07/12/21 To 07/12/21
Dates Received (from/to) 07/12/21 To 07/12/21
Dates Reported (from/to) 07/21/21 To 7/21/2021
Chains of Custody Received Yes
Comments:

Subcontracting
Organic Analyses
No analyses sub-contracted
Inorganic Analyses
No analyses sub-contracted
Sample Condition(s)
All samples intact
Positive Results (Organic Compounds)
None
The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1331 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 2 of 7 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92375
G073
2107-00086
Project: FORMER DAIRY
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/12/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

DAN LOUKS
1745 W.ORANGEWOOD AVE

ORANGE, CA
Sample: 001 HB1-2 Date & Time Sampled: 07/12/21 12:20 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
[TPH Gasoline (C4-C12)]
Closed System P&T TPHg Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/14/21 SR C4-C12 <0.20 mg/Kg LUFT GC/MS 1.0 0.20 07/14/21 SR
[Extractable Hydrocarbons]
Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1.0 07/19/21 JEN
C13-C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1.0 10 07/19/21 JEN
C23-C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1.0 20 07/19/21 JEN
[Surrogate]
o-Terphenyl (OTP) 50 %REC EPA 8015M 50-150 07/19/21 JEN Sample: 002 HB2-2 Date & Time Sampled: 07/12/21 13:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
[TPH Gasoline (C4-C12)]
Closed System P&T TPHg Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/14/21 SR C4-C12 <0.20 mg/Kg LUFT GC/MS 1.0 0.20 07/14/21 SR
[Extractable Hydrocarbons]
Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1.0 07/19/21 JEN
C13-C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1.0 10 07/19/21 JEN
C23-C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1.0 20 07/19/21 JEN
[Surrogate]
o-Terphenyl (OTP) 50 %REC EPA 8015M 50-150 07/19/21 JEN [Metals Title 22 no Hg]
Metals Acid Digestion Complete EPA 3050B 1.0 07/13/21 TLB Antimony <1.00 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 1.00 07/13/21 TLB
Arsenic <1.00 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 1.00 07/13/21 TLB
Barium 67.4 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Beryllium <0.500 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB Cadmium <0.500 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Chromium 18.4 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Cobalt 5.64 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Copper 9.15 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Lead 2.48 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1332 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 3 of 7 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92375
G073
2107-00086
Project: FORMER DAIRY
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/12/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

DAN LOUKS
1745 W.ORANGEWOOD AVE

ORANGE, CA
Sample: 002 HB2-2 Date & Time Sampled: 07/12/21 13:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
Molybdenum <0.500 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB Nickel 9.14 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Selenium <1.00 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 1.00 07/13/21 TLB
Silver <1.00 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 1.00 07/13/21 TLB
Thallium <1.00 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 1.00 07/13/21 TLB
Vanadium 48.5 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Zinc 28.9 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 5.00 07/13/21 TLB
[Mercury]
Mercury Digestion Complete EPA 7471A 1.0 07/13/21 KZ
Mercury <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 7471A 1.0 0.20 07/13/21 KZ
Sample: 003 HB3-2 Date & Time Sampled: 07/12/21 13:50 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
[TPH Gasoline (C4-C12)]
Closed System P&T TPHg Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/14/21 SR C4-C12 <0.20 mg/Kg LUFT GC/MS 1.0 0.20 07/14/21 SR
[Extractable Hydrocarbons]
Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1.0 07/19/21 JEN
C13-C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1.0 10 07/19/21 JEN
C23-C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1.0 20 07/19/21 JEN
[Surrogate]
o-Terphenyl (OTP) 60 %REC EPA 8015M 50-150 07/19/21 JEN [Metals Title 22 no Hg]
Metals Acid Digestion Complete EPA 3050B 1.0 07/13/21 TLB Antimony <1.00 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 1.00 07/13/21 TLB
Arsenic 1.45 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 1.00 07/13/21 TLB
Barium 88.0 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Beryllium <0.500 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB Cadmium <0.500 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Chromium 18.1 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Cobalt 5.50 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1333 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 4 of 7 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92375
G073
2107-00086
Project: FORMER DAIRY
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/12/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

DAN LOUKS
1745 W.ORANGEWOOD AVE

ORANGE, CA
Sample: 003 HB3-2 Date & Time Sampled: 07/12/21 13:50 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
Copper 9.08 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Lead 2.84 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Molybdenum <0.500 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB Nickel 9.26 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Selenium <1.00 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 1.00 07/13/21 TLB
Silver <1.00 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 1.00 07/13/21 TLB
Thallium <1.00 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 1.00 07/13/21 TLB
Vanadium 50.9 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 0.500 07/13/21 TLB
Zinc 31.0 mg/Kg EPA 6010B 1.0 5.00 07/13/21 TLB
[Mercury]
Mercury Digestion Complete EPA 7471A 1.0 07/13/21 KZ
Mercury <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 7471A 1.0 0.20 07/13/21 KZ
Sample: 004 HB4-13 Date & Time Sampled: 07/12/21 16:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
[TPH Gasoline (C4-C12)]
Closed System P&T TPHg Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/14/21 SR C4-C12 <0.20 mg/Kg LUFT GC/MS 1.0 0.20 07/14/21 SR
[Extractable Hydrocarbons]
Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1.0 07/19/21 JEN
C13-C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1.0 10 07/19/21 JEN
C23-C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1.0 20 07/19/21 JEN
[Surrogate]
o-Terphenyl (OTP) 50 %REC EPA 8015M 50-150 07/19/21 JEN [VOCs by GCMS]
Closed System P&T VOC Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/14/21 SR Acetone <0.10 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.10 07/14/21 SR
t-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Benzene <0.0040 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0040 07/14/21 SR
Bromobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Bromochloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1334 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 5 of 7 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92375
G073
2107-00086
Project: FORMER DAIRY
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/12/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

DAN LOUKS
1745 W.ORANGEWOOD AVE

ORANGE, CA
Sample: 004 HB4-13 Date & Time Sampled: 07/12/21 16:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
Bromodichloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Bromoform <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR t-Butanol (TBA) <0.0625 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0625 07/14/21 SR 2-Butanone (MEK) <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/14/21 SR n-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR sec-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR tert-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Carbon Disulfide <0.010 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.010 07/14/21 SR Carbon Tetrachloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Chlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Chloroform <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Chloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 2-Chlorotoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 4-Chlorotoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Dibromochloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.010 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.010 07/14/21 SR Dibromomethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0020 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0020 07/14/21 SR trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1335 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 6 of 7 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92375
G073
2107-00086
Project: FORMER DAIRY
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/12/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

DAN LOUKS
1745 W.ORANGEWOOD AVE

ORANGE, CA
Sample: 004 HB4-13 Date & Time Sampled: 07/12/21 16:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
2,2-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Ethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Ethyl-t-Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Hexachlorobutadiene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 2-Hexanone <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/14/21 SR Isopropylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/14/21 SR Methyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Naphthalene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR n-Propylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Styrene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Tetrachloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Toluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Trichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1336 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 7 of 7 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92375
G073
2107-00086
Project: FORMER DAIRY
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/12/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

DAN LOUKS
1745 W.ORANGEWOOD AVE

ORANGE, CA
Sample: 004 HB4-13 Date & Time Sampled: 07/12/21 16:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
Vinyl Chloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR m,p-Xylenes <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR o-Xylene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/14/21 SR [VOC Surrogates]
Dibromofluoromethane 115 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/14/21 SR Toluene-D8 116 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/14/21 SR
Bromofluorobenzene 117 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/14/21 SR Respectfully Submitted: Ken Zheng - Lab Director

ABBREVIATIONS
DF = Dilution Factor
RL = Reporting Limit, Adjusted by DF
MDL = Method Detection Limit, Adjusted by DF
Qual = Qualifier
Tech = Technician

QUALIFIERS
B = Detected in the associated Method Blank at a concentration above the routine RL.

B1 = BOD dilution water is over specifications . The reported result may be biased high.

D = Surrogate recoveries are not calculated due to sample dilution.

E = Estimated value; Value exceeds calibration level of instrument.

H = Analyte was prepared and/or analyzed outside of the analytical method holding time I = Matrix Interference.

J = Analyte concentration detected between RL and MDL.

Q = One or more quality control criteria did not meet specifications. See Comments for further explanation.

S = Customer provided specification limit exceeded.

As regulatory limits change frequently, A & R Laboratories advises the recipient of this report to confirm such limits with the appropriate federal, state, or local authorities before acting in reliance on the regulatory limits provided.

For any feedback concerning our services, please contact Jenny Jiang, Project Manager at 951.779.0310. You may also contact Ken Zheng, President at [email protected].

The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1337 CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ELAP#'s
ONTARIO, CA 91761
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT

Page 1 of 2 ends

HILLMANN CONSULTING
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Customer #
Date Sampled
92375
G073
07/12/2021
Customer P.O.
2107-00086
Project: FORMER DAIRY
07/21/2021
07/12/2021
Method # EPA 6010B QC Reference # 97304 Date Analyzed: 7/13/2021 Technician: TLB Samples 002 003 Results LCS %REC LCS %DUP LCS %RPD SPIKE %RECSPIKE %DUPSPIKE %RPD Antimony 101 100 0.6 85 86 1.1 Arsenic 100 101 0.5 79 80 0.8 Barium 97 99 1.6 92 96 0.7 Beryllium 98 100 1.7 94 95 0.8 Cadmium 100 99 0.5 74 75 0.9 Chromium 100 101 1.6 85 85 0.1 Cobalt 100 100 0.0 72 73 0.7 Copper 99 99 0.2 86 84 0.6 Lead 99 99 0.2 67 68 0.7 Molybdenum 100 100 0.3 82 83 0.7 Nickel 100 99 0.7 71 73 0.9 Selenium 99 99 0.8 69 69 0.1 Silver 98 97 0.2 85 85 0.4 Thallium 101 98 3.1 86 84 0.4 Vanadium 99 99 0.4 85 84 0.3 Zinc 100 99 0.3 74 76 0.7 Control Ranges
LCS %REC LCS %RPD SPIKE %RPD
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20
75 - 125 0 - 20 0 - 20 Method # EPA 7471A QC Reference # 97316 Date Analyzed: 7/13/2021 Technician: KZ Samples 002 003 Results LCS %REC LCS %DUP LCS %RPD SPIKE %RECSPIKE %DUPSPIKE %RPD Mercury 100 100 0 94 97 3 Control Ranges LCS %REC LCS %RPD SPIKE %RPD
75 - 125 0 - 25 0 - 25 Method # EPA 8015M
QC Reference # 97368 Date Analyzed: 7/19/2021 Technician: JEN Samples 001 002 003 004 Results LCS %REC SPIKE %RECSPIKE %DUPSPIKE %RPD
C13-C22 100 110 107 3 Control Ranges
LCS %REC SPIKE %RPD
70 - 130 0 - 25 Method # EPA 8260B QC Reference # 97344 Date Analyzed: 7/14/2021 Technician: SR Samples 004 1338
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ELAP#'s
ONTARIO, CA 91761
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT

Page 2 of 2 ends

HILLMANN CONSULTING Date Reported
Date Received
Date Sampled 07/12/2021
2107-00086
Project: FORMER DAIRY
07/21/2021
07/12/2021
Method # EPA 8260B QC Reference # 97344 Date Analyzed: 7/14/2021 Technician: SR Samples 004 Results LCS %REC
1,1-Dichloroethene 70 Benzene 118 Chlorobenzene 130 Toluene 124 Trichloroethene 122 Control Ranges
LCS %REC
50 - 150
50 - 150
50 - 150
50 - 150
50 - 150 Method # LUFT GC/MS
QC Reference # 97345 Date Analyzed: 7/14/2021 Technician: SR Samples 001 002 003 004 Results LCS %REC LCS %DUP LCS %RPD
C4-C12 93 93 0 Control Ranges
LCS %REC LCS %RPD
70 - 130 0 - 25 No method blank results were above reporting limit Respectfully Submitted: Ken Zheng - President
For any feedback concerning our services, please contact Jenny Jiang, Project Manager at 951.779.0310. You may also contact Ken Zheng, President at [email protected].
1339
1340
1341
951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 1 of 10 ends

CASE NARRATIVE
Authorized Signature Name / Title (print) Ken Zheng, President Signature / Date Ken Zheng, President
07/21/2021 9:47:07 Laboratory Job No. (Certificate of Analysis No.) 2107-00144 Project Name / No. FARM LAND
Dates Sampled (from/to) 07/16/21 To 07/16/21
Dates Received (from/to) 07/16/21 To 07/16/21
Dates Reported (from/to) 07/21/21 To 7/21/2021
Chains of Custody Received Yes
Comments:

Subcontracting
Organic Analyses
No analyses sub-contracted
Sample Condition(s)
All samples intact
Positive Results (Organic Compounds)
None
The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1342 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 2 of 10 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92383
G073
2107-00144
Project: FARM LAND
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/16/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

GSA ENGINEERING

DAN LOUKS
16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
Sample: 001 B5-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/16/21 12:00 @
Sample Matrix: Soil
[TPH Gasoline (C4-C12)]
Closed System P&T TPHg Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/19/21 JEN C4-C12 <0.20 mg/Kg LUFT GC/MS 1.0 0.20 07/19/21 JEN
[VOCs by GCMS]
Closed System P&T VOC Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/19/21 JEN Acetone <0.10 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.10 07/19/21 JEN
t-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Benzene <0.0040 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0040 07/19/21 JEN Bromobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromochloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromodichloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromoform <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN t-Butanol (TBA) <0.0625 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0625 07/19/21 JEN 2-Butanone (MEK) <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/19/21 JEN n-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN sec-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN tert-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Carbon Disulfide <0.010 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.010 07/19/21 JEN Carbon Tetrachloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chloroform <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 2-Chlorotoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 4-Chlorotoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Dibromochloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.010 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.010 07/19/21 JEN Dibromomethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1343 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 3 of 10 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92383
G073
2107-00144
Project: FARM LAND
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/16/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

GSA ENGINEERING

DAN LOUKS
16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
Sample: 001 B5-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/16/21 12:00 @
Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0020 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0020 07/19/21 JEN trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Ethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Ethyl-t-Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Hexachlorobutadiene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 2-Hexanone <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/19/21 JEN Isopropylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/19/21 JEN Methyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Naphthalene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN n-Propylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Styrene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Tetrachloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Toluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1344 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 4 of 10 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92383
G073
2107-00144
Project: FARM LAND
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/16/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

GSA ENGINEERING

DAN LOUKS
16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
Sample: 001 B5-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/16/21 12:00 @
Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Trichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Vinyl Chloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN m,p-Xylenes <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN o-Xylene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN [VOC Surrogates]
Dibromofluoromethane 106 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/19/21 JEN Toluene-D8 114 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/19/21 JEN
Bromofluorobenzene 112 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/19/21 JEN Sample: 002 B5-10 Date & Time Sampled: 07/16/21 12:40 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
[TPH Gasoline (C4-C12)]
Closed System P&T TPHg Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/19/21 JEN C4-C12 <0.20 mg/Kg LUFT GC/MS 1.0 0.20 07/19/21 JEN
[VOCs by GCMS]
Closed System P&T VOC Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/19/21 JEN Acetone <0.10 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.10 07/19/21 JEN
t-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Benzene <0.0040 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0040 07/19/21 JEN Bromobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromochloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromodichloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromoform <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1345 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 5 of 10 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92383
G073
2107-00144
Project: FARM LAND
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/16/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

GSA ENGINEERING

DAN LOUKS
16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
Sample: 002 B5-10 Date & Time Sampled: 07/16/21 12:40 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN t-Butanol (TBA) <0.0625 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0625 07/19/21 JEN 2-Butanone (MEK) <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/19/21 JEN n-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN sec-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN tert-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Carbon Disulfide <0.010 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.010 07/19/21 JEN Carbon Tetrachloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chloroform <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 2-Chlorotoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 4-Chlorotoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Dibromochloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.010 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.010 07/19/21 JEN Dibromomethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0020 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0020 07/19/21 JEN trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1346 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 6 of 10 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92383
G073
2107-00144
Project: FARM LAND
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/16/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

GSA ENGINEERING

DAN LOUKS
16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
Sample: 002 B5-10 Date & Time Sampled: 07/16/21 12:40 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Ethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Ethyl-t-Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Hexachlorobutadiene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 2-Hexanone <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/19/21 JEN Isopropylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/19/21 JEN Methyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Naphthalene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN n-Propylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Styrene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Tetrachloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Toluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Trichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Vinyl Chloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN m,p-Xylenes <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1347 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 7 of 10 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92383
G073
2107-00144
Project: FARM LAND
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/16/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

GSA ENGINEERING

DAN LOUKS
16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
Sample: 002 B5-10 Date & Time Sampled: 07/16/21 12:40 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
o-Xylene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN [VOC Surrogates]
Dibromofluoromethane 120 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/19/21 JEN Toluene-D8 114 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/19/21 JEN
Bromofluorobenzene 114 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/19/21 JEN Sample: 003 B5-14 Date & Time Sampled: 07/16/21 13:30 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
[TPH Gasoline (C4-C12)]
Closed System P&T TPHg Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/19/21 JEN C4-C12 <0.20 mg/Kg LUFT GC/MS 1.0 0.20 07/19/21 JEN
[VOCs by GCMS]
Closed System P&T VOC Soil Complete EPA 5035 1.0 07/19/21 JEN Acetone <0.10 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.10 07/19/21 JEN
t-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Benzene <0.0040 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0040 07/19/21 JEN Bromobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromochloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromodichloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromoform <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN t-Butanol (TBA) <0.0625 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0625 07/19/21 JEN 2-Butanone (MEK) <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/19/21 JEN n-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN sec-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN tert-Butylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Carbon Disulfide <0.010 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.010 07/19/21 JEN Carbon Tetrachloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Chloroform <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1348 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 8 of 10 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92383
G073
2107-00144
Project: FARM LAND
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/16/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

GSA ENGINEERING

DAN LOUKS
16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
Sample: 003 B5-14 Date & Time Sampled: 07/16/21 13:30 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
Chloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 2-Chlorotoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 4-Chlorotoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Dibromochloromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.010 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.010 07/19/21 JEN Dibromomethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0020 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0020 07/19/21 JEN trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Ethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Ethyl-t-Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Hexachlorobutadiene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 2-Hexanone <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/19/21 JEN Isopropylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <0.0313 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0313 07/19/21 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1349 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 9 of 10 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92383
G073
2107-00144
Project: FARM LAND
Analysis Result Method Date
07/21/21
07/16/21
Qual Units DF RL Tech

GSA ENGINEERING

DAN LOUKS
16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
Sample: 003 B5-14 Date & Time Sampled: 07/16/21 13:30 @ Sample Matrix: Soil
.....continued
Methyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Naphthalene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN n-Propylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Styrene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Tetrachloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Toluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Trichloroethene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN Vinyl Chloride <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN m,p-Xylenes <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN o-Xylene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0050 07/19/21 JEN [VOC Surrogates]
Dibromofluoromethane 118 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/19/21 JEN Toluene-D8 116 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/19/21 JEN
Bromofluorobenzene 113 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/19/21 JEN Respectfully Submitted: Ken Zheng - Lab Director
The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1350 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 10 of 10 ends

ABBREVIATIONS
DF = Dilution Factor
RL = Reporting Limit, Adjusted by DF
MDL = Method Detection Limit, Adjusted by DF
Qual = Qualifier
Tech = Technician

QUALIFIERS
B = Detected in the associated Method Blank at a concentration above the routine RL.

B1 = BOD dilution water is over specifications . The reported result may be biased high.

D = Surrogate recoveries are not calculated due to sample dilution.

E = Estimated value; Value exceeds calibration level of instrument.

H = Analyte was prepared and/or analyzed outside of the analytical method holding time I = Matrix Interference.

J = Analyte concentration detected between RL and MDL.

Q = One or more quality control criteria did not meet specifications. See Comments for further explanation.

S = Customer provided specification limit exceeded.

For any feedback concerning our services, please contact Jenny Jiang, Project Manager at 951.779.0310. You may also contact Ken Zheng, President at [email protected].

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1351 CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ELAP#'s
ONTARIO, CA 91761
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT

Page 1 of 1 ends

GSA ENGINEERING
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Customer #
Date Sampled
92383
G073
07/16/2021
Customer P.O.
2107-00144
Project: FARM LAND
07/21/2021
07/16/2021
Method # EPA 8260B QC Reference # 97450 Date Analyzed: 7/19/2021 Technician: JEN Samples 001 002 003 Results LCS %REC
1,1-Dichloroethene 53 Benzene 94 Chlorobenzene 107 Toluene 101 Trichloroethene 104 Control Ranges
LCS %REC
50 - 150
50 - 150
50 - 150
50 - 150
50 - 150 Method # LUFT GC/MS
QC Reference # 97451 Date Analyzed: 7/19/2021 Technician: JEN Samples 001 002 003 Results LCS %REC C4-C12 95 Control Ranges
LCS %REC
70 - 130 No method blank results were above reporting limit Respectfully Submitted: Ken Zheng - President
For any feedback concerning our services, please contact Jenny Jiang, Project Manager at 951.779.0310. You may also contact Ken Zheng, President at [email protected].
1352
1353
1354
951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 1 of 14 ends

CASE NARRATIVE
Authorized Signature Name / Title (print) Ken Zheng, President Signature / Date Ken ZHeng, President
07/23/2021 10:21:54 Laboratory Job No. (Certificate of Analysis No.) 2107-00175 Project Name / No. FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Dates Sampled (from/to) 07/21/21 To 07/21/21
Dates Received (from/to) 07/21/21 To 07/21/21
Dates Reported (from/to) 07/23/21 To 7/23/2021
Chains of Custody Received Yes
Comments:

Subcontracting
Organic Analyses
No analyses sub-contracted
Sample Condition(s)
All samples intact
Positive Results (Organic Compounds)
Sample Analyte Result Qual Units RL Sample Analyte Result Qual Units RL SG4-13 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.0049 µg/L 0.0010 SG4-13 Benzene 0.0027 µg/L 0.0010 SG4-13 Ethylbenzene 0.0069 µg/L 0.0010 SG4-13 Styrene 0.0042 µg/L 0.0010 SG4-13 Tetrachloroethene 0.030 µg/L 0.0010 SG4-13 Toluene 0.015 µg/L 0.0010 SG4-13 m,p-Xylenes 0.016 µg/L 0.0010 SG4-13 o-Xylene 0.0089 µg/L 0.0010 SG5-14 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.0030 µg/L 0.0010 SG5-14 Benzene 0.0043 µg/L 0.0010 SG5-14 Ethylbenzene 0.010 µg/L 0.0010 SG5-14 Tetrachloroethene 0.014 µg/L 0.0010 SG5-14 Toluene 0.060 µg/L 0.0010 SG5-14 m,p-Xylenes 0.024 µg/L 0.0010 SG5-14 o-Xylene 0.012 µg/L 0.0010 SG11-5 Methane 45800 ppmv 15 The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1355 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 2 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 001 SG1-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
[VOCs by GCMS]
Acetone <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN t-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Benzene <0.024 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0240 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromochloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromodichloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromoform <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromomethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN t-Butanol (TBA) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2-Butanone (MEK) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN n-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN sec-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN tert-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Carbon Disulfide <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Carbon Tetrachloride <0.025 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0250 0.050 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chloroform <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2-Chlorotoluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 4-Chlorotoluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Dibromochloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.020 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0200 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.020 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0200 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Dibromomethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1356 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 3 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 001 SG1-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
1,1-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Ethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Ethyl-t-Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Hexachlorobutadiene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2-Hexanone <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Isopropylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Methylene Chloride <0.05 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.1 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Methyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Naphthalene <0.032 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0320 0.050 07/21/21 4:00 JEN n-Propylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Styrene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.05 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Tetrachloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Toluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Trichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1357 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 4 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 001 SG1-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.020 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0200 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Trichlorofluoromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Vinyl Chloride <0.008 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0080 0.050 07/21/21 4:00 JEN m,p-Xylenes <0.10 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.1000 0.20 07/21/21 4:00 JEN o-Xylene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer]
Isopropanol (IPA) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN [VOC Surrogates]
Dibromofluoromethane 124 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Toluene-D8 113 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/21/21 4:00 JEN
Bromofluorobenzene 112 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Sample: 002 SG2-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:10 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
[VOCs by GCMS]
Acetone <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN t-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Benzene <0.024 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0240 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromochloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromodichloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromoform <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromomethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN t-Butanol (TBA) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2-Butanone (MEK) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN n-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN sec-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN tert-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1358 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 5 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 002 SG2-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:10 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
Carbon Disulfide <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Carbon Tetrachloride <0.025 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0250 0.050 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chloroform <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2-Chlorotoluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 4-Chlorotoluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Dibromochloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.020 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0200 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.020 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0200 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Dibromomethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Ethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Ethyl-t-Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Hexachlorobutadiene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1359 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 6 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 002 SG2-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:10 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
2-Hexanone <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Isopropylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Methylene Chloride <0.05 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.1 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Methyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Naphthalene <0.032 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0320 0.050 07/21/21 4:00 JEN n-Propylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Styrene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.05 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Tetrachloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Toluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Trichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.020 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0200 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Trichlorofluoromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Vinyl Chloride <0.008 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0080 0.050 07/21/21 4:00 JEN m,p-Xylenes <0.10 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.1000 0.20 07/21/21 4:00 JEN o-Xylene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer]
Isopropanol (IPA) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN [VOC Surrogates]
Dibromofluoromethane 121 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Toluene-D8 112 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/21/21 4:00 JEN
The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1360 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 7 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 002 SG2-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:10 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
Bromofluorobenzene 115 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Sample: 003 SG3-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:20 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
[VOCs by GCMS]
Acetone <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN t-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Benzene <0.024 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0240 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromochloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromodichloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromoform <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Bromomethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN t-Butanol (TBA) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2-Butanone (MEK) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN n-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN sec-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN tert-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Carbon Disulfide <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Carbon Tetrachloride <0.025 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0250 0.050 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chloroform <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Chloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2-Chlorotoluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 4-Chlorotoluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Dibromochloromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.020 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0200 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.020 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0200 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Dibromomethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1361 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 8 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 003 SG3-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:20 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Ethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Ethyl-t-Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Hexachlorobutadiene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 2-Hexanone <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Isopropylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Methylene Chloride <0.05 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.1 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Methyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Naphthalene <0.032 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0320 0.050 07/21/21 4:00 JEN n-Propylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Styrene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.05 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Tetrachloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Toluene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1362 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 9 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 003 SG3-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:20 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Trichloroethene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.020 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0200 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Trichlorofluoromethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Vinyl Chloride <0.008 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0080 0.050 07/21/21 4:00 JEN m,p-Xylenes <0.10 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.1000 0.20 07/21/21 4:00 JEN o-Xylene <0.050 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.0500 0.10 07/21/21 4:00 JEN [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer]
Isopropanol (IPA) <0.50 µg/L EPA 8260B 1.0 0.5000 1.0 07/21/21 4:00 JEN [VOC Surrogates]
Dibromofluoromethane 124 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Toluene-D8 113 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/21/21 4:00 JEN
Bromofluorobenzene 115 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 07/21/21 4:00 JEN Sample: 004 SG4-13 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:45 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
[TPH Gasoline by GCMS ]
C4-C12 <5 µg/L LUFT GCMS 1.0 5.0000 10 07/21/21 7:00 KZ [TOXIC ORGANICS IN AIR]
1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1363 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 10 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 004 SG4-13 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:45 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.0049 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Dichlorotetrafluoroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,3-Butadiene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,4-Dioxane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 2-Butanone (MEK) <0.0050 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0050 0.010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 2-Hexanone <0.0050 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0050 0.010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Isopropanol (IPA) <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 4-Ethyltoluene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <0.0050 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0050 0.010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Acetone <0.0050 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0050 0.010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Benzene 0.0027 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Benzyl chloride <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Bromoform <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Bromomethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Carbon Disulfide <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Carbon Tetrachloride <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Chloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Chloroform <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Chloromethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1364 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 11 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 004 SG4-13 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 13:45 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
Cyclohexane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Ethyl acetate <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Ethylbenzene 0.0069 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Heptane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Hexachlorobutadiene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Hexane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ m,p-Xylenes 0.016 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Methyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Methylene Chloride <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ o-Xylene 0.0089 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Propylene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Styrene 0.0042 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Tetrachloroethene 0.030 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Tetrahydrofuran <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Toluene 0.015 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Trichloroethene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Vinyl acetate <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Vinyl Chloride <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 104 %REC EPA TO-15 70-130 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Toluene-D8 110 %REC EPA TO-15 70-130 07/21/21 7:00 KZ
Dibromofluoromethane 130 %REC EPA TO-15 70-130 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Sample: 005 SG5-14 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 14:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
[TPH Gasoline by GCMS ]
C4-C12 <5 µg/L LUFT GCMS 1.0 5.0000 10 07/21/21 7:00 KZ The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1365 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 12 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 005 SG5-14 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 14:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
[TOXIC ORGANICS IN AIR]
1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.0030 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Dichlorotetrafluoroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,3-Butadiene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 1,4-Dioxane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 2-Butanone (MEK) <0.0050 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0050 0.010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 2-Hexanone <0.0050 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0050 0.010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Isopropanol (IPA) <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 4-Ethyltoluene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <0.0050 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0050 0.010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Acetone <0.0050 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0050 0.010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Benzene 0.0043 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Benzyl chloride <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Bromoform <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Bromomethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Carbon Disulfide <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1366 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 13 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 005 SG5-14 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 14:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
Carbon Tetrachloride <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Chloroethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Chloroform <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Chloromethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Cyclohexane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Ethyl acetate <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Ethylbenzene 0.010 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Heptane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Hexachlorobutadiene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Hexane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ m,p-Xylenes 0.024 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Methyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Methylene Chloride <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ o-Xylene 0.012 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Propylene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Styrene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Tetrachloroethene 0.014 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Tetrahydrofuran <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Toluene 0.060 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Trichloroethene <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Vinyl acetate <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Vinyl Chloride <0.0005 µg/L EPA TO-15 0.2 0.0005 0.0010 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 103 %REC EPA TO-15 70-130 07/21/21 7:00 KZ The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1367 951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City#
ELAP#'s 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C
ONTARIO, CA 91761
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

Page 14 of 14 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Cust #
Permit Number
Customer P.O.
92403
G073
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
Analysis Result Method Date
07/23/21
07/21/21
Qual Units DF MDL RL Time Tech

HILLMANN CONSULTING

BRANDON CLEMENTS
1745 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE
STE#110
ORANGE, CA 92868
Sample: 005 SG5-14 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 14:00 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
.....continued
Toluene-D8 112 %REC EPA TO-15 70-130 07/21/21 7:00 KZ
Dibromofluoromethane 130 %REC EPA TO-15 70-130 07/21/21 7:00 KZ Sample: 006 SG11-5 Date & Time Sampled: 07/21/21 15:30 @ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor
Methane 45800 ppmv EPA 8015M 1.0 10.0000 15 07/21/21 9:04 KZ Respectfully Submitted: Ken Zheng - President

ABBREVIATIONS
DF = Dilution Factor
RL = Reporting Limit, Adjusted by DF
MDL = Method Detection Limit, Adjusted by DF
Qual = Qualifier
Tech = Technician

QUALIFIERS
B = Detected in the associated Method Blank at a concentration above the routine RL.

B1 = BOD dilution water is over specifications . The reported result may be biased high.

D = Surrogate recoveries are not calculated due to sample dilution.

E = Estimated value; Value exceeds calibration level of instrument.

H = Analyte was prepared and/or analyzed outside of the analytical method holding time I = Matrix Interference.

J = Analyte concentration detected between RL and MDL.

Q = One or more quality control criteria did not meet specifications. See Comments for further explanation.

S = Customer provided specification limit exceeded.

For any feedback concerning our services, please contact Jenny Jiang, Project Manager at 951.779.0310. You may also contact Ken Zheng, President at [email protected].

USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1368 CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City# 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ELAP#'s
ONTAIRO, CA 91761
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT

Page 1 of 3 ends

HILLMANN CONSULTING
ORANGE, CA 92868 Date Reported
Date Received
Invoice No.

Customer #
Date Sampled
92403
G073
07/21/2021
Customer P.O.
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
07/23/2021
07/21/2021
Method # EPA 8015M
QC Reference # 97480 Date Analyzed: 7/21/2021 Technician: KZ Samples 006 Results LCS %REC LCS %DUP LCS %RPD Methane 90 75 16 Control Ranges LCS %REC LCS %RPD
70 - 130 0 - 25 Method # EPA 8260B QC Reference # 97486 Date Analyzed: 7/21/2021 Technician: JEN Samples 001 002 003 Results LCS %REC
1,1-Dichloroethene 70 Benzene 117 Chlorobenzene 130 Toluene 128 Trichloroethene 126 Control Ranges
LCS %REC
70 - 130
70 - 130
70 - 130
70 - 130
70 - 130 Method # EPA TO-15 QC Reference # 97487 Date Analyzed: 7/21/2021 Technician: KZ Samples 004 005 Results LCS %REC
1,1-Dichloroethene 70 Benzene 79 Chlorobenzene 130 Toluene 90 Trichloroethene 121 Control Ranges
LCS %REC
70 - 130
70 - 130
70 - 130
70 - 130
70 - 130 Method # LUFT GCMS QC Reference # 97489 Date Analyzed: 7/21/2021 Technician: KZ Samples 004 005 Results LCS %REC C4-C12 90 Control Ranges
LCS %REC
70 - 130
1369
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City# 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ELAP#'s
ONTAIRO, CA 91761
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT

Page 2 of 3 ends

HILLMANN CONSULTING Date Reported
Date Received
Date Sampled 07/21/2021
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
07/23/2021
07/21/2021
Method blank results
Ref Test Name Result Qualif Units MDL Ref Test Name Result Qualif Units MDL 97480 Methane <10 ppmv 10
97486 Acetone <0.50 µg/L 0.50
t-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Benzene <0.024 µg/L 0.024 Bromobenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Bromochloromethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Bromodichloromethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Bromoform <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Bromomethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 t-Butanol (TBA) <0.50 µg/L 0.50
2-Butanone (MEK) <0.50 µg/L 0.50 n-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 sec-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
tert-Butylbenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Carbon Disulfide <0.50 µg/L 0.50 Carbon Tetrachloride <0.025 µg/L 0.025 Chlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Chloroethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Chloroform <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Chloromethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 2-Chlorotoluene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
4-Chlorotoluene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Dibromochloromethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.020 µg/L 0.020
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.020 µg/L 0.020 Dibromomethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,2-Dichloroethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,1-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,2-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,3-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L 0.050
2,2-Dichloropropane <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,1-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Ethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Ethyl-t-Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Hexachlorobutadiene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 2-Hexanone <0.50 µg/L 0.50
Isopropylbenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
4-Isopropyltoluene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Methylene Chloride <0.05 µg/L 0.05 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <0.50 µg/L 0.50 Methyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Naphthalene <0.032 µg/L 0.032 n-Propylbenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Styrene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.05 µg/L 0.05 Tetrachloroethene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Toluene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Trichloroethene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.020 µg/L 0.020 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.050 µg/L 0.050 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.050 µg/L 0.050 Vinyl Chloride <0.008 µg/L 0.008 m,p-Xylenes <0.10 µg/L 0.10 o-Xylene <0.050 µg/L 0.050
Isopropanol (IPA) <0.50 µg/L 0.50
97487 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.0005 µg/L 0.0005 Benzene <0.0005 µg/L 0.0005 Chlorobenzene <0.0005 µg/L 0.0005 Toluene <0.0005 µg/L 0.0005 Trichloroethene <0.0005 µg/L 0.0005 Bromofluorobenzene %REC 97489 C4-C12 <5 µg/L 5
1370
CHEMISTRY · MICROBIOLOGY · FOOD SAFETY · MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD · COSMETICS · WATER · SOIL · SOIL VAPOR · WASTES
951-779-0310
FDA#
LA City# 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ELAP#'s
ONTAIRO, CA 91761
FAX 951-779-0344
2030513
10261
2789
2790
2122
A & R Laboratories, Inc.
www.arlaboratories.com [email protected]

QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT

Page 3 of 3 ends

HILLMANN CONSULTING Date Reported
Date Received
Date Sampled 07/21/2021
2107-00175
Project: FARMLAND / 12741 LIMONITE, EASTVALE
07/23/2021
07/21/2021
Respectfully Submitted: Ken Zheng - President
For any feedback concerning our services, please contact Jenny Jiang, Project Manager at 951.779.0310. You may also contact Ken Zheng, President at [email protected].
1371
1372
Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-8510 Leal Ranch, Eastvale, California

APPENDIX C
Drilling Logs
1373

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB1
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 12, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-2 <1 HB1-2 SM Silty SAND; brown, very fine to fine grained, loose, no odor.
2-4 ML Clayey SILT; gray-brown, low plasticity, dry, no odor. 5 SM Silty SAND; brown, very fine to medium grained, some gravel, loose, no odor.

Install Probe SG1 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1374

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB2
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 12, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-2 <1 HB2-2 ML Sandy SILT; brown, very fine to fine sand, loose, no odor. 2-4 ML Clayey SILT; gray-brown, low plasticity, dry, no odor. 5 SM Silty SAND; brown, very fine to medium grained, 10% fine gravel, no odor.

Install Probe SG2 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1375

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB3
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 12, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-2 <1 HB3-2 SM Silty SAND; brown, very fine to fine grained, loose, no odor.
2-4 ML Clayey SILT; gray-brown, low plasticity, dry, no odor. 5 SW SAND; light brown, very fine to coarse grained, poorly sorted, some silt, dry, no odor.

Install Probe SG3 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1376

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB4
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 12, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 13 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
5 <1 HB4-5 SM Silty SAND; greenish gray, very fine to fine grained, dry, no odor.
10 <1 HB4-10 ML Clayey Sandy SILT; greenish-gray, low plasticity, damp, no odor.
13 <1 HB4-13 SM Silty SAND; greenish-gray, very fine to coarse grained, some clay, 20% fine gravel, no odor.

Refusal at 13 feet.

Install Probe SG4 at 13 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1377

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB5
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 16, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 14 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
2 ML Sandy SILT; light brown, very fine sand, loose, no odor. 5 <1 HB5-5 SM Silty SAND; light gray, very fine to medium grained, dry, no odor.
10 <1 HB5-10 SW SAND; light brown, very fine to coarse grained, poorly sorted, 10% fine gravel, no odor.
14 <1 HB5-14 SM Silty SAND; light brown, very fine to coarse grained, 20% fine gravel, no odor.

Refusal at 14 feet.

Install Probe SG5 at 14 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1378

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB6
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 16, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0 No Surficial Animal Waste
0-5 <1 ML Sandy Clayey SILT; brown, low plasticity, dry.

Install Probe SG6 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1379

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB7
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 16, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-1 Surficial Animal Waste 0-1 feet
1-5 <1 SM Silty SAND; greenish gray, very fine to fine grained, some gravel, dry.

Install Probe SG7 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1380

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB8
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 16, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 10 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-1 Surficial Animal Waste 0-1 feet
1-5 <1 SM Silty SAND; greenish gray, very fine to fine grained, some gravel, dry.
5-10 <1 ML Sandy SILT; gray, very fine sand, low plasticity, dry.

Install Probe SG8 at 10 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1381

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB9
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 16, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-1 Surficial Animal Waste 0-1 feet
1-5 <1 ML Sandy SILT; gray, very fine sand, low plasticity, dry.

Install Probe SG9 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1382

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB10
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 19, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0 No Surficial Animal Waste
0-2 SM Silty SAND; brown, very fine to fine grained, 10% fine gravel, dry.
2-5 <1 ML Clayey SILT; gray, low plasticity, dense, dry, no odor.

Install Probe SG10 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1383

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB11
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 19, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-1.5 Surficial Animal Waste 0-1.5 feet
2 SM Silty SAND; greenish gray, very fine grained, loose. 2-4 SW Gravelly SAND; greenish gray, very fine to coarse grained, 10% fine gravel, dry.
5 <1 ML Clayey SILT; gray, low plasticity, dense, dry, no odor.

Install Probe SG11 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1384

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB12
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 19, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 10 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-1.5 Surficial Animal Waste 0-1.5 feet
2 ML Clayey SILT; dark greenish gray, low plasticity, soft, slightly moist.
2-10 <1 SM Silty SAND; greenish gray, very fine sand, some clay, damp, no odor.

Install Probe SG12 at 10 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1385

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB13
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 19, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-1 Surficial Animal Waste 0-1 feet
1-5 ML Clayey SILT; greenish gray, low plasticity, hard, dense, no odor.

Install Probe SG13 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1386

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB14
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 19, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-2 Surficial Animal Waste 0-2 feet
2-4 ML Clayey SILT; greenish gray, low plasticity, hard, dense, no odor.
1-5 SW SAND; greenish gray, very fine to fine grained, poorly sorted, 10% fine gravel, dry, no odor.

Install Probe SG14 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1387

DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG
BORING/WELL NUMBER HB15
PROJECT Leal Ranch OWNER
LOCATION Limonite Avenue-58th St, Eastvale, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED July 19, 2021 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5 Feet

SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER
SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE
DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger
DRILLER Neil/Dan LOG BY Dan Louks
DEPTH
(FEET)

WELL CONST PID
(PPM)

SAMPLES SOIL
CLASS

DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES)

PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW (USCS)
0-1 Surficial Animal Waste 0-1 feet
1-5 ML Sandy SILT; brown, low plasticity, very fine sand, dry.

Install Probe SG15 at 5 feet. Install sand pack. Seal with bentonite and neat cement to surface.
1388
Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-8510 Leal Ranch, Eastvale, California

APPENDIX D
Soil Gas Monitoring Data
1389
Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-8510 Leal Ranch, Eastvale, California

SOIL GAS MONITORING DATA FORM
PROJECT: Dairy Farm
LOCATION: Leal Ranch, Eastvale, California
DATE: July 21, 2021

VAPOR PROBE INFO
PROBE ID SG1 SG2 SG3 SG4 SG5
PROBE DEPTH (ft) 5 5 5 13 14

EXTRACTION DATA
Applied Vacuum (in. WC) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
FLOW (L/min) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Pore Volumes (borehole - sand pack) 3 3 3 3 3

MONITORING DATA
OXYGEN (%) 17.9 19.5 19.0 18.8 17.8
CARBON DIOXIDE (%) 3.6 1.65 2.88 2.83 4.68
VOC by PID (ppm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Methane (% LEL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

VAPOR PROBE INFO

PROBE ID
PROBE DEPTH (ft)

EXTRACTION DATA
Applied Vacuum (in. WC)
FLOW (L/min)
Pore Volumes (borehole - sand pack)

MONITORING DATA
OXYGEN (%)
CARBON DIOXIDE (%)
VOC by PID (ppm)
REMARKS:

SAMPLED BY: DL
1390
Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-8510 Leal Ranch, Eastvale, California

SOIL GAS MONITORING DATA FORM
PROJECT: Dairy Farm
LOCATION: Leal Ranch, Eastvale, California
DATE: July 21, 2021

VAPOR PROBE INFO
PROBE ID SG6 SG7 SG8 SG9 SG10 SG11 SG12 SG13
PROBE DEPTH (ft) 5 5 10 5 5 5 10 5

EXTRACTION DATA
Static Pressure (in. WC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FLOW (L/min) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Pore Volumes (borehole - sand pack) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

MONITORING DATA
OXYGEN (%) 20.1 6.8 3.7 9.2 20.2 3.0 4.3 11.5
CARBON DIOXIDE (%) 0.78 >5 >5 >5 1.21 >5 >5 >5
VOC by PID (ppm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Methane (%LEL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 >100 2.7 0.0

VAPOR PROBE INFO
PROBE ID SG14 SG15
PROBE DEPTH (ft) 5 5

EXTRACTION DATA
Static Pressure (in. WC) 0.0 0.0
FLOW (L/min) 0.2 0.2
Pore Volumes (borehole - sand pack) 3 3

MONITORING DATA
OXYGEN (%) 4.1 20.1
CARBON DIOXIDE (%) >5 0.89
VOC by PID (ppm) 0.0 0.0
Methane (%LEL) 39 0.0 --
REMARKS:

SAMPLED BY: DL
1391
Appendix G
1392

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY

ANALYSIS
FOR

LEAL RANCH
(TENTATIVE MAP NO. 38290)

NORTHWEST OF LIMONITE AVENUE

AND HAMNER AVENUE

CITY OF EASTVALE, CA
November 29, 2021
Prepared for:

New Home Company
15231 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 382-7800
Prepared by:

Hunsaker & Associate Irvine, Inc.
3 Hughes
Irvine, CA 92618
(949)583-1010
1393

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY

ANALYSIS
For

LEAL RANCH
(TENTATIVE MAP NO. 38290)

NORTHWEST OF LIMONITE AVENUE

AND HAMNER AVENUE

CITY OF EASTVALE, CA
Prepared Date: 11/29/2021
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:
11/29/2021
Jianhua “Gary” Guan, R.C.E. 64519, Exp. 06/30/23 Date:
1394

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE
1 INTRODUCTION &DISCUSSION
A. PROJECT LOCATION
B. STUDY PURPOSE
C. METHODOLOGY
D. DISCUSSION
· Existing Condition
· Proposed Condition
· Hydrology Calculation Results
E. UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND BASIN ROUTING
F. CONCLUSION
G. HYDROLOGIC DATA
2 PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
3 PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY MAP
4 UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND BASIN ROUTING CALCULATIONS
5 REFERENCES
● AS-BUILT STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLANS ALONG
LIMONITE AVENUE (MDP LINE “D-5”, RCFCD DWG NO. 2-0-323) ● AS-BUILT STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLANS ALONG
SCHOLAR WAY AND 58TH STREET (MDP LINE “D-3”, RCFCD
DWG NO. 2-0-308)
● AS-BUILT STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLANS ALONG
HAMNER AVENUE (MDP LINE “E”, RCFCD DWG NO. 2-0-310)
1395
SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION
1396
1 A. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site for the proposed New Home Company development (Leal Ranch - Tentative Tract 38290) is currently a vacant and undeveloped land in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County. The site has a total area of approximately 159.2 acres. It is bounded to the north by 58th Street and existing residential homes beyond; to the east by Hamner Avenue and existing residential homes and a commercial shopping center (Eastvale Gateway); to the south by Limonite Avenue and existing residential homes and a commercial shopping center beyond; and to the west by Scholar Way and existing residential homes beyond; See Vicinity Map for details.

B. STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to provide a hydrology analysis for the flow rates produced from the proposed site and assure the proposed flow rates would not exceed the existing storm drain design flow rates in the surrounding streets.

It also serves as the basis for analyzing and designing proposed and required storm drain drainage facilities. The study also demonstrates the proposed detention basin to reduce the increased storm runoffs due to the project development to the existing storm drain design flows. In addition, water quality treatment measures are proposed to ensure the developed flows to be treated prior to releasing to downstream watercourses.

C. METHODOLOGY
This hydrology study was prepared in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) criteria and Hydrology Manual (Manual) dated April 1978. All pertinent information is included in this report.

The hydrologic calculations were prepared using the CivilD Rational Method computer program. The results of the hydrologic calculations were used to design the required storm drain facilities.

D. DISCUSSION
Existing Condition:

Current development in the project site is comprised of one of the city’s last operating dairies, the Leal family home, and a horse farm.

The project site is part of the Eastvale Master Drainage Plan (MPD) improvements.

There are existing storm drain systems in the surrounding streets – Limonite Avenue, Scholar Way, Hamner Avenue and 58th Street. The as-built storm drain plans can be 1397
2 found in Reference Section 5. The storm drains in the surrounding streets discharge into Cleveland Avenue Detention Basin per Eastvale Master Drainage Plan.

The project site sheet flows from north to south and to the existing storm drains along Limonite Avenue. The project site is part of Limonite Avenue storm drain (Line D-5) per Eastvale Master Drainage Plan. There are existing storm drain stubs provided for the future developments
Proposed Condition:

The New Home Company is proposing to develop the project into 14 Planning Areas (Lots 1-14) and 19 lettered lots (A-S) to accommodate a mixed use development consisting of multi-family residential, general retail (shopping center), general offices, medical offices, hotels, civic center, parks and supporting infrastructure improvements.

Storm drain systems are provided to convey the project site runoffs to the existing storm drain systems. Majority of the project site flows will join the existing storm drain systems along Limonite Avenue, following the Eastvale Master Drainage Plan. There are catch basins provided for the street improvements along 58th Street, Hamner Avenue, Limonite Avenue and Scholar Way. The catch basin laterals will be proposed to join the existing storm drains along the streets.

In addition to on-site drainage improvements, the proposed project will provide 2 water quality basins and one combined water quality/detention Basin for water quality treatments and mitigation of flow increases due to the project developments.

Hydrology Calculation Results:

There are three Drainage Areas in the proposed condition hydrology study, only the 100-year storm hydrology analysis were performed.

Drainage Area “A” consists half street improvements along Hamner Avenue and the storm drain laterals are provided to join the existing 66” RCP per Eastvale Master Drainage Plan Line “E”. It is anticipated that the proposed catch basins and laterals would follow the Eastvale MPD and would not have adverse impacts to the existing storm drain systems.

Drainage Area “B” consists majority of the project developments and the proposed storm drains are proposed to join the existing storm drains along Limonite Avenue (MDP Line “D-5”). The total 100-year storm peak flow rate is about 316.4 cfs with 149.1 acres of tributary areas. The design flow rate per the as-built plans is about 160 cfs.

The project flows are more than the design flows for the existing storm drain systems.

Drainage Area “C” consists half street improvements along 58th Street and Scholar Way and the storm drain laterals are provided to join the existing 60” RCP and 72” RCP per 1398
3 Eastvale Master Drainage Plan Line “D-3”. It is anticipated that the proposed catch basins and laterals would follow the Eastvale MPD and would not have adverse impacts to the existing storm drain systems.

E. UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND BASIN ROUTING ANALYSIS
Per the 100-year hydrology analysis, the proposed peak flow rates are above the existing storm drain design flow rates for Limonite Storm drain. The proposed 100-year flow rate is about 316.4 cfs and the design flow rate is about 160 cfs.

Detention Basin
The underground Detention Basin with the sizes of approximately 360-ft long, 120-ft wide and 6-ft deep was provided at the southwest corner of the project site to reduce the peak flow rates to the existing storm drain design flows. The water quality basin is proposed at the south of the proposed underground detention basin for water quality basin. Please note the proposed detention basin and water quality basin locations and sizes are preliminary and subject to change during the final design.

Unit hydrograph and basin routing analysis were performed for the 100-year storm. The detailed unit hydrograph and basin routing calculations including stage-storage-outflow information can be found in the Section 4 and the basin routing summary can be found in Table 1. As shown from Table 1, the proposed detention facilities can mitigate the flow increases and reduce the flows to 252.1 cfs (inflow to the basin) to 82.0 cfs (outflow from the basin) with a flow reduction of 170.1 cfs. The total 100-year peak flow rate for Limonite Avenue storm drain is about 151.9 cfs with the proposed detention basin; refer to Table 2 for detailed explanations.

Table 1 Basin Routing Summary for Tentative Map No. 38290 in City of Eastvale
Storm
Inflow outflow flow reduction
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
100-year 252.1 82.0 170.1
Note: the inflow used in the basin routing analysis was from Node 71 1399
4 Table 2 100-year Flow Summary for Limonite Avenue Storm Drain after the flow mitigation provided by detention basin
in City of Eastvale
Node
Flow without
Mitigation
Flow
reduction per
Table 1
Flow after
Mitigation
Ex. Storm
Drain Design
Flow Rate
Flow after
Mitigation
less than the
ex. SD Design
Flow?
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
yes
75 322.0 170.1 151.9 160.0
As shown from Table 2, the proposed flows (151.9 cfs) is less than the existing storm drain design flow rate (160 cfs) with the proposed basin and would have no adverse impacts to the existing downstream storm drain systems.

Water Quality:

A complete Water Quality Report is present under a separate cover.

F. CONCLUSION
The New Home Company is proposing to develop the project into 14 Planning Areas (Lots 1-14) and 19 lettered lots (A-S) to accommodate a mixed use development consisting of multi-family residential, general retail (shopping center), general offices, medical offices, hotels, civic center, parks and supporting infrastructure improvements.

The proposed project would result in the storm runoff volume and peak flow rate increases due to the project developments at certain discharge points. The project proposes the water quality and detention basins to provide water quality treatments and flow increase mitigations. The flow rates after accounting for the proposed basins are below the design flow rates along Limonite Avenue. Catch basins and laterals are provided for the half street improvements along Scholar Way, 58th Street and Hamner Avenue.

As a result of the project development, it is our opinion that the project would follow Eastvale Master Drainage Plan and would have no adverse impacts to the downstream drainage systems.
1400
PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: DRAWN BY: TIH DATE: 10/18/2021 W.O.: 2749-44 PROJECT SITE "LEAL RANCH" - TTM 38290 NORTHWEST OF LIMONITE AVENUE & HAMNER AVENUE CITY OF EASTVALE, CALIFORNIA VICINITY MAP 1401
5 G. HYDROLOGIC DATA
1402
2 YEAR, 1 HOUR
Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
41660 IVY STREET, SUITE A
MURRIETA, CA 92562
PH. 951.304.9552 FAX 951.304.3568
RAINFALL = 0.50

LEAL RANCH
1403
100 YEAR, 1 HOUR
Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
41660 IVY STREET, SUITE A
MURRIETA, CA 92562
PH. 951.304.9552 FAX 951.304.3568
RAINFALL = 1.20

LEAL RANCH
1404

SLOPE INTENSITY
CURVE
Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
41660 IVY STREET, SUITE A
MURRIETA, CA 92562
PH. 951.304.9552 FAX 951.304.3568
RAINFALL = 0.55

LEAL RANCH
1405
1406
SECTION 2

PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY

CALCULATIONS
1407
Page | 1
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 11/24/21 File:lealp.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TENTATIVE MAP NO. 38290 - LEAL Developments
CITY OF Eastvale

PROPOSED CONDITION
100-YEAR STORM
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6406
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 2 year, 1 hour precipitation = 0.500(In.)
100 year, 1 hour precipitation = 1.200(In.)
Storm event year = 100.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5500
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 550.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 684.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 680.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 3.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00636 s(percent)= 0.64
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.293 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.164(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 2.442(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.900(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
1408
Page | 2
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** ______________________________________________________________________ Top of street segment elevation = 680.500(Ft.)
End of street segment elevation = 677.000(Ft.)
Length of street segment = 510.000(Ft.)
Height of curb above gutter flowline = 6.0(In.)
Width of half street (curb to crown) = 48.000(Ft.)
Distance from crown to crossfall grade break = 38.000(Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.020
Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) = 0.020
Street flow is on [1] side(s) of the street
Distance from curb to property line = 39.000(Ft.)
Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) = 0.020
Gutter width = 2.000(Ft.)
Gutter hike from flowline = 2.000(In.)
Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150
Manning's N from gutter to grade break = 0.0150
Manning's N from grade break to crown = 0.0150
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street = 3.832(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.384(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.153(Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel:

Halfstreet flow width = 12.859(Ft.)
Flow velocity = 2.15(Ft/s)
Travel time = 3.95 min. TC = 14.24 min.

Adding area flow to street
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.853
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Rainfall intensity = 2.647(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 2.711(CFS) for 1.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 5.153(CFS) Total area = 2.100(Ac.)
Street flow at end of street = 5.153(CFS)
Half street flow at end of street = 5.153(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.417(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.310(Ft/s) Flow width (from curb towards crown)= 14.503(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 1000.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 677.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 668.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 8.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00850 s(percent)= 0.85
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 12.338 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.864(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.855
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
1409
Page | 3
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 5.144(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.100(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 6.000 to Point/Station 7.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 600.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 670.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 667.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 3.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00500 s(percent)= 0.50
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 11.184 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.023(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.856
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 3.366(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.300(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 11.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 630.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 674.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 668.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 6.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00952 s(percent)= 0.95
TC = k(0.323)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.794 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.083(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.814
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Initial subarea runoff = 16.055(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 6.400(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.200
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 668.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 667.500(Ft.)
1410
Page | 4
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Pipe length = 65.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 16.055(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 16.055(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 16.38(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 22.34(In.)
Critical Depth = 17.34(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.03(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.15 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.95 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.95 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.059(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 2.096(CFS) for 0.800(Ac.)
Total runoff = 18.151(CFS) Total area = 7.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.95 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.059(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 2.096(CFS) for 0.800(Ac.)
Total runoff = 20.248(CFS) Total area = 8.000(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 667.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 664.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 480.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 20.248(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 20.248(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 20.91(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 16.08(In.)
Critical Depth = 19.37(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.97(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 1.15 min.
1411
Page | 5
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Time of concentration (TC) = 12.10 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ UNDEVELOPED (good cover) subarea
Runoff Coefficient = 0.514
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 38.00
Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Time of concentration = 12.10 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.895(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 2.976(CFS) for 2.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 23.224(CFS) Total area = 10.000(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 14.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 664.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 661.300(Ft.)
Pipe length = 440.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 23.224(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 27.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 23.224(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 21.14(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 22.26(In.)
Critical Depth = 20.23(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.95(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 1.06 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 13.15 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 14.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.15 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.765(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 23.155(CFS) for 9.800(Ac.)
Total runoff = 46.378(CFS) Total area = 19.800(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 14.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
1412
Page | 6
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.15 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.765(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 8.270(CFS) for 3.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 54.648(CFS) Total area = 23.300(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 15.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 661.300(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 661.100(Ft.)
Pipe length = 30.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 54.648(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 36.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 54.648(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 29.63(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 27.49(In.)
Critical Depth = 28.80(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 8.78(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.06 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 13.21 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 15.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.21 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.759(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.178(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 55.827(CFS) Total area = 23.800(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 15.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.21 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.759(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.414(CFS) for 0.600(Ac.)
1413
Page | 7
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Total runoff = 57.241(CFS) Total area = 24.400(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 16.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 661.100(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 660.800(Ft.)
Pipe length = 35.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 57.241(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 36.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 57.241(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 27.38(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 30.73(In.)
Critical Depth = 29.39(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 9.92(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.06 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 13.27 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 16.000 to Point/Station 16.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.27 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.752(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.940(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 58.181(CFS) Total area = 24.800(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 16.000 to Point/Station 16.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.27 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.752(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 3.997(CFS) for 1.700(Ac.)
Total runoff = 62.178(CFS) Total area = 26.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 16.000 to Point/Station 17.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 660.800(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 660.500(Ft.)
1414
Page | 8
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Pipe length = 75.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 62.178(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 42.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 62.178(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 33.56(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 33.66(In.)
Critical Depth = 29.63(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.54(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.17 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 13.43 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 17.000 to Point/Station 17.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.43 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.733(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 3.969(CFS) for 1.700(Ac.)
Total runoff = 66.147(CFS) Total area = 28.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 17.000 to Point/Station 18.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 660.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 659.400(Ft.)
Pipe length = 980.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 66.147(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 54.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 66.147(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 44.44(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 41.23(In.)
Critical Depth = 28.39(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.72(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 3.46 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 16.89 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 18.000 to Point/Station 18.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.851
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 16.89 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.410(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 3.898(CFS) for 1.900(Ac.)
1415
Page | 9
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Total runoff = 70.045(CFS) Total area = 30.100(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 18.000 to Point/Station 18.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.851
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 16.89 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.410(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 4.308(CFS) for 2.100(Ac.)
Total runoff = 74.353(CFS) Total area = 32.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 18.000 to Point/Station 75.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 659.400(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 659.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 270.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 74.353(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 54.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 74.353(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 43.41(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 42.89(In.)
Critical Depth = 30.21(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.42(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.83 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 17.72 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 75.000 to Point/Station 75.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 32.200(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 74.353(CFS)
Time of concentration = 17.72 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.347(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 20.000 to Point/Station 21.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 820.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 678.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 673.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 5.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00671 s(percent)= 0.67
TC = k(0.323)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 12.865 min.
1416
Page | 10
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Rainfall intensity = 2.799(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.809
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Initial subarea runoff = 14.046(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 6.200(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.200
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 21.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 673.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 670.300(Ft.)
Pipe length = 75.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 14.046(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 14.046(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 11.14(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 17.48(In.)
Critical Depth = 16.58(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 12.22(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.10 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 12.97 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 22.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.809
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 12.97 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.787(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 9.923(CFS) for 4.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 23.969(CFS) Total area = 10.600(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 22.000 to Point/Station 23.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 670.300(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 668.300(Ft.)
Pipe length = 140.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 23.969(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 23.969(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 17.58(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 21.25(In.)
Critical Depth = 20.81(In.)
1417
Page | 11
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Pipe flow velocity = 9.72(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.24 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 13.21 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 23.000 to Point/Station 23.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.21 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.759(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.943(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 24.912(CFS) Total area = 11.000(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 23.000 to Point/Station 23.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.21 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.759(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.943(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 25.855(CFS) Total area = 11.400(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 23.000 to Point/Station 24.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 668.300(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 666.300(Ft.)
Pipe length = 395.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 25.855(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 30.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 25.855(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 21.96(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 26.57(In.)
Critical Depth = 20.79(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.71(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.98 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 14.19 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 24.000 to Point/Station 24.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ 1418
Page | 12
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 14.19 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.652(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.679(CFS) for 0.300(Ac.)
Total runoff = 26.534(CFS) Total area = 11.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 24.000 to Point/Station 24.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 14.19 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.652(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.679(CFS) for 0.300(Ac.)
Total runoff = 27.213(CFS) Total area = 12.000(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 24.000 to Point/Station 38.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 666.300(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 666.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 60.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 27.213(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 30.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 27.213(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 23.06(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 25.30(In.)
Critical Depth = 21.35(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.72(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.15 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 14.34 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 38.000 to Point/Station 38.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.853
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 14.34 min.
1419
Page | 13
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Rainfall intensity = 2.637(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.900(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 28.113(CFS) Total area = 12.400(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 38.000 to Point/Station 38.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.853
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 14.34 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.637(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.900(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 29.013(CFS) Total area = 12.800(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 38.000 to Point/Station 38.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 12.800(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 29.013(CFS)
Time of concentration = 14.34 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.637(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 30.000 to Point/Station 31.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 635.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 676.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 669.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 6.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01024 s(percent)= 1.02
TC = k(0.323)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.673 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.102(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.814
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Initial subarea runoff = 14.140(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 5.600(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.200
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 31.000 to Point/Station 32.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ 1420
Page | 14
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Upstream point/station elevation = 669.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 668.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 70.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 14.140(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 14.140(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 13.52(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 20.11(In.)
Critical Depth = 16.75(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 8.63(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.14 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.81 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 32.000 to Point/Station 32.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.814
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 10.81 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.080(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 11.280(CFS) for 4.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 25.420(CFS) Total area = 10.100(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 32.000 to Point/Station 33.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 668.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 668.200(Ft.)
Pipe length = 50.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 25.420(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 27.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 25.420(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 24.00(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 16.97(In.)
Critical Depth = 21.14(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.81(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.12 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.93 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 33.000 to Point/Station 33.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.93 min.
1421
Page | 15
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Rainfall intensity = 3.061(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.049(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 26.469(CFS) Total area = 10.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 33.000 to Point/Station 33.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.93 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.061(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.049(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 27.519(CFS) Total area = 10.900(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 33.000 to Point/Station 34.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 668.200(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 666.900(Ft.)
Pipe length = 300.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 27.519(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 30.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 27.519(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 25.13(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 22.13(In.)
Critical Depth = 21.45(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.26(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.80 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.73 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 34.000 to Point/Station 34.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.812
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 11.73 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.945(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 11.475(CFS) for 4.800(Ac.)
Total runoff = 38.993(CFS) Total area = 15.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 34.000 to Point/Station 34.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ 1422
Page | 16
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.812
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 11.73 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.945(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 10.518(CFS) for 4.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 49.511(CFS) Total area = 20.100(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 34.000 to Point/Station 35.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 666.900(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 666.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 35.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 49.511(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 33.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 49.511(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 23.93(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 29.47(In.)
Critical Depth = 27.82(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 10.73(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.05 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.78 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 35.000 to Point/Station 35.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.856
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.78 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.937(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.006(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 50.517(CFS) Total area = 20.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 35.000 to Point/Station 35.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.856
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.78 min.
1423
Page | 17
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Rainfall intensity = 2.937(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.754(CFS) for 0.300(Ac.)
Total runoff = 51.271(CFS) Total area = 20.800(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 35.000 to Point/Station 38.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 666.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 666.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 60.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 51.271(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 33.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 51.271(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 29.44(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 20.48(In.)
Critical Depth = 28.23(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 9.16(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.11 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.89 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 38.000 to Point/Station 38.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 20.800(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 51.271(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.89 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.923(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 29.013 14.34 2.637
2 51.271 11.89 2.923
Largest stream flow has longer or shorter time of concentration Qp = 51.271 + sum of
Qa Tb/Ta

29.013 * 0.829 = 24.066
Qp = 75.337
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

29.013 51.271
Area of streams before confluence:

12.800 20.800
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 75.337(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.892 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 33.600(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 38.000 to Point/Station 39.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 666.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 664.000(Ft.)
1424
Page | 18
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Pipe length = 370.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 75.337(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 42.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 75.337(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 35.16(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 31.02(In.)
Critical Depth = 32.58(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 8.76(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.70 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 12.60 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 39.000 to Point/Station 39.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.810
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 12.60 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.832(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 20.642(CFS) for 9.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 95.979(CFS) Total area = 42.600(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 39.000 to Point/Station 39.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.810
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 12.60 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.832(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 8.945(CFS) for 3.900(Ac.)
Total runoff = 104.923(CFS) Total area = 46.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 39.000 to Point/Station 40.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 664.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 663.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 180.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 104.923(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 54.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 104.923(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 44.91(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 40.42(In.)
Critical Depth = 36.15(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.42(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.40 min.
1425
Page | 19
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Time of concentration (TC) = 13.00 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 40.000 to Point/Station 40.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.855
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.00 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.783(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.189(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 106.112(CFS) Total area = 47.000(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 40.000 to Point/Station 40.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.855
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.00 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.783(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.189(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 107.302(CFS) Total area = 47.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 40.000 to Point/Station 41.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 663.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 662.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 340.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 107.302(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 51.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 107.302(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 39.94(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 42.04(In.)
Critical Depth = 37.09(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 9.00(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.63 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 13.63 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 41.000 to Point/Station 41.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ CONDOMINIUM subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.739
1426
Page | 20
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.350; Impervious fraction = 0.650 Time of concentration = 13.63 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.711(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 10.821(CFS) for 5.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 118.122(CFS) Total area = 52.900(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 41.000 to Point/Station 42.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 662.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 660.900(Ft.)
Pipe length = 200.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 118.122(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 51.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 118.122(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 39.42(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 42.73(In.)
Critical Depth = 38.93(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 10.04(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.33 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 13.96 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 42.000 to Point/Station 42.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.96 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.676(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.142(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 119.264(CFS) Total area = 53.400(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 42.000 to Point/Station 42.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.854
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 13.96 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.676(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.142(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
1427
Page | 21
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Total runoff = 120.406(CFS) Total area = 53.900(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 42.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 660.900(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 660.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 35.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 120.406(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 45.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 120.406(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 34.41(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 38.18(In.)
Critical Depth = 39.62(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 13.30(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.04 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 14.01 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 43.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.807
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 14.01 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.671(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 47.444(CFS) for 22.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 167.850(CFS) Total area = 75.900(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 43.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ UNDEVELOPED (good cover) subarea
Runoff Coefficient = 0.496
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 38.00
Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Time of concentration = 14.01 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.671(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 4.637(CFS) for 3.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 172.487(CFS) Total area = 79.400(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 43.000 to Point/Station 44.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 660.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 660.000(Ft.)
1428
Page | 22
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Pipe length = 260.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 172.487(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 69.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 172.487(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 59.44(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 47.68(In.)
Critical Depth = 43.50(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.25(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.60 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 14.60 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 44.000 to Point/Station 44.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.853
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 14.60 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.610(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.668(CFS) for 0.300(Ac.)
Total runoff = 173.155(CFS) Total area = 79.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 44.000 to Point/Station 44.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.853
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 14.60 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.610(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.668(CFS) for 0.300(Ac.)
Total runoff = 173.824(CFS) Total area = 80.000(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 44.000 to Point/Station 45.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 660.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 659.800(Ft.)
Pipe length = 45.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 173.824(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 60.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 173.824(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 49.22(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 46.07(In.)
Critical Depth = 45.33(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 10.08(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.07 min.
1429
Page | 23
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Time of concentration (TC) = 14.68 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 45.000 to Point/Station 45.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.806
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 14.68 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.603(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 5.247(CFS) for 2.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 179.070(CFS) Total area = 82.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 45.000 to Point/Station 46.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 659.800(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 659.300(Ft.)
Pipe length = 130.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 179.070(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 63.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 179.070(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 50.16(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 50.76(In.)
Critical Depth = 45.48(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 9.68(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.22 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 14.90 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 46.000 to Point/Station 46.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.853
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 14.90 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.582(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.220(CFS) for 0.100(Ac.)
Total runoff = 179.290(CFS) Total area = 82.600(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 46.000 to Point/Station 46.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.853
1430
Page | 24
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 14.90 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.582(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.220(CFS) for 0.100(Ac.)
Total runoff = 179.511(CFS) Total area = 82.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 46.000 to Point/Station 61.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 659.300(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 659.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 95.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 179.511(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 66.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 179.511(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 51.38(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 54.82(In.)
Critical Depth = 45.01(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 9.04(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.18 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 15.08 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 61.000 to Point/Station 61.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 82.700(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 179.511(CFS)
Time of concentration = 15.08 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.565(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 50.000 to Point/Station 51.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 560.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 669.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 663.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 5.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00982 s(percent)= 0.98
TC = k(0.323)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.234 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.174(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.815
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Initial subarea runoff = 12.161(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 4.700(Ac.)
1431
Page | 25
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Pervious area fraction = 0.200
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 51.000 to Point/Station 52.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 663.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 662.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 195.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 12.161(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 12.161(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 15.21(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 18.77(In.)
Critical Depth = 15.60(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.51(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.50 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.73 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 52.000 to Point/Station 52.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.73 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.092(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.060(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 13.221(CFS) Total area = 5.100(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 52.000 to Point/Station 52.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ MOBILE HOME PARK subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.792
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.250; Impervious fraction = 0.750 Time of concentration = 10.73 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.092(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.980(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 14.201(CFS) Total area = 5.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 52.000 to Point/Station 53.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 662.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 660.400(Ft.)
1432
Page | 26
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Pipe length = 375.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 14.201(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 14.201(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 18.89(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 19.65(In.)
Critical Depth = 16.29(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.36(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 1.17 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.90 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 53.000 to Point/Station 53.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.811
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 11.90 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.922(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 7.349(CFS) for 3.100(Ac.)
Total runoff = 21.549(CFS) Total area = 8.600(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 53.000 to Point/Station 53.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.811
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 11.90 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.922(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 12.327(CFS) for 5.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 33.876(CFS) Total area = 13.800(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 53.000 to Point/Station 54.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 660.400(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 660.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 45.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 33.876(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 30.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 33.876(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 21.75(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 26.79(In.)
Critical Depth = 23.74(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 8.88(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.08 min.
1433
Page | 27
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Time of concentration (TC) = 11.98 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 54.000 to Point/Station 54.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.856
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.98 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.910(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.996(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 34.872(CFS) Total area = 14.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 54.000 to Point/Station 54.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.856
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.98 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.910(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.996(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 35.868(CFS) Total area = 14.600(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 54.000 to Point/Station 61.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 660.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 659.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 70.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 35.868(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 27.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 35.868(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 21.42(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 21.86(In.)
Critical Depth = 24.32(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 10.61(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.11 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 12.09 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 61.000 to Point/Station 61.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 14.600(Ac.)
1434
Page | 28
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Runoff from this stream = 35.868(CFS)
Time of concentration = 12.09 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.896(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 56.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 585.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 667.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 661.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 6.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01026 s(percent)= 1.03
TC = k(0.323)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.324 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.159(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.815
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Initial subarea runoff = 9.267(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 3.600(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.200
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 57.000 to Point/Station 58.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 661.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 661.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 75.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 9.267(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 9.267(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 13.15(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 20.32(In.)
Critical Depth = 13.58(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.85(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.21 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.54 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 58.000 to Point/Station 58.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.814
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 10.54 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.124(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 7.886(CFS) for 3.100(Ac.)
1435
Page | 29
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Total runoff = 17.153(CFS) Total area = 6.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 58.000 to Point/Station 59.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 661.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 660.300(Ft.)
Pipe length = 115.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 17.153(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 17.153(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 19.08(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 19.38(In.)
Critical Depth = 17.91(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.40(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.30 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.84 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 59.000 to Point/Station 59.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.814
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 10.84 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.076(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 3.754(CFS) for 1.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 20.907(CFS) Total area = 8.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 59.000 to Point/Station 60.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 660.300(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 660.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 35.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 20.907(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 20.907(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 19.64(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 18.51(In.)
Critical Depth = 19.67(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.60(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.08 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.91 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 60.000 to Point/Station 60.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
1436
Page | 30
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.91 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.064(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.312(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 22.219(CFS) Total area = 8.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 60.000 to Point/Station 60.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.91 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.064(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.312(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 23.532(CFS) Total area = 9.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 60.000 to Point/Station 61.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 660.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 659.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 80.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 23.532(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 23.532(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 18.33(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 20.39(In.)
Critical Depth = 20.66(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 9.15(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.15 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.06 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 61.000 to Point/Station 61.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 3
Stream flow area = 9.200(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 23.532(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.06 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.042(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1437
Page | 31
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
1 179.511 15.08 2.565
2 35.868 12.09 2.896
3 23.532 11.06 3.042
Largest stream flow has longer time of concentration
Qp = 179.511 + sum of
Qb Ia/Ib

35.868 * 0.886 = 31.772
Qb Ia/Ib

23.532 * 0.843 = 19.845
Qp = 231.128
Total of 3 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:
179.511 35.868 23.532
Area of streams before confluence:

82.700 14.600 9.200
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 231.128(CFS)
Time of concentration = 15.077 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 106.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 61.000 to Point/Station 62.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 659.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 658.800(Ft.)
Pipe length = 30.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 231.128(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 63.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 231.128(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 49.22(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 52.09(In.)
Critical Depth = 51.38(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 12.74(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.04 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 15.12 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 62.000 to Point/Station 62.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.853
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 15.12 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.561(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.437(CFS) for 0.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 231.565(CFS) Total area = 106.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 62.000 to Point/Station 62.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
1438
Page | 32
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Runoff Coefficient = 0.853
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 15.12 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.561(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.437(CFS) for 0.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 232.002(CFS) Total area = 106.900(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 62.000 to Point/Station 71.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 658.800(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 657.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 350.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 232.002(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 69.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 232.002(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 57.00(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 52.31(In.)
Critical Depth = 50.62(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 10.11(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.58 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 15.69 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 71.000 to Point/Station 71.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 106.900(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 232.002(CFS)
Time of concentration = 15.69 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.509(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 65.000 to Point/Station 66.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 650.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 666.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 660.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 6.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01000 s(percent)= 1.00
TC = k(0.323)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.824 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.078(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm APARTMENT subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.814
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Initial subarea runoff = 10.519(CFS)
1439
Page | 33
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Total initial stream area = 4.200(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.200
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 66.000 to Point/Station 67.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 660.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 659.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 55.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 10.519(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 10.519(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 12.90(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 20.44(In.)
Critical Depth = 14.50(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.79(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.14 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.96 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 67.000 to Point/Station 67.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.96 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.057(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.524(CFS) for 0.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 11.043(CFS) Total area = 4.400(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 67.000 to Point/Station 67.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.96 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.057(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.524(CFS) for 0.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 11.567(CFS) Total area = 4.600(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 67.000 to Point/Station 67.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ APARTMENT subarea type
1440
Page | 34
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Runoff Coefficient = 0.813
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.200; Impervious fraction = 0.800 Time of concentration = 10.96 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.057(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 10.693(CFS) for 4.300(Ac.)
Total runoff = 22.260(CFS) Total area = 8.900(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 67.000 to Point/Station 70.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 659.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 658.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 235.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 22.260(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 27.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 22.260(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 20.02(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 23.65(In.)
Critical Depth = 19.81(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.04(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.56 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.51 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 70.000 to Point/Station 70.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.856
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.51 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.975(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.528(CFS) for 0.600(Ac.)
Total runoff = 23.788(CFS) Total area = 9.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 70.000 to Point/Station 71.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 658.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 657.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 40.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 23.788(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 23.788(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 18.52(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 20.15(In.)
Critical Depth = 20.76(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 9.15(Ft/s)
1441
Page | 35
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Travel time through pipe = 0.07 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.59 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 71.000 to Point/Station 71.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 9.500(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 23.788(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.59 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.965(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 232.002 15.69 2.509
2 23.788 11.59 2.965
Largest stream flow has longer time of concentration
Qp = 232.002 + sum of
Qb Ia/Ib

23.788 * 0.846 = 20.133
Qp = 252.135
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:
232.002 23.788
Area of streams before confluence:
106.900 9.500
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 252.135(CFS)
Time of concentration = 15.693 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 116.400(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 71.000 to Point/Station 72.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 657.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 657.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 275.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 252.135(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 81.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 252.135(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 67.88(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 59.69(In.)
Critical Depth = 50.50(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.87(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.58 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 16.28 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 72.000 to Point/Station 72.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.852
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
1442
Page | 36
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 16.28 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.459(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.047(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 253.182(CFS) Total area = 116.900(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 72.000 to Point/Station 75.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 657.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 656.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 90.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 253.182(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 66.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 253.182(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 54.75(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 49.64(In.)
Critical Depth = 53.21(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 12.01(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.12 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 16.40 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 75.000 to Point/Station 75.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 116.900(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 253.182(CFS)
Time of concentration = 16.40 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.449(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 74.353 17.72 2.347
2 253.182 16.40 2.449
Largest stream flow has longer or shorter time of concentration Qp = 253.182 + sum of
Qa Tb/Ta

74.353 * 0.925 = 68.809
Qp = 321.991
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

74.353 253.182
Area of streams before confluence:

32.200 116.900
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 321.991(CFS)
Time of concentration = 16.400 min.
1443
Page | 37
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Effective stream area after confluence = 149.100(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 80.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 640.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 684.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 678.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 6.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00937 s(percent)= 0.94
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.120 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.194(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.858
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 1.917(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.700(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 81.000 to Point/Station 82.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 655.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 679.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 676.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00382 s(percent)= 0.38
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 12.226 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.878(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.855
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 1.970(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.800(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 81.000 to Point/Station 83.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 310.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 679.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 677.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 1.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00484 s(percent)= 0.48
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
1444
Page | 38
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Initial area time of concentration = 8.644 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.483(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.860
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 1.797(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.600(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 84.000 to Point/Station 85.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 300.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 678.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 676.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00833 s(percent)= 0.83
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.653 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.725(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.861
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 1.604(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.500(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 86.000 to Point/Station 87.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 590.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 680.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 673.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 7.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01186 s(percent)= 1.19
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 9.346 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.337(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.859
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 6.303(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.200(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
1445
Page | 39
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 88.000 to Point/Station 89.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 1000.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 674.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 663.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 11.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01100 s(percent)= 1.10
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 11.718 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.946(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.856
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 5.800(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.300(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 89.000 to Point/Station 90.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 700.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 663.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 658.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 5.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00714 s(percent)= 0.71
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 11.076 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.039(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.857
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 3.384(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.300(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 91.000 to Point/Station 92.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 400.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 660.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 659.100(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 1.400(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00350 s(percent)= 0.35
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.212 min.
1446
Page | 40
100-Year Proposed Condition
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Rainfall intensity = 3.178(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.858
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 32.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 2.725(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.000(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
End of computations, total study area = 164.00 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.202
Area averaged RI index number = 32.2
1447
SECTION 3

PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY
MAP
1448
1449
SECTION 4

UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND BASIN

ROUTING CALCULATIONS
1450
Page | 1
100-Year Proposed Condition Unit Hydrograph to Underground Basin Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 11/24/21 File: lealp1100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6406
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
--------------------------------------------------------------------- TENTATIVE MAP NO. 38290 - LEAL Developments
CITY OF Eastvale

PROPOSED CONDITION
100-YEAR STORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 116.40(Ac.) = 0.182 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 116.40(Ac.) = 0.182 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 3525.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 1700.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.668 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.322 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 21.00(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 31.4553 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.021
Lag time = 0.147 Hr.

Lag time = 8.79 Min.
25% of lag time = 2.20 Min.
40% of lag time = 3.52 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]
116.40 0.50 58.20
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]
116.40 1.20 139.68
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.200(In)
1451
Page | 2
100-Year Proposed Condition Unit Hydrograph to Underground Basin Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.200(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 99.89 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.199(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %
116.400 32.20 0.780
Total Area Entered = 116.40(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

32.2 32.2 0.740 0.780 0.221 1.000 0.221
Sum (F) = 0.221
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.221
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.110
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.276
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 56.860 7.518 8.819
2 0.167 113.719 31.667 37.148
3 0.250 170.579 27.543 32.311
4 0.333 227.438 10.935 12.828
5 0.417 284.298 6.287 7.376
6 0.500 341.157 4.287 5.029
7 0.583 398.017 3.113 3.652
8 0.667 454.877 2.195 2.575
9 0.750 511.736 1.744 2.046
10 0.833 568.596 1.382 1.621
11 0.917 625.455 1.052 1.234
12 1.000 682.315 0.794 0.931
13 1.083 739.174 0.590 0.692
14 1.167 796.034 0.569 0.667
15 1.250 852.893 0.324 0.380
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 117.309
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.475 ( 0.221) 0.131 0.344
2 0.17 4.20 0.604 ( 0.221) 0.167 0.437
3 0.25 4.40 0.633 ( 0.221) 0.175 0.458
4 0.33 4.80 0.690 ( 0.221) 0.191 0.500
5 0.42 5.20 0.748 ( 0.221) 0.206 0.542
6 0.50 6.20 0.892 0.221 ( 0.246) 0.671
7 0.58 6.80 0.978 0.221 ( 0.270) 0.758
8 0.67 8.80 1.266 0.221 ( 0.349) 1.045
1452
Page | 3
100-Year Proposed Condition Unit Hydrograph to Underground Basin Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
9 0.75 13.90 1.999 0.221 ( 0.552) 1.779
10 0.83 31.40 4.517 0.221 ( 1.247) 4.296
11 0.92 7.20 1.036 0.221 ( 0.286) 0.815
12 1.00 3.80 0.547 ( 0.221) 0.151 0.396
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 12.0
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 1.00(In)
times area 116.4(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 9.7(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.20(In)
Total soil loss = 1.895(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.20(In)
Flood volume = 423975.3 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 82528.3 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 252.104(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 75.0 150.0 225.0 300.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0209 3.03 Q | | | |
0+10 0.1354 16.63 V Q | | | |
0+15 0.3518 31.41 |V Q | | | |
0+20 0.6272 39.99 | V Q | | | |
0+25 0.9462 46.32 | V Q | | | |
0+30 1.3116 53.05 | V Q | | | |
0+35 1.7413 62.40 | VQ | | | |
0+40 2.2545 74.51 | Q| | | |
0+45 2.9272 97.67 | | VQ | | |
0+50 4.0269 159.68 | | V |Q | |
0+55 5.7631 252.10 | | | V | Q |
1+ 0 7.2336 213.51 | | | QV| |
1+ 5 8.0753 122.21 | | Q | | V |
1+10 8.5815 73.51 | Q| | | V |
1+15 8.9012 46.42 | Q | | | V |
1+20 9.1273 32.82 | Q | | | V |
1+25 9.2913 23.82 | Q | | | V |
1+30 9.4169 18.24 | Q | | | V |
1+35 9.5134 14.01 |Q | | | V|
1+40 9.5862 10.58 |Q | | | V|
1+45 9.6404 7.87 |Q | | | V|
1+50 9.6804 5.81 Q | | | V|
1+55 9.7113 4.48 Q | | | V|
2+ 0 9.7281 2.45 Q | | | V|
2+ 5 9.7321 0.57 Q | | | V|
2+10 9.7331 0.15 Q | | | V|
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1453
(ft3
) (ac-ft) (cfs)
642.00 0 0 0 0
643.00 1.00 43,200 0.99 6.86
644.00 2.00 86,400 1.98 19.77
645.00 3.00 129,600 2.98 36.19
646.00 4.00 172,800 3.97 55.37
647.00 5.00 216,000 4.96 70.83
648.00 6.00 259,200 5.95 82.74
Note: Refer to Basin Volume Calculations for Volumes and Refer to the outflow vs. depth calcualtions for discharges Elevation Depth

UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN
Total Stage-Storage-Outflow Summary
Volume Discharge
1454
F:\0736\Engineering\SY_Hydrology\Basin Routing\Detention Basin - Underground.xls Provided underground Detention Basin
Designer: Gary Guan
Project: Leal Ranch
Location: Eastvale, Riverside County
Date: 11/24/2021
Elevation Depthincremental Depthcumulative Area Areaaverage (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft2
) (ft2) (ft3) (ac-ft) (ft3) (ac-ft)
642.00 43200 0 0

1.00 43200 43200 0.992
643.00 1.00 43200 43200 0.99

1.00 43200 43200 0.992
644.00 2.00 43200 86400 1.98

1.00 43200 43200 0.992
645.00 3.00 43200 129600 2.98

1.00 43200 43200 0.992
646.00 4.00 43200 172800 3.97

1.00 43200 43200 0.992
647.00 5.00 43200 216000 4.96

1.00 43200 43200 0.992
648.00 6.00 43200 259200 5.95
Volumeincremental Volumecumulative
11/24/2021
1455

WATER QUALITY/DETENTION BASIN

OUTFLOW VS DEPTH CALCULATIONS

HOLES HOLES HOLES HOLES HOLES HOLES HOLES TOP OF RISER
No. of Holes → 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 1 ← No. of Weir

HOLE C HOLE C HOLE C HOLE C HOLE C HOLE C HOLE C TOP OF RISER C Discharge Coefficient → 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.8 ← Weir Coefficient

HOLE FL HOLE FL HOLE FL HOLE FL HOLE FL HOLE FL HOLE FL DIST TO TOP OF RISER Distance of Holes from Basin Bottom (in) → 0 12 18 24 30 36 42 72 ← Distance of Top of Riser Pipe from Basin Bottom (in)

HOLE R HOLE R HOLE R HOLE R HOLE R HOLE R HOLE R RISER LENGTH (FT) Hole Radius (in) → 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4 4 4 15.708 ← Riser Pipe Perimeter (ft) =PAI*D, 60" Riser Pipe

CEN EL CEN EL CEN EL CEN EL CEN EL CEN EL CEN EL TOP OF RISER ELEV Hole Centerline Elev (ft)→ 642.3333 643.3333 643.8333 644.3333 644.8333 645.3333 645.8333 648.0 ← Top of Weir Elevation (ft)

ELEV DEPTH OUTFLOW AREA
642.00 0 0 0 ← (sq-ft)
643.00 1 6.86 6.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
644.00 2 19.77 10.85 6.86 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 645.00 3 36.19 13.72 10.85 5.45 4.12 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 646.00 4 55.37 16.09 13.72 7.42 6.51 5.45 4.12 2.06 0.00 647.00 5 70.83 18.15 16.09 8.97 8.23 7.42 6.51 5.45 0.00 648.00 6 82.74 20.00 18.15 10.29 9.66 8.97 8.23 7.42 0.00 ↑ ↑
[Σ FLOWS (HOLES+RISER)] (OUTFLOW THROUGH HOLES) (FLOW OVER TOP OF RISER PIPE) Note:

1. Orifice outflow is based on:

Q=CA(2gH)0.5
where:

C = Coefficient, 0.6 used here
A = Orifice Area
H = Headwater

2. Top of riser overflow is based on:

Q=CLH1.5
where:

C = Coefficient, 2.8 used here based on sharp crested weir L = Weir Length
H = Headwater
1456
Page | 1
100-Year Proposed Condition Basin Routing
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290

FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ROUTING PROGRAM
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014
Study date: 11/24/21
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Leal Ranch - Map Number 38290 - City of Eastvale
Detention Basin Routing
100-year storm (underground)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Program License Serial Number 6406
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************* HYDROGRAPH INFORMATION ********************** From study/file name: LEALP1100.rte
****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 26
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 252.104 (CFS)
Total volume = 9.733 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
*********************************************************************** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 70.000 to Point/Station 70.000 **** RETARDING BASIN ROUTING ****
______________________________________________________________________ User entry of depth-outflow-storage data
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Total number of inflow hydrograph intervals = 26
Hydrograph time unit = 5.000 (Min.)
Initial depth in storage basin = 0.00(Ft.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Initial basin depth = 0.00 (Ft.)
Initial basin storage = 0.00 (Ac.Ft)
Initial basin outflow = 0.00 (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Depth vs. Storage and Depth vs. Discharge data:

Basin Depth Storage Outflow (S-O*dt/2) (S+O*dt/2)
(Ft.) (Ac.Ft) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) (Ac.Ft)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.000 0.990 6.860 0.966 1.014

2.000 1.980 19.770 1.912 2.048

3.000 2.980 36.190 2.855 3.105

4.000 3.970 55.370 3.779 4.161

5.000 4.960 70.830 4.716 5.204

6.000 5.950 82.740 5.665 6.235
1457
Page | 2
100-Year Proposed Condition Basin Routing
Leal Ranch – Tentative Map No. 38290
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph Detention Basin Routing
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Graph values: 'I'= unit inflow; 'O'=outflow at time shown --------------------------------------------------------------------- Time Inflow Outflow Storage Depth
(Hours) (CFS) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) .0 63.0 126.05 189.08 252.10 (Ft.)

0.083 3.03 0.07 0.010 O | | | | 0.01

0.167 16.63 0.53 0.076 O I | | | | 0.08

0.250 31.41 1.62 0.234 O I | | | | 0.24

0.333 39.99 3.21 0.463 O I | | | | 0.47

0.417 46.32 5.07 0.732 O I | | | | 0.74

0.500 53.05 7.40 1.031 O I | | | | 1.04

0.583 62.40 11.72 1.363 |O I| | | | 1.38

0.667 74.51 16.60 1.737 | O |I | | | 1.75

0.750 97.67 23.26 2.192 | O | I | | | 2.21

0.833 159.68 34.54 2.880 | O | | I | | 2.90

0.917 252.10 55.64 3.987 | O| | | I| 4.02

1.000 213.51 73.08 5.147 | |O | | I | 5.19

1.083 122.21 80.62 5.774 | | O I| | | 5.82

1.167 73.51 81.99 5.888 | |IO | | | 5.94

1.250 46.42 80.24 5.742 | I | O | | | 5.79

1.333 32.82 77.01 5.474 | I |O | | | 5.52

1.417 23.82 73.14 5.152 | I |O | | | 5.19

1.500 18.24 68.47 4.809 | I O | | | 4.85

1.583 14.01 63.13 4.467 |I O | | | 4.50

1.667 10.58 57.94 4.135 |I O| | | | 4.17

1.750 7.87 52.43 3.818 I O | | | | 3.85

1.833 5.81 46.72 3.524 I O | | | | 3.55

1.917 4.48 41.52 3.255 I O | | | | 3.28

2.000 2.45 36.76 3.009 I O | | | | 3.03

2.083 0.57 32.91 2.780 I O | | | | 2.80

2.167 0.15 29.42 2.568 I O | | | | 2.59

2.250 0.00 26.28 2.377 I O | | | | 2.40

2.333 0.00 23.47 2.205 I O | | | | 2.23

2.417 0.00 20.96 2.052 I O | | | | 2.07

2.500 0.00 18.92 1.915 I O | | | | 1.93

2.583 0.00 17.30 1.790 I O | | | | 1.81

2.667 0.00 15.81 1.676 I O | | | | 1.69

2.750 0.00 14.45 1.572 IO | | | | 1.59

2.833 0.00 13.21 1.477 IO | | | | 1.49

2.917 0.00 12.07 1.390 IO | | | | 1.40

3.000 0.00 11.04 1.310 IO | | | | 1.32

3.083 0.00 10.09 1.237 IO | | | | 1.25

3.167 0.00 9.22 1.171 IO | | | | 1.18

3.250 0.00 8.43 1.110 IO | | | | 1.12

3.333 0.00 7.70 1.055 O | | | | 1.07

3.417 0.00 7.04 1.004 O | | | | 1.01

3.500 0.00 6.63 0.957 O | | | | 0.97

3.583 0.00 6.32 0.912 O | | | | 0.92

3.667 0.00 6.03 0.870 O | | | | 0.88

3.750 0.00 5.75 0.829 O | | | | 0.84

3.833 0.00 5.48 0.791 O | | | | 0.80

3.917 0.00 5.22 0.754 O | | | | 0.76

4.000 0.00 4.98 0.719 O | | | | 0.73

4.083 0.00 4.75 0.685 O | | | | 0.69

4.167 0.00 4.53 0.653 O | | | | 0.66

4.250 0.00 4.31 0.623 O | | | | 0.63

4.333 0.00 4.11 0.594 O | | | | 0.60

4.417 0.00 3.92 0.566 O | | | | 0.57

4.500 0.00 3.74 0.540 O | | | | 0.55

4.667 0.00 3.40 0.490 O | | | | 0.50

4.750 0.00 3.24 0.468 O | | | | 0.47

4.833 0.00 3.09 0.446 O | | | | 0.45

4.917 0.00 2.95 0.425 O | | | | 0.43

5.000 0.00 2.81 0.405 O | | | | 0.41

5.083 0.00 2.68 0.386 O | | | | 0.39

5.167 0.00 2.55 0.368 O | | | | 0.37

5.250 0.00 2.43 0.351 O | | | | 0.35

5.333 0.00 2.32 0.335 O | | | | 0.34

5.417 0.00 2.21 0.319 O | | | | 0.32

5.500 0.00 2.11 0.304 O | | | | 0.31

5.583 0.00 2.01 0.290 O | | | | 0.29

5.667 0.00 1.92 0.277 O | | | | 0.28

5.750 0.00 1.83 0.264 O | | | | 0.27

5.833 0.00 1.74 0.251 O | | | | 0.25

5.917 0.00 1.66 0.240 O | | | | 0.24

6.000 0.00 1.58 0.229 O | | | | 0.23

6.083 0.00 1.51 0.218 O | | | | 0.22

6.167 0.00 1.44 0.208 O | | | | 0.21

6.250 0.00 1.37 0.198 O | | | | 0.20

6.333 0.00 1.31 0.189 O | | | | 0.19

6.417 0.00 1.25 0.180 O | | | | 0.18

6.500 0.00 1.19 0.172 O | | | | 0.17

6.583 0.00 1.13 0.164 O | | | | 0.17

6.667 0.00 1.08 0.156 O | | | | 0.16

6.750 0.00 1.03 0.149 O | | | | 0.15

6.833 0.00 0.98 0.142 O | | | | 0.14

6.917 0.00 0.94 0.135 O | | | | 0.14

7.000 0.00 0.89 0.129 O | | | | 0.13

7.083 0.00 0.85 0.123 O | | | | 0.12

7.167 0.00 0.81 0.117 O | | | | 0.12

7.250 0.00 0.77 0.112 O | | | | 0.11

7.333 0.00 0.74 0.106 O | | | | 0.11

7.417 0.00 0.70 0.102 O | | | | 0.10

7.500 0.00 0.67 0.097 O | | | | 0.10

7.583 0.00 0.64 0.092 O | | | | 0.09

7.667 0.00 0.61 0.088 O | | | | 0.09

7.750 0.00 0.58 0.084 O | | | | 0.08

7.833 0.00 0.55 0.080 O | | | | 0.08

7.917 0.00 0.53 0.076 O | | | | 0.08

8.000 0.00 0.50 0.073 O | | | | 0.07

8.083 0.00 0.48 0.069 O | | | | 0.07

8.167 0.00 0.46 0.066 O | | | | 0.07

8.250 0.00 0.44 0.063 O | | | | 0.06

8.333 0.00 0.42 0.060 O | | | | 0.06

8.417 0.00 0.40 0.057 O | | | | 0.06

8.500 0.00 0.38 0.055 O | | | | 0.06

8.583 0.00 0.36 0.052 O | | | | 0.05

8.667 0.00 0.34 0.050 O | | | | 0.05

8.750 0.00 0.33 0.047 O | | | | 0.05

8.833 0.00 0.31 0.045 O | | | | 0.05

8.917 0.00 0.30 0.043 O | | | | 0.04

9.000 0.00 0.28 0.041 O | | | | 0.04

9.083 0.00 0.27 0.039 O | | | | 0.04

9.167 0.00 0.26 0.037 O | | | | 0.04

9.250 0.00 0.25 0.036 O | | | | 0.04

9.333 0.00 0.23 0.034 O | | | | 0.03

9.417 0.00 0.22 0.032 O | | | | 0.03

9.500 0.00 0.21 0.031 O | | | | 0.03

9.583 0.00 0.20 0.029 O | | | | 0.03

9.667 0.00 0.19 0.028 O | | | | 0.03

9.750 0.00 0.18 0.027 O | | | | 0.03

9.917 0.00 0.17 0.024 O | | | | 0.02

10.000 0.00 0.16 0.023 O | | | | 0.02

10.083 0.00 0.15 0.022 O | | | | 0.02

10.167 0.00 0.15 0.021 O | | | | 0.02

10.250 0.00 0.14 0.020 O | | | | 0.02

10.333 0.00 0.13 0.019 O | | | | 0.02

10.417 0.00 0.13 0.018 O | | | | 0.02

10.500 0.00 0.12 0.017 O | | | | 0.02

10.583 0.00 0.11 0.017 O | | | | 0.02

10.667 0.00 0.11 0.016 O | | | | 0.02

10.750 0.00 0.10 0.015 O | | | | 0.02

10.833 0.00 0.10 0.014 O | | | | 0.01

10.917 0.00 0.09 0.014 O | | | | 0.01

11.000 0.00 0.09 0.013 O | | | | 0.01

11.083 0.00 0.09 0.012 O | | | | 0.01

11.167 0.00 0.08 0.012 O | | | | 0.01

11.250 0.00 0.08 0.011 O | | | | 0.01

11.333 0.00 0.07 0.011 O | | | | 0.01

11.417 0.00 0.07 0.010 O | | | | 0.01

11.500 0.00 0.07 0.010 O | | | | 0.01

11.583 0.00 0.06 0.009 O | | | | 0.01

11.667 0.00 0.06 0.009 O | | | | 0.01

11.750 0.00 0.06 0.008 O | | | | 0.01

11.833 0.00 0.06 0.008 O | | | | 0.01

11.917 0.00 0.05 0.008 O | | | | 0.01

12.000 0.00 0.05 0.007 O | | | | 0.01

12.083 0.00 0.05 0.007 O | | | | 0.01

12.167 0.00 0.05 0.007 O | | | | 0.01

12.250 0.00 0.04 0.006 O | | | | 0.01

12.333 0.00 0.04 0.006 O | | | | 0.01

12.417 0.00 0.04 0.006 O | | | | 0.01

12.500 0.00 0.04 0.006 O | | | | 0.01

12.583 0.00 0.04 0.005 O | | | | 0.01

12.667 0.00 0.03 0.005 O | | | | 0.01

12.750 0.00 0.03 0.005 O | | | | 0.00

12.833 0.00 0.03 0.005 O | | | | 0.00

12.917 0.00 0.03 0.004 O | | | | 0.00

13.000 0.00 0.03 0.004 O | | | | 0.00

13.083 0.00 0.03 0.004 O | | | | 0.00

13.167 0.00 0.03 0.004 O | | | | 0.00

13.250 0.00 0.02 0.004 O | | | | 0.00

13.333 0.00 0.02 0.003 O | | | | 0.00

13.417 0.00 0.02 0.003 O | | | | 0.00

13.500 0.00 0.02 0.003 O | | | | 0.00

13.583 0.00 0.02 0.003 O | | | | 0.00

13.667 0.00 0.02 0.003 O | | | | 0.00

13.750 0.00 0.02 0.003 O | | | | 0.00

13.833 0.00 0.02 0.003 O | | | | 0.00

13.917 0.00 0.02 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.000 0.00 0.02 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.083 0.00 0.02 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.167 0.00 0.01 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.250 0.00 0.01 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.333 0.00 0.01 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.417 0.00 0.01 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.500 0.00 0.01 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.583 0.00 0.01 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.667 0.00 0.01 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.750 0.00 0.01 0.002 O | | | | 0.00

14.833 0.00 0.01 0.001 O | | | | 0.00

14.917 0.00 0.01 0.001 O | | | | 0.00

15.000 0.00 0.01 0.001 O | | | | 0.00

15.167 0.00 0.01 0.001 O | | | | 0.00

15.250 0.00 0.01 0.001 O | | | | 0.00

15.333 0.00 0.01 0.001 O | | | | 0.00

15.417 0.00 0.01 0.001 O | | | | 0.00

15.500 0.00 0.01 0.001 O | | | | 0.00

15.583 0.00 0.01 0.001 O | | | | 0.00
****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 187
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 81.994 (CFS)
Total volume = 9.732 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
*********************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1461
SECTION 5

REFERENCES
1462
● AS-BUILT STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT

PLANS ALONG LIMONITE AVENUE (MDP LINE
“D-5”, RCFCD DWG NO. 2-0-323)
1463
P8/235729
1464
P8/235729
1465
P8/235729
17 EP 3675, 11/16/2018, 18" RCP CONNECTION W/ JS NO. 4 PER STD JS229 STA 18+31 17
18" RCP
INV. 645.39 17
1466
P8/235729
1467
P8/235729
1468

1470
● AS-BUILT STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT
PLANS ALONG SCHOLAR WAY AND 58TH
STREET (MDP LINE “D-3”, RCFCD DWG NO. 2-0-
308)
1471

P8/232161
1478
P8/232161
STA 12+66.98
19 EP 3406, 6/15/2015, 18" RCP CONNECTION W/ JS NO.4
PER STD JS229
STA 16+25.56
18" RCP
INV. 654.02
18" RCP
INV. 651.13
19 19
19 19
1479
1480

● AS-BUILT STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT

PLANS ALONG HAMNER AVENUE (MDP LINE
“E”, RCFCD DWG NO. 2-0-310)
1484

Appendix H
1508
W.O. 2749-44C

PRELIMINARY

WATER QUALITY

MANAGEMENT PLAN

“LEAL RANCH”
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38290
Project Address:

Northwest of Limonite Avenue and Hamner Avenue
City of Eastvale, CA

Prepared for:
25231 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 926183
(949) 382-7800
Prepared by:

Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.
3 Hughes
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 583-1010

Preparation Date:

November 29, 2021

1509
W.O.
2749-44C

PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
“LEAL RANCH” – TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38290
City of Eastvale, CA
1510
W.O. No. 2749-44
Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan
Project Title: “Leal Ranch” – Tentative Tract Map No. 38290 Public Works No: N/A
Design Review/Case No: TBD

Original Date Prepared: November 29, 2021
Revision Date(s):

Prepared for Compliance with
Regional Board Order No. UR8-2010-0033
Contact Information:

Prepared for:

The New Home Company
15231 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 382-7800
Prepared by:

Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.
3 Hughes,
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 583-1010
Preliminary
Final
1511
2 OWNER’S CERTIFICATION
This Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for The New Home Company by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. for the “Leal Ranch” Project.

This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of The City of Eastvale requirements for the preparation and implementation of a Project-Specific WQMP.

The undersigned, while owning the property/project described in the preceding paragraph, shall be responsible for the implementation and funding of this WQMP and will ensure that this WQMP is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site. In addition, the property owner accepts responsibility for interim operation and maintenance of Stormwater BMPs until such time as this responsibility is formally transferred to a subsequent owner. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party (or parties) having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. At least one copy of this WQMP will be maintained at the project site or project office in perpetuity. The undersigned is authorized to certify and to approve implementation of this WQMP. The undersigned is aware that implementation of this WQMP is enforceable under the City of Eastvale Water Quality Ordinance. "I, the undersigned, certify under penalty of law that the provisions of this WQMP have been reviewed and accepted and that the WQMP will be transferred to future successors in interest." Owner’s Signature Date
Owner’s Printed Name Owner’s Title/Position

PREPARER’S CERTIFICATION
“The selection, sizing and design of stormwater treatment and other stormwater quality and quantity control measures in this plan meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0033 and any subsequent amendments thereto.” Preparer’s Signature Date
Preparer’s Printed Name Preparer’s Title/Position
Preparer’s Licensure:
1512
3 Table of Contents
Project and Site Information ........................................................................................ 5 Maps and Site Plans ......................................................................................................... 6 Receiving Waters.............................................................................................................. 7 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project:.......................................................... 8 Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles) ........................................................................ 9 Delineate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) ......................................................... 10 Implement LID BMPs ................................................................................................ 13 Infiltration Applicability ................................................................................................... 13 Harvest and Use Assessment ........................................................................................... 13 Bioretention and Biotreatment Assessment ........................................................................ 15 Feasibility Assessment Summaries .................................................................................... 15 LID BMP Sizing............................................................................................................... 16 Alternative Compliance (LID Waiver Program) ............................................................. 20 Identify Pollutants of Concern........................................................................................... 21 Stormwater Credits ......................................................................................................... 22 Sizing Criteria................................................................................................................. 22 Treatment Control BMP Selection ..................................................................................... 23 Hydromodification .................................................................................................... 24 F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Analysis.......................................................... 24 F.2 HCOC Mitigation........................................................................................................... 24 Source Control BMPs............................................................................................... 26 Construction Plan Checklist....................................................................................... 29 Operation, Maintenance and Funding......................................................................... 30 List of Tables
Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters................................................................................. 7 Table A.2 Other Applicable Permits............................................................................................. 8 Table C.1 DMA Classifications.................................................................................................. 10 Table C.2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas...................................................................................... 11 Table C.3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas.................................................................................... 11 Table C.4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas ....................................................... 12 Table C.5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs .............................................................................. 12 Table D.1 Infiltration Feasibility ................................................................................................. 13 Table D.2 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix............................................................................... 15 Table D.3 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs ................................................................................. 16 Table D.4.1 QBMP Calculations for LID BMPs .............................................................................. 18 Table E.1 Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type.......................................................................... 21 Table E.2 Water Quality Credits................................................................................................ 22 Table E.3 Treatment Control BMP Sizing .................................................................................... 22 Table E.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection ............................................................................... 23 1513
4 Table E.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Summary ............................................................... 24 Table G.1 Permanent and Operations Source Control Measures ................................................. 26 Table H.1 Construction Plan Cross-reference ............................................................................. 29 List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Maps and Site Plans .............................................................................................. 31 Appendix 2: Construction Plans................................................................................................. 30 Appendix 3: Soils Information ................................................................................................... 31 Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions ....................................................................................... 32 Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility ...................................................................................................... 33 Appendix 6: BMP Design Details ............................................................................................... 34 Appendix 7: Hydromodification................................................................................................. 35 Appendix 8: Source Control...................................................................................................... 36 Appendix 9: O&M ................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix 10: Educational Materials .......................................................................................... 38 1514
5 Project and Site Information
The New Home Company proposes the development of “Leal Ranch”, Tentative Tract Map No. 38290, located just northwest of the intersection of Limonite Avenue and Hamner Avenue, in the City of Eastvale, California. Specifically, the project site is bound to the north by 58th Street and existing residential homes beyond; to the east by Hamner Avenue and existing residential homes and a commercial shopping center (Eastvale Gateway); to the south by Limonite Avenue and existing residential homes and a commercial shopping center beyond; and to the west by Scholar Way and existing residential homes beyond.

The Project Site consists of approximately 159.2 acres (6,934,278 SF) and will be subdivided into 14 Planning Areas (Lots 1-14) and 19 lettered lots (A-S) to accommodate a mixed use development consisting of multi-family residential, general retail (shopping center), general offices, medical offices, hotels, civic center, parks and supporting infrastructure improvements. Proposed lot summary is as follows:

Impervious and paved areas for the site include each building structures, streets and parkways, walkways, parking lots and other miscellaneous hardscape areas. Total impervious area is anticipated to consist of approximately 127.36 acres, or 80% of the gross project area.

Pervious areas of the project include open space and designated landscaping areas located in designated park areas, street parkways and parking lots (planters), and private homeowner maintained landscaping areas. Project landscaping and revegetation areas will consist of native and/or drought tolerant plant species. Total pervious area is anticipated to consist of approximately

31.84 acres, or 20% of the gross project area.

Parking is anticipated to be provided via garage parking, driveway parking, open parking lots, parking structures and off-street parking. Total parking shall be consistent with City requirements per each development area’s land use.

Normal trash typical of residential and commercial facilities can be anticipated to be produced daily from the project. These include food wastes (wrappers, bottles, etc.) plastics and paper wastes. Such trash is anticipated to be disposed of by residents, staff, and facility users in designated trash storage, to be hauled off for disposal on a weekly basis (minimum) by the contracting waste disposal company.
1515
6 PROJECT INFORMATION
Type of Project: Mixed-Use (Residential, commercial, office, park, hotel, civic center) Planning Area: Eastvale Area Plan
Community Name: “Leal Ranch”
Development Name: “Leal Ranch”

PROJECT LOCATION
Latitude & Longitude (DD): 33.978862414978266, -117.56268204581465 Project Watershed and Sub-Watershed: Santa Ana River Watershed and Lower Cucamonga Creek APN(s): 164-030-010, 164-030-025, 164-030-012
Map Book and Page No.: TBD

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Proposed or Potential Land Use(s)
Commercial, office,
medical office, hotel,
residential, park
Proposed or Potential SIC Code(s) TBD
Area of Impervious Project Footprint (SF) 5,547,422 SF
Total Area of proposed Impervious Surfaces within the Project Limits (SF)/or Replacement 5,547,422 SF
Does the project consist of offsite road improvements? Y N Does the project propose to construct unpaved roads? Y N Is the project part of a larger common plan of development (phased project)? Y N

EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Total area of Existing Impervious Surfaces within the project limits (SF) 693,428 SF Is the project located within any MSHCP Criteria Cell? Y N If so, identify the Cell number: N/A
Are there any natural hydrologic features on the project site? Y N Is a Geotechnical Report attached? Y N
If no Geotech. Report, list the NRCS soils type(s) present on the site (A, B, C and/or D)
Project resides in A
and C areas
What is the Water Quality Design Storm Depth for the project? 0.86” Maps and Site Plans
The project’s Vicinity Map and Site Plan is provided in Appendix 1 of this WQMP. The maps show the following elements, as required by the WQMP Guidance Document.  Drainage Management Areas
 Proposed Structural BMPs
 Drainage Path
 Drainage Infrastructure, Inlets, Overflows
 Source Control BMPs
 Buildings, Roof Lines, Downspouts
 Impervious Surfaces
 Standard Labeling
1516
7 Receiving Waters
The project’s receiving waters are as follows:

Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters
Receiving Waters 303(d) List
ImpairmentsP
1 Designated Beneficial
Uses
Proximity to RARE
Beneficial Use
Cucamonga Creek
(Reach 1)
801.21
Cadmium, Copper,
Lead, Zinc
GWR, REC2, LWRM,
WILD No RARE designation
Prado Basin
Management
Zone
Hydrologic Unit
801.21
pH REC1, REC2, WARM,
WILD, RARE 6 miles
Santa Ana River
(Reach 3)
Hydrologic Unit
801.21
Copper, Lead
(Indicator Bacteria,
Nitrate)
AGR, GWR, REC1,
REC2, WARM, WILD,

RARE,SPWN
7 miles
Santa Ana River
(Reach 2)
Hydrologic Unit
801.11
None REC2, WARM, WILD, 30 miles
Santa Ana River
(Reach 1)
Hydrologic Unit
801.11
None REC2, WARM, WILD,
RARE
35 miles
Tidal Prism of Santa
Ana River and Newport
Slough
Hydrologic Unit
801.11
None REC1, REC2, COMM,
WILD, RARE, MAR 36.5 miles
Pacific Ocean Offshore
Zone
Hydrologic Unit
801.11
None
IND, NAV, REC1,
REC2, COMM, WILD,

RARE, SPWN, MAR

36.5 miles
P
1 P TMDLs denoted in italics and parenthesis.
1517
8 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project:

Table A.2 Other Applicable Permits
Agency Permit Required
State Department of Fish and Game, 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement Y N State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Cert. Y N
US Army Corps of Engineers, CWA Section 404 Permit Y N
US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion Y N Statewide Construction General Permit Coverage Y N
Statewide Industrial General Permit Coverage Y N
Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency Approval (e.g., JPR, DBESP) Y N Other (please list in the space below as required)
City of Eastvale Development and Grading Permits Y N
1518
9 Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles)
Site Optimization
Does the project identify and preserve existing drainage patterns? If so, how? If not, why? Yes. Pre-project site drains southerly to the existing storm rain in Limonite. Proposed condition will preserve flow patterns of project site.

Does the project identify and protect existing vegetation? If so, how? If not, why? No. Pre-project site does not consist of any natural or native vegetation to be preserved. All vegetation will be removed and replaced with native and/or drought tolerant landscaping.

Does the project identify and preserve natural infiltration capacity? If so, how? If not, why? Yes. Project will allow incidental infiltration of BMPs in the northern and central project areas, and only in areas where suitable soils are known to be present. Although the project tested favorable infiltration rates at a single location and per County data, is located with HSG Type A soils, per the geotechnical professional’s recommendation, infiltration rates at the tested location is not typical of the project site due to the presence of large quantities of silt/compacted silt in project’s subsurface soils. Due to unsuitable soils and low tested infiltration rates in the southern portion of the project site, infiltration will not be employed.

Does the project identify and minimize impervious area? If so, how? If not, why? Yes. Wherever feasible, open space and landscaping areas have been proposed to minimize the amount of directly connected impervious area.

Does the project identify and disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas? If so, how? If not, why? No.

The project will not disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas at this time. However, runoff dispersion will be considered as project design approaches final.
1519
10 Delineate Drainage Management Areas
(DMAs)
Table C.1 DMA Classifications
DMA Name or ID Surface Type(s)P
1 Area (Sq. Ft.) DMA Type
DMA 1
(Sub-Areas A – F)
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt, roof)
5,563,173 Type D
DMA 2
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
571,177 Type D
DMA 3
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
20,004 Type D
DMA 4
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
27,082 Type D
DMA 5
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
37,514 Type D
DMA 6
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
32,384 Type D
DMA 7
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
91,523 Type D
DMA 8
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
93,166 Type D
DMA 9
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
52,777 Type D
DMA 10
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
72,452 Type D
DMA 11
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
17,237 Type D
DMA 12
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
81,864 Type D
DMA 13
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
20,030 Type D
DMA 14
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
40,079 Type D
DMA 15
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
57,984 Type D
1520
11 DMA Name or ID Surface Type(s)P
1 Area (Sq. Ft.) DMA Type
DMA 16
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
95,700 Type D
DMA 17
Mixed Surface Type
(landscaping,
concrete/asphalt)
97,608 Type D
Total -- 6,971,734 --
P
1 PReference Table 2-1 in the WQMP Guidance Document to populate this column

Table C.2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas
DMA Name or ID Area (Sq. Ft.) Stabilization Type Irrigation Type (if any)
None

Table C.3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas
Self-Retaining Area
Type ‘C’ DMAs that are draining to the Self-Retaining
Area
DMA
Name/ ID
Post-project
surface type
Area
(square
feet)
Storm
Depth
(inches) DMA
Name / ID
[C] from Table
C.4 =
Required Retention
Depth (inches)
[A] [B] [C] [D]
None

[𝐷] = [𝐵] +
[𝐵] ∙ [𝐶]
[𝐴]

1521
12 Table C.4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas DMA Receiving Self-Retaining DMA DMA Name/ ID Area (square feet) Post-project surface type Runoff factor Product
DMA name
/ID
Area (square
feet) Ratio
[A] [B]
[C] = [A] x
[B] [D] [C]/[D]
None

Table C.5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs
DMA Name or ID BMP Name or ID
DMA 1 (A-F) Biotreatment BMP 1
DMA 2 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 2
DMA 3 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 3
DMA 4 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 4
DMA 5 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 5
DMA 6 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 6
DMA 7 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 7
DMA 8 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 8
DMA 9 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 9
DMA 10 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 10
DMA 11 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 11
DMA 12 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 12
DMA 13 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 13
DMA 14 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 14
DMA 15 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 15
DMA 16 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 16
DMA 17 Biotreatment/Bioretention BMP 17
Note: More than one drainage management area can drain to a single LID BMP; however, one drainage management area may not drain to more than one BMP. 1522
13 Implement LID BMPs
Infiltration Applicability
Is there an approved downstream ‘Highest and Best Use’ for stormwater runoff (Reference Chapter

2.4.4 of the WQMP Guidance Document for further details)? Y N Geotechnical Report
A Geotechnical Report is required by the City of Eastvale to confirm present and past site characteristics that may affect the use of Infiltration BMPs, see Appendix 3.

Is this project classified as a small project consistent with the requirements of Chapter 2 of the WQMP Guidance Document? Y N
Infiltration Feasibility
Table D.1 Infiltration Feasibility
Does the project site… YES NO
…have any DMAs with a seasonal high groundwater mark shallower than 10 feet? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any DMAs located within 100 feet of a water supply well? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any areas identified by the geotechnical report as posing a public safety risk where infiltration of stormwater could have a negative impact? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have measured in-situ infiltration rates of less than 1.6 inches / hour? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have significant cut and/or fill conditions that would preclude in-situ testing of infiltration rates at the final infiltration surface? X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…geotechnical report identifies other site-specific factors that would preclude effective and safe infiltration? X
Describe here: Based on preliminary infiltration testing conducted onsite, infiltration of the site is feasible for norther and central areas of the project site. Southern areas is not feasible.

Harvest and Use Assessment
The following conditions apply:

Reclaimed water will be used for the non-potable water demands for the project.

Downstream water rights may be impacted by Harvest and Use as approved by the Regional Board (verify with the Copermittee).

The Design Capture Volume will be addressed using Infiltration Only BMPs. In such a case, Harvest and Use BMPs are still encouraged, but are not required as the Design Capture Volume will be infiltrated or evapotranspired.

Irrigation Use Feasibility
Step 1: Total Area of Irrigated Landscape: N/A
Type of Landscaping (Conservation Design or Active Turf): N/A Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: N/A
1523
14 Step 3: The project EIATIA factor: N/A
Step 4: Minimum required irrigated area:

Step 5:

Minimum required irrigated area (Step 4) Available Irrigated Landscape (Step 1)

N/A N/A
Toilet Use Feasibility
Step 1: Projected Number of Daily Toilet Users: N/A
Project Type: N/A
Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: N/A
Step 3: Enter your TUTIA factor: N/A
Step 4: Minimum number of toilet users: N/A
Step 5:

Minimum required Toilet Users (Step 4) Projected number of toilet users (Step 1)

N/A N/A
Other Non-Potable Use Feasibility
Are there other non-potable uses for stormwater runoff on the site (e.g. industrial use)? There are no other non-potable uses for stormwater runoff of site.

Step 1: Average Daily Demand: N/A
Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: N/A
Step 3: Enter the factor from Table 2-3: N/A
Step 4: Minimum required use: N/A
Step 5:

Minimum required non-potable use (Step 4) Projected average daily use (Step 1)

N/A N/A
1524
15 Bioretention and Biotreatment Assessment
Other LID Bioretention and Biotreatment BMPs as described in Chapter 2.4.7 of the WQMP Guidance Document are feasible on nearly all development sites with sufficient advance planning.

For the project neither of the following applies:

LID Bioretention/Biotreatment BMPs will be used for some or all DMAs of the project as noted below in Section D.4
A site-specific analysis demonstrating the technical infeasibility of all LID BMPs has been performed and is included in Appendix 5.

The project proposes to use a combination of Bioretention BMPs (non-infiltration type) and Proprietary Biotreatment BMPs to address project runoff.

Feasibility Assessment Summaries
Table D.2 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix
DMA*
Name/
ID
LID BMP Hierarchy No LID
(Alternative
Compliance) 1. Infiltration 2. Harvest and use 3. Bioretention 4. Biotreatment DMA 1
DMA 2
DMA 3
DMA 4
DMA 5
DMA 6
DMA 7
DMA 8
DMA 9
DMA 10
DMA 11
DMA 12
DMA 13
DMA 14
DMA 15
DMA 16
DMA 17
Runoff from DMA 1 will be conveyed to a proprietary biotreatment BMP facility located in the southwestern portion of the project site (exact location to be determined) for treatment prior to discharging to the existing storm drain system in Limonite Avenue.

DMAs 2 (onsite backbone streets) and 2 through 17 (offsite perimeter street improvements) will be conveyed to parkway bioretention BMPs and/or proprietary biotreatment BMPs prior to discharging to the existing storm drain system along the project’s perimeter streets.

Since the project is in the preliminary stage of design (TTM level), the exact locations and actual BMPs to be implemented are tentative and subject to change. Therefore, only feasible BMP alternatives and preliminary locations are provided at this time.

The required Design Capture Volume (VBMP) and Design Flow Rate (QBMP) for each BMP are provided in the following tables. Although sizing of the proposed BMPs have not been determined at this time, it is anticipated that the project will be able to achieve minimum VBMP and QBMP requirements for each DMA. 1525
16 LID BMP Sizing
Table D.3 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction,
IRf
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff
Factor(1)
Design
Storm
Depth
(In)
Design
Capture
Volume,
Vbmp (cubic
feet)
(2)

Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
DMA 1A 2,002,660
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 1,201,596.0 0.86 86,114.4

TBD

DMA 1B 723,208
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 433,924.8 0.86 31,097.9
DMA 1C 668,544
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 401,126.4 0.86 28,747.4
DMA 1D 1,287,889
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 772,733.4 0.86 55,379.2
DMA 1E 558,821
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 335,292.6 0.86 24,029.3
DMA 1F 322,031
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 193,218.6 0.86 13,847.3
DMA 2 571,177
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 342,706.2 0.86 24,560.6
DMA 3 20,004
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 12,002.4 0.86 860.2
DMA 4 27,082
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 16,249.2 0.86 1,164.5
DMA 5 37,514
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 22,508.4 0.86 1,613.1
DMA 6 32,384
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 19,430.4 0.86 1,392.5
DMA 7 91,523
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 54,913.8 0.86 3,935.5
DMA 8 93,166
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 55,899.6 0.86 4,006.1
DMA 9 52,777
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 31,666.2 0.86 2,269.4
1526
17 DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction,
IRf
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff
Factor(1)
Design
Storm
Depth
(In)
Design
Capture
Volume,
Vbmp (cubic
feet)
(2)

Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
DMA 10 72,452
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 43,471.2 0.86 3,115.4

TBD
DMA 11 17,237
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 10,342.2 0.86 741.2
DMA 12 81,864
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 49,118.4 0.86 3,520.2
DMA 13 20,030
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 12,018.0 0.86 861.3
DMA 14 40,079
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 24,047.4 0.86 1,723.4
DMA 15 57,984
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 34,790.4 0.86 2,493.3
DMA 16 95,700
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 57,420.0 0.86 4,115.1
DMA 17 97,608
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 58,564.8 0.86 4,197.1
Total 6,971,734 -- 4,183,040.4 0.86 299,784.6
(1), (2) Differences between values obtained in this table and County Worksheets due to rounding of values. 1527
18 Table D.4.1 QBMP Calculations for LID BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction,
IRf
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff
Factor(1)
Design
Rainfall
Intensity
(in/hr)
Design
Flow Rate
(cfs)
(2)

Proposed
Flow
Rate (cfs)
DMA 1A 2,002,660
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 1,201,596.0 0.2 5.52

TBD

DMA 1B 723,208
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 433,924.8 0.2 1.99
DMA 1C 668,544
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 401,126.4 0.2 1.84
DMA 1D 1,287,889
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 772,733.4 0.2 3.55
DMA 1E 558,821
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 335,292.6 0.2 1.54
DMA 1F 322,031
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 193,218.6 0.2 0.89
DMA 2 571,177
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 342,706.2 0.2 1.57
DMA 3 20,004
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 12,002.4 0.2 0.06
DMA 4 27,082
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 16,249.2 0.2 0.07
DMA 5 37,514
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 22,508.4 0.2 0.10
DMA 6 32,384
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 19,430.4 0.2 0.09
DMA 7 91,523
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 54,913.8 0.2 0.25
DMA 8 93,166
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 55,899.6 0.2 0.26
DMA 9 52,777
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 31,666.2 0.2 0.15
DMA 10 72,452
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 43,471.2 0.2 0.20
1528
19 DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction,
IRf
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff
Factor(1)
Design
Rainfall
Intensity
(in/hr)
Design
Flow Rate
(cfs)
(2)

Proposed
Flow
Rate (cfs)
DMA 11 17,237
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 10,342.2 0.2 0.05

TBD
DMA 12 81,864
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 49,118.4 0.2 0.23
DMA 13 20,030
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 12,018.0 0.2 0.06
DMA 14 40,079
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 24,047.4 0.2 0.11
DMA 15 57,984
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 34,790.4 0.2 0.16
DMA 16 95,700
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 57,420.0 0.2 0.26
DMA 17 97,608
Mixed
Surface
Type

0.8 0.6 58,564.8 0.2 0.27
Total 6,971,734 -- 4,183,040.4 0.20 19.21
(1), (2) Differences between values obtained in this table and County Worksheets due to rounding of values. 1529
20 Alternative Compliance (LID Waiver Program)
LID BMPs are expected to be feasible on virtually all projects. Where LID BMPs have been demonstrated to be infeasible as documented in Section D, other Treatment Control BMPs must be used (subject to LID waiver approval by the Regional Board). For the project, the following applies:

LID Principles and LID BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all Drainage Management Areas. No alternative compliance measures are required for this project and thus this Section is not required to be completed.
- Or -
The following Drainage Management Areas are unable to be addressed using LID BMPs. A sitespecific analysis demonstrating technical infeasibility of LID BMPs has been approved by the Regional Board and included in Appendix 5. Additionally, no downstream regional and/or subregional LID BMPs exist or are available for use by the project. The alternative compliance measures on the following pages are being implemented to ensure that any pollutant loads expected to be discharged by not incorporating LID BMPs, are fully mitigated. 1530
21 Identify Pollutants of Concern
Utilizing Table A.1 from Section A above which noted your project’s receiving waters and their associated EPA approved 303(d) listed impairments, cross reference this information with that of your selected Priority Development Project Category in Table E.1 below. If the identified General Pollutant Categories are the same as those listed for your receiving waters, then these will be your Pollutants of Concern and the appropriate box or boxes will be checked on the last row. The purpose of this is to document compliance and to help you appropriately plan for mitigating your Pollutants of Concern in lieu of implementing LID BMPs.

Table D.5 Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type
Priority Development
Project Categories and/or
Project Features (check those
that apply)
General Pollutant Categories
Bacterial
Indicators
Metals Nutrients Pesticides
Toxic
Organic
Compounds
Sediments
Trash &
Debris
Oil &
Grease
Detached Residential
Development P N P P N P P P
Attached Residential
Development P N P P N P P P
(2)
Commercial/Industrial
Development P
(3) P P(1) P(1) P(5) P(1) P P
Automotive Repair Shops N P N N P
(4, 5) N P P
Restaurants
(>5,000 ft2)

P N N N N N P P
Hillside Development
(>5,000 ft2)

P N P P N P P P
Parking Lots
(>5,000 ft2)
P
(6) P P(1) P(1) P(4) P(1) P P
Retail Gasoline Outlets N P N N P N P P
Project Priority Pollutant(s) of
Concern
P = Potential
N = Not Potential
(1) A potential Pollutant if non-native landscaping exists or is proposed onsite; otherwise not expected (2) A potential Pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas; otherwise not expected (3) A potential Pollutant is land use involving animal waste (4) Specifically petroleum hydrocarbons
(5) Specifically solvents
(6) Bacterial indicators are routinely detected in pavement runoff 1531
22 Stormwater Credits
Projects that cannot implement LID BMPs but implement smart growth principles are potentially eligible for Stormwater Credits. Utilize Table 3-8 within the WQMP Guidance Document to identify your Project Category and its associated Water Quality Credit.

Table D.6 Water Quality Credits
Qualifying Project Categories Credit Percentage2
Not applicable to project. Project will
implement LID BMPs to address runoff.

Total Credit Percentage
1 1Cannot Exceed 50%
2Obtain corresponding data from Table 3-8 in the WQMP Guidance Document Sizing Criteria
After you appropriately considered Stormwater Credits for your project, utilize Table E.3 below to appropriately size them to the DCV, or Design Flow Rate, as applicable. Please reference Chapter 3.5.2 of the WQMP Guidance Document for further information. This section is not applicable to project.

Project will use LID BMPs to address project runoff.

Table D.7 Treatment Control BMP Sizing
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area x
Runoff
Factor

Enter BMP Name / Identifier Here
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)
Minimum
Design
Capture
Volume or
Design Flow
Rate (cubic
feet or cfs)
Total Storm
Water
Credit %
Reduction
Propose
d
Volume
or Flow
on Plans
(cubic
feet or
cfs)
AT =
Σ[A] Σ= [D] [E] [F] =
[D]x[E]
[G]
[F] X (1-
[H]) [I]
[B], [C] is obtained as described in Section 2.3.1 from the WQMP Guidance Document [E] is obtained from Exhibit A in the WQMP Guidance Document [G] is for Flow-Based Treatment Control BMPs [G] = 43,560, for Volume-Based Control Treatment BMPs, [G] = 12 [H] is from the Total Credit Percentage as Calculated from Table E.2 above [I] as obtained from a design procedure sheet from the BMP manufacturer and should be included in Appendix 6 1532
23 Treatment Control BMP Selection
Treatment Control BMPs typically provide proprietary treatment mechanisms to treat potential pollutants in runoff, but do not sustain significant biological processes. Treatment Control BMPs must have a removal efficiency of a medium or high effectiveness as quantified below:
 High: equal to or greater than 80% removal efficiency  Medium: between 40% and 80% removal efficiency
Such removal efficiency documentation (e.g., studies, reports, etc.) as further discussed in Chapter 3.5.2 of the WQMP Guidance Document, must be included in Appendix 6. In addition, ensure that proposed Treatment Control BMPs are properly identified on the WQMP Site Plan in Appendix 1.

This section is not applicable to project. Project will employ LID BMPs to address runoff.

Table D.8 Treatment Control BMP Selection
Selected Treatment Control BMP
Name or ID1
Priority Pollutant(s) of
Concern to Mitigate2
Removal Efficiency
Percentage3
1 Treatment Control BMPs must not be constructed within Receiving Waters. In addition, a proposed Treatment Control BMP may be listed more than once if they possess more than one qualifying pollutant removal efficiency. 2 Cross Reference Table E.1 above to populate this column. 3 As documented in a Co-Permittee Approved Study and provided in Appendix 6.

1533
24 Hydromodification
F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Analysis
HCOC EXEMPTION 1: The Priority Development Project disturbs less than one acre. The City of Eastvale has the discretion to require a Project-Specific WQMP to address HCOCs on projects less than one acre on a case by case basis. The disturbed area calculation should include all disturbances associated with larger common plans of development.

Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N
The project does not qualify.

HCOC EXEMPTION 2: The volume and time of concentrationP 1 P of storm water runoff for the postdevelopment condition is not significantly different from the pre-development condition for a 2-year return frequency storm (a difference of 5% or less is considered insignificant) using one of the following methods to calculate:
 Riverside County Hydrology Manual
 Technical Release 55 (TR-55): Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (NRCS 1986), or derivatives thereof, such as the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method  Other methods acceptable to the City of Eastvale
Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N
The project does not qualify.

Table E.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Summary
52T2 year – 24 hour
Pre-condition Post-condition % Difference

P
1 Time of concentration is defined as the time after the beginning of the rainfall when all portions of the drainage basin are contributing to flow at the outlet.

HCOC EXEMPTION 3: All downstream conveyance channels to an adequate sump (for example, Prado Dam, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Santa Ana River, or other lake, reservoir or naturally erosion resistant feature) that will receive runoff from the project are engineered and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity; no sensitive stream habitat areas will be adversely affected; or are not identified on the Co-Permittees Hydromodification Sensitivity Maps.

Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N
Per most recent hydromodification susceptibility data, project is located within a hydromodification exempt area. See Appendix 7.

F.2 HCOC Mitigation
As an alternative to the HCOC Exemption Criteria above, HCOC criteria is considered mitigated if the project meets one of the following conditions, as indicated:
1534
25 Additional LID BMPS are implemented onsite or offsite to mitigate potential erosion or habitat impacts as a result of HCOCs. This can be conducted by an evaluation of site-specific conditions utilizing accepted professional methodologies published by entities such as the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCRWP), or other Co-Permittee approved methodologies for site-specific HCOC analysis.

The project is developed consistent with an approved Watershed Action Plan that addresses HCOC in Receiving Waters.

Mimicking the pre-development hydrograph with the post-development hydrograph, for a 2- year return frequency storm. Generally, the hydrologic conditions of concern are not significant, if the post-development hydrograph is no more than 10% greater than pre-development hydrograph. In cases where excess volume cannot be infiltrated or captured and reused, discharge from the site must be limited to a flow rate no greater than 110% of the predevelopment 2-year peak flow.

None of the above.

1535
26 Source Control BMPs
Source control BMPs include permanent, structural features that may be required in project plans — such as roofs over and berms around trash and recycling areas — and Operational BMPs, such as regular sweeping and “housekeeping”, that must be implemented by the site’s occupant or user. The MEP standard typically requires both types of BMPs. In general, Operational BMPs cannot be substituted for a feasible and effective permanent BMP. Using the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist in Appendix 8, the following Source Control BMPs are applicable to this project:

Table G.1 Permanent and Operations Source Control Measures Potential Sources of Runoff
pollutants
Permanent Structural Source
Control BMPs
Operational Source Control
BMPs
A. On-site storm drain inlets
Mark all inlets with the words
“Only Rain Down the Storm
Drain” or similar. Catch Basin
Makers may be available from
the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation
District, call 951.955.1200 to
verify.

Maintain and periodically
repaint or replace inlet markings.

Provide stormwater pollution
prevention information to new
site owners, lessees, or
operators.

See applicable operational BMPs
in Fact Sheet SC-44, “Drainage
System Maintenance,” in the
CASQA Stormwater Quality
Handbooks at
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Include the following in lease
agreements: “Tenant shall not
allow anyone to discharge
anything to storm drains or to
store or deposit materials so as
to create a potential discharge to
storm drains.”
B. Interior floor drains and
elevator shaft sump pumps
Any interior floor drains and
elevator shaft sump pumps will
be plumbed to sanitary sewer.

Inspect and maintain drains to
prevent blockages and overflow.

C. Interior parking garages Parking garage floor drains will be plumbed to the sanitary
sewer.

Inspect and maintain drains to
prevent blockages and overflow.

D1. Need for future indoor and
structural pest control
Design building features that
discourage entry of pests
Provide Integrated Pest
Management information to
owners, lessees and operators.
1536
27 Potential Sources of Runoff
pollutants
Permanent Structural Source
Control BMPs
Operational Source Control
BMPs
D2. Landscape/Outdoor
Pesticide Use
Preserve, existing native trees,
shrubs, and ground cover to the
maximum extent possible.

Design landscaping to minimize
irrigation and runoff, to promote
surface infiltration where
appropriate, and to minimize the
use of fertilizers and pesticides
that can contribute to stormwater
pollution.

Where landscaping areas are
used to retain or detain
stormwater, specify plants that
are tolerant of saturated soil
conditions.

Consider using pest-resistant
plants, especially to hardscape.

To insure successful
establishment, select plants
appropriate to site soils, slopes,
climate, sun, wind, rain, land
use, air movement, ecological
consistency, and plant
interactions.

Maintain landscaping using
minimum or no pesticides.

See applicable operation BMPs
in “What you show know
for…..Landscaping and
Gardening”
Provide IPM information to new
owners, lessees and operators.

E. Pools, spas, ponds, decorative
fountains, and other water
features.

Ensure pools are plumbed to the
sanitary sewer, place notes on
plans that connection will be
made according to local
requirements.

See applicable operational BMPs
in “Guidelines for Maintaining
Your Swimming Pool, Jacuzzi
and Garden Fountain”
F. Food service Provide description of cleaning
area locations and features.

Provide description of items to be
cleaned in facility and sizing to
ensure largest items can be
accommodated.

See brochure “The Food Service
Industry Best Management
Practices for: Restaurants,
Grocery Stores, Delicatessens
and Bakeries”.

Provide brochure to new site
owners, lessees and operators.

G. Refuse areas Trash enclosure areas shall be
paved, covered with a solid
canopy-type roof and precluded
from rain, run-on and runoff.

Drainage from any adjoining
roofs and pavements shall be
diverted around facility.

Perimeter walls shall be installed
and dumpster lid provided to
prevent offsite transport of trash.

Surrounding area shall be kept
Ensure adequate number of
receptacles. Inspect receptacles
regularly; repair or replace
leaky receptacles. Keep
receptacles covered.

Prohibit/prevent dumping of
liquid or hazardous wastes. Post
“no hazardous materials” signs.

Inspect and pick up litter daily
and clean up spills immediately.

Keep spill control materials
1537
28 Potential Sources of Runoff
pollutants
Permanent Structural Source
Control BMPs
Operational Source Control
BMPs
clean, with all leaks and overspilled materials clean up as soon as possible. Trash shall be
emptied on a weekly basis (at
minimum) and as needed.
available on-site. See Fact Sheet
SC-34, “Waste Handling and
Disposal” in the CASQA
Stormwater Quality Handbooks
at www.cabmphandbooks.com
N. Fire sprinkler test water Provide a means to drain fire sprinkler test water to the sanitary
sewer.

See the note in Fact Sheet SC41, “Building and Grounds Maintenance,” in the CASQA
Stormwater Quality Handbooks
at www. Cabmphandbooks.com
P. Plazas, sidewalks and parking
lots
Sweep regularly Sweep plazas, sidewalks, and
parking lots regularly to prevent
accumulation of litter and debris.

Collect debris from pressure
washing to prevent entry into the
storm drain system. Collect wash
water containing any cleaning
agent or degreaser and
discharge to the sanitary sewer
not to a storm drain.
1538
29 Construction Plan Checklist
Table H.1 Construction Plan Cross-reference
BMP No. or
ID BMP Identifier and Description Corresponding Plan Sheet(s) N/A Project is currently in the TTM approval process.
1539
30 Operation, Maintenance and Funding
As required by the City of Eastvale, the following Operation, Maintenance and Funding details are provided as summarized:

1. A means to finance and implement facility maintenance in perpetuity, including replacement cost.

2. Acceptance of responsibility for maintenance from the time the BMPs are constructed until responsibility for operation and maintenance is legally transferred.

3. An outline of general maintenance requirements for the Stormwater BMPs selected.

4. Figures delineating and designating pervious and impervious areas, location, and type of Stormwater BMP, and tables of pervious and impervious areas served by each facility..

5. A separate list and location of self-retaining areas or areas addressed by LID Principles that do not require specialized O&M or inspections but will require typical landscape maintenance as noted in Chapter 5, pages 85-86, in the WQMP Guidance.

See Appendix 9 for a detailed Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan that sets forth a maintenance schedule for each of the Stormwater BMPs built on site, and an agreement assigning responsibility for maintenance and providing for inspections and certification.

Maintenance Mechanism: Property Owner (The New Home Company) prior to takeover by HOA.

Will the proposed BMPs be maintained by a Home Owners’ Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA)?
Y N
Operation and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Mechanism are included in Appendix 9.

Educational materials for those personnel that will be maintaining the proposed BMPs within this ProjectSpecific WQMP are included in Appendix 10. Maintenance 1540
31 Appendix 1: Maps and Site Plans
Vicinity Map, WQMP Site Plan and Receiving Waters Exhibit 1541
PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: DRAWN BY: TIH DATE: 10/18/2021 W.O.: 2749-44 PROJECT SITE "LEAL RANCH" - TTM 38290 NORTHWEST OF LIMONITE AVENUE & HAMNER AVENUE CITY OF EASTVALE, CALIFORNIA PRELIMINARY WQMP VICINITY MAP 1542
ACRE DMA GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 INCH = FT. 0 75 300 150 150 LEGEND "LEAL RANCH" - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38290 NORTHWEST OF LIMONITE AVENUE & HAMNER AVENUE CITY OF EASTVALE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) DMA SUMMARY 0.50 DMA3 0.62 DMA4 0.86 DMA5 0.74 DMA6 2.20 DMA16 2.10 DMA7 1.33 DMA15 2.14 DMA8 45.98 DMA1-A 16.60 DMA1-B15.35 DMA1-C 29.57 DMA1-D 12.83 DMA1-E 7.39 DMA1-F 1.21 DMA9 0.92 DMA14 0.46 DMA13 1.88 DMA12 0.40 DMA11 1.66 DMA10 13.11 DMA2 13.11 DMA2 13.11 DMA2 13.11 DMA2 13.11 DMA2 13.11 DMA2 2.24 DMA17 1543
58TH STREET

LOT - E

LOT - H

LOT - J

LOT - B

LOT - F

LOT - L

LOT - N

LOT - K

LOT - G LOT - Q LOT - C LOT - P LOT - A
LOT - 14
LOT - 12
LOT - 5
LOT - 4
LOT - 2 LOT - 1
LOT - 6
LOT - 9
LOT - 3
LOT - 8
LOT - 13 LOT - 11
LOT - 10

LOT - O LOT - I HAMNER AVESCHOLAR WAY

LIMONITE AVE

LOT - S

LOT - D LOT - R LOT - E
LOT - 7 LOT - T LOT - V LOT - U

LOT - M
Numbered Lots
Lot # S.F. Acres
1 315,892.10 7.252
2 550,731.85 12.643
3 42,245.50 0.970
4 280,986.58 6.451
5 203,068.13 4.662
6 244,324.99 5.609
7 613,599.82 14.086
8 171,451.45 3.936
9 191,384.23 4.394
10 196,757.07 4.517
11 724,736.51 16.638
12 754,749.47 17.327
13 574,268.61 13.183
14 53,083.07 1.219
Total 4,917,279.37 112.8852
Lettered Lots
Lot # S.F. Acres
A 139,937.69 3.213
B 147,811.51 3.393
C 84,478.50 1.939
D 38,267.77 0.879
E 246,244.32 5.653
F 44,673.74 1.026
G 113,590.68 2.608
H 115,905.65 2.661
I 67,321.01 1.545
J 89,110.05 2.046
K 68,998.58 1.584
L 153,611.43 3.526
M 18,039.30 0.414
N 31,408.46 0.721
O 22,086.67 0.507
P 26,795.98 0.615
Q 84,078.57 1.930
R 46,663.19 1.071
S 24,737.25 0.568
T 17,417.82 0.400
U 19,077.17 0.438
V 10,461.10 0.240
Total 1,610,716.43 36.9770
1544
Receiving Waters Exhibit
Project
Site

N
Not to Scale
Cucamonga
Creek (Reach 1)
Prado Basin Management
Zone/ Santa Ana River
(Reach 3)
1545
30 Appendix 2: Construction Plans
Grading and Drainage Plans
 Construction Plans shall be submitted with the Final WQMP, at the time of Grading Plan submittal, which will provide detailed design drawings of all LID BMPs for the project and structural source control BMP locations.
1546
31 Appendix 3: Soils Information
Geotechnical Study and Other Infiltration Testing Data
1547
131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com

June 21, 2021 Project No. 21116-01
Mr. A.J. Jarvis
The New Home Company
85 Enterprise, Suite 450
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Including Near Surface Organic Content for the Proposed Approximately 160‐Acre “Leal” Property, City of Eastvale, California In accordance with your request, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a geotechnical evaluation including near surface organic content for the proposed approximate 160-acre “Leal” property located southwest of the intersection of Hamner Avenue and 58th Street in the City of Eastvale, California. This report summarizes the results of our background review, subsurface exploration, and geotechnical analyses of the data collected, and presents our findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations for the proposed residential project.

If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.

Respectfully,
LGC Geotechnical, Inc.

Blake J. Elliott, RCE 70705 Barry Graham, CEG 2749
Project Engineer Project Geologist

BJE/BPG/amm
Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic copy, wet signed copies can be provided upon request) 1548
Project No. 21116‐01 Page i June 21, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................2

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ............................................................................................... 2

1.2 Existing Site Conditions and Proposed Improvements .............................................. 2

1.3 Subsurface Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................6

2.1 Regional Geology .......................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Site Geology and Generalized Subsurface Conditions ................................................... 6

2.3 Groundwater.................................................................................................................................. 6

2.4 Field Infiltration Testing ........................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Faulting and Seismic Hazards ................................................................................................. 7

2.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ................................................................ 8

2.5.2 Lateral Spreading ......................................................................................................... 8

2.6 Seismic Design Criteria .............................................................................................................. 9

2.7 Organic Rich Soils ...................................................................................................................... 10

3.0 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................................12

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................13

4.1 Site Earthwork ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.1.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................... 14

4.1.2 Organic Rich Soil Recommendations .................................................................. 14

4.1.3 Removal Depths and Limits .................................................................................... 14

4.1.4 Temporary Excavations ........................................................................................... 15

4.1.5 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................... 16

4.1.6 Material for Fill ............................................................................................................. 16

4.1.7 Placement and Compaction of Fills ...................................................................... 17

4.1.8 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction ................................... 17

4.1.9 Shrinkage and Subsidence ...................................................................................... 18

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Provisional Conventional Foundation Design ................................................ 18

4.2.2 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters ................. 19

4.2.3 Shallow Foundation Maintenance ....................................................................... 19

4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines ............................................................................. 20

4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance .................................................................................. 20

4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations .................. 21

4.5 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal ..................................................................................... 22

4.6 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections ..................................................... 23

4.7 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork ...................................................................................... 24

4.8 Subsurface Water Infiltration ............................................................................................... 25

4.9 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control ............................................................ 26 1549
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Project No. 21116‐01 Page ii June 21, 2021

4.10 Supplemental Field Explorations ........................................................................................ 26

4.11 Geotechnical Plan Review ...................................................................................................... 26

4.12 Geotechnical Observation and Testing .............................................................................. 26

5.0 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................28

LIST OF TABLES, ILLUSTRATIONS, & APPENDICES
Tables
Table 1 – Summary of Infiltration Testing (Page 7)
Table 2 – Seismic Design Parameters (Page 10)
Table 3 – Lateral Earth Pressures – Select Sand Backfill (Page 21) Table 4 – Preliminary Pavement Sections (Page 23)
Table 5 – Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Placed on Very Low to Low Expansion Potential Subgrade (Page 24)
Table 6 – Summary of Measured Organic Content vs. Depth of Sample (Appendix C) Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map (Page 5)
Figure 2 – Geotechnical Map (Rear of Text)
Figure 3 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail – Option 1 (Rear of Text) Figure 4 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail – Option 2 (Rear of Text) Figure 5 – Remedial Grading Diagram (Rear of Text)
Appendices
Appendix A – References
Appendix B – Boring & Geotechnical Trench Logs
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – Infiltration Test Data
Appendix E – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading 1550
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 2 June 21, 2021

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services
This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation including near surface organic content for the proposed approximately 160-acre “Leal” property in the City of Eastvale, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The purpose of our work was to collect subsurface data in order to prepare a geotechnical report providing recommendations for design and construction of the proposed project. Our scope of services included:
 Review of pertinent readily available geotechnical information and geologic maps (Appendix A).  Subsurface investigation including excavation, sampling, and logging of ten small-diameter hollow stem borings.
 Excavation of 10 exploratory geotechnical trenches throughout the site to aid in estimating the depth of required removals during grading and assist in characterizing the near surface soils.
 Excavation of 25 shallow trenches to assess the organic content of near surface “soils”.  Laboratory testing of representative samples obtained during our subsurface investigation (Appendix C).
 Geotechnical analysis and evaluation of the data obtained, including:
- Suitability of the site for the proposed development from a geotechnical standpoint; - Description of the site geology, and subsurface soil and groundwater conditions; - Assessment of the organic content of near surface “soils” including recommendations for offsite organic export and/or mixing;
- Evaluation of the seismic conditions at the site, including seismic design criteria based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC); and
- Recommendations for remedial grading operations and site preparation.  Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations with respect to the proposed site development.

1.2 Existing Site Conditions and Proposed Improvements
The square shaped site is approximately 160 acres in size with minor relief. The site is composed of four adjacent 40-acre parcels, and is bounded to the north by 58th street, the south by Limonite Avenue, the west by Scholar Way, and to the East by Hamner Avenue. The northern portion of the site is a former dairy that has been inactive for several years, while the south has remained as open pasture for decades. A review of historic aerial photographs suggests the site has been used as a dairy or agricultural farm dating back to the earliest available photos in 1938.

As of the date of this report, neither a conceptual plan nor grading plan was available. It is our understanding that the site will most likely consist of residential units, parks and associated street improvements and underground utilities. We expect the proposed residential development will be at-grade with relatively light building loads (column and wall loads assumed to be a maximum of approximately 30 kips and 3 kips per lineal foot, respectively). A preliminary grading plan was not available at this time either.

1551
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 3 June 21, 2021
The recommendations provided herein are based upon the estimated structural loading and expected layout information above. We understand that the project plans are currently being developed at this time; LGC Geotechnical should be provided with updated project plans and any changes to the assumed structural loads when they become available, in order to either confirm or modify the recommendations provided herein.

1.3 Subsurface Evaluation
LGC Geotechnical performed a subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site consisting of the excavation of 10 hollow-stem auger borings, 2 infiltration borings, 10 exploratory geotechnical trenches with organic testing, and 25 near surface organic trenches. 10 hollow-stem borings (HS-1 through HS-10) were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 25 to 50 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical representative observed the drilling operations, logged the borings, and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. The borings were excavated using a track-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollowstem augers. Driven soil samples were collected by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California Drive (MCD) sampler generally obtained at 2.5 to 5-foot vertical increments. The MCD is a split-barrel sampler with a tapered cutting tip and lined with a series of 1-inch-tall brass rings. The SPT sampler and MCD sampler were driven using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches to advance the sampler a total depth of 18 inches. The raw blow counts for each 6-inch increment of penetration were recorded on the boring logs. Bulk samples were also collected and logged at select depths for laboratory testing. At the completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with the native soil cuttings and tamped. Some settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time.

Ten exploratory geotechnical trenches (TP-1 through TP-10) were excavated utilizing a standard backhoe in order to estimate removal depths and obtain samples for laboratory testing. A staff geologist observed the operation, logged the geotechnical trenches and collected the soil samples.

Each exploratory geotechnical trench was also logged and sampled for the organic content of the near surface “soils.” The exploratory geotechnical trenches were subsequently backfilled with tamped native soils.

Twenty-five additional shallow trenches (T-1 through T-25) were excavated utilizing a standard backhoe in order to assess the organic content of near surface “soils”. Samples were collected at various depths within each trench. In general, based on visual observations, 2 layers of soil were identified including 1) near surface heavily tainted organic “soils” and 2) “clean” (organic free) soils. In some areas there was a “transitional” layer in between these two. The shallow trenches were subsequently backfilled and tamped with native soils. There are 4 areas identified as having thick zones of buried or stockpiled high-organic material. These 4 areas have been outlined on our Geotechnical Map (Figure 2).

LGC Geotechnical, Inc. was asked to avoid the northwest corner of the property during our evaluation as this area is currently occupied by a local farmer. This area was not explored during our evaluation. The boundary for this area is shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2).

The approximate locations of borings and trenches are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 1552
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 4 June 21, 2021
2). Boring and geotechnical trench logs are presented in Appendix B. The Encumbrance Map prepared by Hunsaker & Associates (H&A, 2021) was utilized as a base map for our Geotechnical Map.

1.4 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples obtained from our subsurface evaluation. Laboratory testing included in-situ moisture and density tests, fines content/sieve analysis, Atterberg Limits (liquid limit and plastic limits), consolidation, collapse/swell potential, expansion index, laboratory compaction and corrosion (sulfate and chloride). Additionally, the near surface organic content trench samples were tested for characterization of the organic content (ASTM 2974).

The following is a summary of the laboratory test results.  Dry density of the samples collected ranged from approximately 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 122 pcf, with an average of approximately 109 pcf. Field moisture contents ranged from approximately 1.1 percent to 32.0 percent, with an average of approximately 12 percent.
 One sample tested for fines content indicated a fines content (passing No. 200 sieve) of 83 percent. According to the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS), the tested sample is classified as “fine grained” soil.
 One Atterberg Limit (liquid limit and plastic limit) test was performed. The result indicated a Plasticity Index value of 11.
 One consolidation test was performed. The deformation versus vertical stress plot is provided in Appendix C.
 One swell/collapse test was performed. The plots are provided in Appendix C.  One Expansion Index (EI) test was performed. The result indicates an EI value of 11, corresponding to “Very Low” expansion potential.
 One laboratory compaction test of a near surface sample indicated maximum dry density of 125.0 pcf with an optimum moisture content of 8.5 percent.  Corrosion testing indicated soluble sulfate content of 78 parts per million (ppm) and chloride content of 100 ppm.
 The organic content of the samples ranged from approximately 0.1 to 33.2 percent.

A summary of the results is presented in Appendix C. The moisture and dry density test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B.
1553
Site Location
FIGURE 1
Site Location Map
DATE June 2021
ENG. / GEOL.

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT NAME
SCALE

BJE / BPG
Not to Scale
TNHC - Eastvale
21116-01
1554
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 6 June 21, 2021

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

2.1 Regional Geology
The subject site is located south of the San Gabriel Mountains within the broad alluvial plain of the Santa Ana River Basin, within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. Specifically, the site is located within the northern portion of the Perris Block, a geologic zone consisting of granitics overlain by sedimentary deposits that are bounded by active faults including the northwest-trending Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone at the southwest and the northwest-trending San Jacinto Fault Zone at the northeast (USGS, 2002). The roughly rectangular Perris Block is transected by the southwest-trending Santa Ana River that passes approximately 2 miles south of the subject site.

Regional geologic mapping and local topographic expressions do not indicate the presence of large-scale landslides within or adjacent to the project area.

2.2 Site Geology and Generalized Subsurface Conditions
Based on regional mapping (USGS, 2002 & 2003), the subject site is underlain by Holocene- to Pleistocene-age alluvial fan deposits (Qyf), minor amounts of similar age eolian (wind-blown) deposits (Qye), and older early Pleistocene age alluvial channel deposits at depth. For this report however, alluvial and eolian deposits have been undifferentiated as general Quaternary deposits.

As indicated in our field explorations, soils generally consisted of medium dense to dense sands and silty sands with thinner layers of stiff to very stiff fine-grained soils (i.e., silts and clays) to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50 feet below existing grade. Descriptions of the subsurface conditions are presented on the boring and geotechnical trench logs located in Appendix B. A brief description of the site geologic units can be found below.

2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings. Groundwater levels recorded in the area by California Department of Water Resources are at depths greater than 100 feet below the ground surface (CDWR, 2021).

In general, groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater may be present within the near-surface deposits due to local seepage or during rainy seasons. Groundwater conditions below the site may be variable, depending on numerous factors including seasonal rainfall, local irrigation and groundwater pumping, among others.

2.4 Field Infiltration Testing
Two field percolation tests were performed on Borings I-1 and I-2 to approximate depths of 10 feet below existing grade, respectively. Estimation of infiltration rates was performed in general accordance with guidelines set forth by the Riverside County Flood Control (2011). In general, a 3-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe was placed in each borehole to be tested and 1555
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 7 June 21, 2021
the annulus was backfilled with gravel, including placement of about 2 inches of gravel at the bottom of the borehole. The infiltration wells were pre-soaked prior to testing. Based on the County of Riverside methodology, the calculated (observed) infiltration rates are provided in Table 1 below. These infiltration rates do not include any factor of safety (to be determined by the project Civil Engineer); however, they have been normalized to correct the 3-D flow that occurs within the field test to 1-D flow out of the bottom of the boring only. The locations and depths of the infiltration tests were coordinated with the civil engineer. The approximate infiltration test locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2) and the infiltration test data is included in Appendix D and summarized below.

TABLE 1
Summary of Infiltration Testing
Infiltration
Test Location
Infiltration Test
Depth Below
Existing Grade (ft)
Observed
Infiltration Rate*
(Inch/Hr.)
I-1 10 3.8
I-2 10 0.6
*Normalized to One-Dimensional Flow, does not include any Factor of Safety.

It should be emphasized that infiltration test results are only representative of the location and depth where they are performed. Varying subsurface conditions may exist outside of the test locations which could alter the calculated infiltration rates indicated above. Infiltration tests are performed using relatively clean water free of particulates, silt, etc. Refer to Section 4.8 for subsurface water infiltration recommendations.

2.5 Faulting and Seismic Hazards
Prompted by damaging earthquakes in California, State legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults have been developed. Their purpose was to prevent the construction of urban developments across the trace of active faults, resulting in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Earthquake Fault Zones have been delineated along the traces of active faults within California. Where developments for human occupation are proposed within these zones, the State requires detailed fault evaluations be performed so that engineering geologists can mitigate the hazards associated with active faulting by identifying the location of active faults and allowing for a setback from zones of previous ground rupture.

The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults were identified on the site during our site evaluation. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site.

Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking 1556
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 8 June 21, 2021
are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. Some of the major active nearby faults that could produce these secondary effects include the Chino-Central, Elsinore, Cucamonga and San Andreas Faults, among others (CGS, 2018). A discussion of these secondary effects is provided in the following sections.

2.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density noncohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that loose, saturated, near-surface, cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils, and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Furthermore, dynamic settlement of dry sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event.

Based on our review of the City of Eastvale General Plan (CE, 2012), the subject site is located in an area of “High” liquefaction susceptibility based only on soil type (sediments being less than 10,000 years old and unconsolidated). Site soils are not generally susceptible to liquefaction due to a lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet. However, isolated layers may be susceptible to dry sand seismic settlement. Seismically induced dry sand settlements were estimated by the procedures outlined by Pradel (Pradel, 1998) using the PGAM per the 2019 CBC and a moment magnitude of 6.71 (USGS, 2014).

Based on the data obtained from our field evaluation, seismic settlement due to dry sands is estimated to be on the order of about 0.5-inch or less. Differential settlement may be estimated as half of the total settlement over a horizontal span of 40 feet.

2.5.2 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures.

Due to the depth to groundwater, low potential for liquefaction and lack of nearby “free face” conditions, the potential for lateral spreading is considered extremely low. 1557
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 9 June 21, 2021

2.6 Seismic Design Criteria
The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and applicable portions of ASCE 7-16 which has been adopted by the CBC. Please note that the following seismic parameters are only applicable for code‐based acceleration response spectra and are not applicable for where site‐specific ground motion procedures are required by ASCE 7‐16. Representative site coordinates of latitude 33.975696 degrees north and longitude -117.566832 degrees west were utilized in our analyses. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class D are provided in Table 1 on the following page. Since site soils are Site Class D, additional adjustments are required to code acceleration response spectrums as outlined below and provided in ASCE 7-16. The structural designer should contact the geotechnical consultant if structural conditions (e.g., number of stories, seismically isolated structures, etc.) require site-specific ground motions.

A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period (MCE) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.71 at a distance of approximately 14.03 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion. A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 475-year average return period (Design Earthquake) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.7 at a distance of approximately 17.24 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2014).

Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for liquefaction potential. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.74g (SEAOC, 2021). 1558
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 10 June 21, 2021
TABLE 2
Seismic Design Parameters
Selected Parameters from 2019 CBC,
Section 1613 ‐ Earthquake Loads
Seismic
Design
Values
Notes/Exceptions
Distance to applicable faults classifies the site as a
“Near-Fault” site. Section 11.4.1 of ASCE 7
Site Class D* Chapter 20 of ASCE 7
Ss (Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration
for Short Periods) 1.63g From SEAOC, 2021
S1 (Risk-Targeted Spectral
Accelerations for 1-Second Periods) 0.586g From SEAOC, 2021 Fa (per Table 1613.2.3(1)) 1.0
For Simplified Design Procedure
of Section 12.14 of ASCE 7, Fa
shall be taken as 1.4 (Section

12.14.8.1)
Fv (per Table 1613.2.3(2)) 1.714
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
SMS for Site Class D
[Note: SMS = FaSS] 1.63g -
SM1 for Site Class D
[Note: SM1 = FvS1] 1.004g
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
SDS for Site Class D
[Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 1.087g -
SD1 for Site Class D
[Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1] 0.669g
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
CRS (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec) 0.941 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 CR1 (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec) 0.918 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 *Since site soils are Site Class D and S1 is greater than or equal to 0.2, the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken equal to 1.5 times the value calculated in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > Ts, or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL. Refer to ASCE 7-16.

2.7 Organic Rich Soils
Approximately 60 bag soil samples were collected to determine their organic content (based on ASTM 2974). The organic content of the samples ranged from approximately 0.1 to 33.2 percent. In general, the organic content is higher near existing grade and decreases with depth.

Table 6 (Appendix C) summarizes the measured organic content and also notes where the 1559
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 11 June 21, 2021
organic content was estimated to be greater than 10% based on observation.

For most of the site there is a distinct contact between high organic content (greater than 5%) and low organic content (less than 2%) at the 1-foot depth. This upper 1-foot of soil across the site requires removal and disposal off-site due to high organic content (greater than 5.0 percent). In a few areas, there is a “transition zone” from 1-foot below the ground surface to approximately 2 feet below the ground surface where the organic content is greater than 2%.

Below approximately 2 feet on average is generally free of organics.

There are 4 locations noted on our geotechnical map where appreciable amounts of high organic material is known to be stockpiled above the adjacent ground surface or buried below the ground surface. The depths of high organic material within these areas are noted on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). The material noted in these areas will need to be disposed of offsite.

Recommendations for off-site disposal and/or mixing to dilute organics to geotechnically acceptable organic levels (less than 2 percent) are provided in the following “Organic Rich Soil Recommendations” Section 4.1.2.
1560
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 12 June 21, 2021

3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our subsurface geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations contained in the following sections are incorporated during site grading and development. A summary of our geotechnical conclusions are as follows:
 The near-surface loose and compressible soils are not suitable for the planned improvements in their present condition (refer to Section 4.1). Organic rich soils (total organic carbon content generally greater than 2 percent) are not suitable for compacted fill soils from a geotechnical perspective.
 From a geotechnical perspective, onsite soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as general compacted fill provided the high organic content soils (soils with organic content greater than 5 percent) are removed from the site and the remaining soils with organic content between 2 and 5 percent are blended and mixed with “clean” soils and screened of construction debris and any oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension).
 Records indicate groundwater levels recorded in the area are at depths greater than 100 feet below the ground surface.
 The subject study area is not located within a mapped State of California Earthquake Fault Zone, and based upon our review of published geologic mapping, no known active or potentially active faults are known to exist within or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture as a result of faulting is considered very low.  The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The subject site will likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life.  Site soils are not generally susceptible to liquefaction due to a lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet. However, isolated layers are susceptible to dry sand seismic settlement. Total dynamic settlement is estimated to be on the order 0.5-inch or less. Differential settlement may be estimated as half of the total settlement over a horizontal span of 40 feet.  Based on the results of preliminary laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have “Very Low” expansion potential. Final design expansion potential must be determined at the completion of grading.
 Based on the corrosion test results, soils are not considered corrosive per the Caltrans criteria (Caltrans, 2015).
 Excavations into the existing site soils should be feasible with heavy construction equipment in good working order. We anticipate that the sandy and silty earth materials generated from the excavations will be generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill, provided they are relatively free of rocks larger than 8 inches in dimension, construction debris, and significant organic material.  Some portion of the onsite soils have high fines content; therefore, are not suitable for backfill of site retaining walls. Therefore, import of sandy soils meeting project recommendation is required.  Field testing resulted in observed infiltration rates ranging from 0.6 to 3.8 inches per hour. The observed infiltration rates do not include a factor of safety. Discussion regarding infiltration is provided in Section 4.8.
1561
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 13 June 21, 2021

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are to be considered preliminary and should be confirmed upon completion of grading and earthwork operations. In addition, they should be considered minimal from a geotechnical viewpoint, as there may be more restrictive requirements from the architect, structural engineer, building codes, governing agencies, or the owner.

It should be noted that the following geotechnical recommendations are intended to provide sufficient information to develop the site in general accordance with the 2019 CBC requirements. With regard to the possible occurrence of potentially catastrophic geotechnical hazards such as fault rupture, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, etc. the following geotechnical recommendations should provide adequate protection for the proposed development to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to an “acceptable level.” The “acceptable level” of risk is defined by the California Code of Regulations as “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project” [Section 3721(a)].

Therefore, repair and remedial work of the proposed improvement may be required after a significant seismic event. With regards to the potential for less significant geologic hazards to the proposed development, the recommendations contained herein are intended as a reasonable protection against the potential damaging effects of geotechnical phenomena such as expansive soils, fill settlement, groundwater seepage, etc. It should be understood, however, that our recommendations are intended to maintain the structural integrity of the proposed development and structures given the site geotechnical conditions but cannot preclude the potential for some cosmetic distress or nuisance issues to develop as a result of the site geotechnical conditions.

The geotechnical recommendations contained herein must be confirmed to be suitable or modified based on the actual as-graded conditions.

4.1 Site Earthwork
Rough grading shall include removal of high organic content soils, remedial earthwork grading and placement of engineered compacted fill to design grades. Geotechnical recommendations for precise grading and construction of the proposed new improvements will be provided, as necessary.

We recommend that earthwork onsite be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, future grading plan review report(s), the 2019 CBC/City of Eastvale requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included in Appendix D. The following recommendations may be revised within future grading plan review reports or based on the actual conditions encountered during site grading. 1562
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 14 June 21, 2021

4.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, areas to be developed should undergo the stripping and clearing of vegetation, high organic content soil removal/export and clearing of surface obstructions, pavements, foundation and slab elements from the site. Vegetation, debris and excessive organic material from livestock holding areas should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. Recommendations for removal of organic rich soils are provided in the following section. Holes resulting from removals of buried obstructions, which extend below proposed remedial and/or finish grades, should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material.

If cesspools or septic systems are encountered, they should be removed in their entirety.

The resulting excavation should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. As an alternative, cesspools can be backfilled with lean sand-cement slurry. Any encountered wells should be properly abandoned in accordance with regulatory requirements.

4.1.2 Organic Rich Soil Recommendations
We recommend soils with an organic content greater than 5 percent be removed and exported from the site. For most of the site this is the top 1 foot. Figure 2 outlines areas that contains high organic content with more than 1-foot in thickness. Our recommendations are based on the following assumptions; 1) all soils with “high” organic contents greater than 5 percent shall be removed and disposed of off-site, 2) “transitional” soils (soils with organic content ranging from 2 to 5 percent) shall be adequately mixed or blended with the “clean” soils (soils with organic content less than

2.0 percent), and 3) There will be sufficient “clean” soils to dilute the limited “transitional” soils during the grading operation. From a geotechnical perspective, organic content of compacted fill soils should not exceed 2 percent.

After export of the top 1 foot of material, remedial grading as described in the following section should result in organic content of the fill materials to be approximately 1 percent. To satisfy the City’s requirement of documenting the organic content in the fill, samples should be collected during grading and tested for organic content.

We recommend the geotechnical consultant be present during grading to observe the mixing of the onsite soils and perform periodic testing of the compacted fill. Organic materials shall be thoroughly mixed such that no nesting of organic materials occurs.

Removal of organic materials is to satisfy geotechnical concerns and does not mitigate the potential for methane gas. Some methane gas should be expected after grading especially in former wastewater areas. Methane potential shall be evaluated by others.

4.1.3 Removal Depths and Limits
In order to provide a relatively uniform bearing condition for the planned improvements, we recommend the site soils be removed and recompacted. We recommend that soils within building pads be removed and recompacted to a minimum depth of 5 feet below 1563
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 15 June 21, 2021
existing grade (not below base of organic removal). The envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum distance of 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed improvements. In areas of design cut, over-excavation shall extend a minimum of 5 feet below existing grade or a minimum of 3 feet below finished grade, whichever is deeper. In the design cut areas, this depth may be reduced if in-place alluvial materials are tested and found to have an in-situ dry density equal or greater than 90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test Method D1557) and exhibit uniform conditions. The Remedial Grading Diagram (Figure 5) provides a simplified example of the building pad remedial recommendations.

As shown on the attached Geotechnical Map (Figure 2), there is one isolated area of the site on the eastern edge of the property where removals will extend a minimum of 15 feet to remove a buried stockpile of manure. A representative from LGC geotechnical should be on site to approve the removal bottom to ensure it is acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint, and free of organic content.

For minor site structures such as free-standing and screen walls, the removals should extend at least 3 feet beneath the existing grade or 2 feet beneath the base of foundations, whichever is deeper. Within pavement and hardscape areas, removals should extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below the existing grade. The over-excavation in any design cut areas of the pavement may be reduced by the depth of the design cut but should not be less than 1-foot below the finished subgrade (i.e., below planned aggregate base/asphalt concrete). In general, the envelope for over-excavation should extend laterally a minimum distance of 2 feet beyond the edges of the proposed improvements mentioned above.

Local conditions may be encountered during excavation that could require additional over-excavation beyond the above-noted minimum in order to obtain an acceptable subgrade. The actual depths and lateral extents of grading will be determined by the geotechnical consultant, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading.

Removal areas and areas to be over-excavated should be accurately staked in the field by the Project Surveyor.

4.1.4 Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Excavations should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel or equipment are allowed to enter. Based on our field investigation, the majority of site soils are anticipated to be OSHA Type “C” soils (refer to the attached boring logs). Sandy soils are present and should be considered susceptible to caving. Soil conditions should be regularly evaluated during construction to verify conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person” required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination with the geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility 1564
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 16 June 21, 2021
of the contractor.

Vehicular traffic, stockpiles, and equipment storage should be set back from the perimeter of excavations a minimum distance equivalent to a 1:1(horizontal to vertical) projection from the bottom of the excavation or 5 feet, whichever is greater. Once an excavation has been initiated, it should be backfilled as soon as practical. Prolonged exposure of temporary excavations may result in some localized instability. Excavations should be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to shore/fill them prior to weekends, holidays, or forecasted rain.

It should be noted that any excavation that extends below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection of an existing foundation will remove existing support of the structure foundation. If requested, temporary shoring parameters will be provided.

4.1.5 Subgrade Preparation
In general, areas to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to a near-optimum moisture condition (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content), and re-compacted per project requirements.

Removal bottoms and areas to receive fill should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement.

4.1.6 Material for Fill
From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally considered suitable for use as general compacted fill, provided they are screened of organic materials, construction debris and any oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension). From a geotechnical perspective, soils with an organic content of less than 2 percent are generally considered suitable for re-use as compacted fill.

From a geotechnical viewpoint, import soils for general fill (i.e., non-retaining wall backfill) should consist of clean, granular soils of Very Low expansion potential (expansion index 20 or less based on ASTM D4829). Import for retaining wall backfill should meet the criteria outlined in the paragraph below. Source samples should be provided to the geotechnical consultant for laboratory testing a minimum of three working days prior to any planned importation.

Retaining wall backfill should consist of granular free draining soils (sand equivalent of 30 or greater as determined by ASTM D2419 or CTM 217). Soils should also be screened of organic materials, construction debris, and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The onsite soils are not considered suitable for retaining wall backfill due to their fines content (i.e., silt and clay content). Therefore, import of suitable soils meeting the criteria outlined above will be required.

Aggregate base should conform to the requirements of Section 200-2 of the most recent version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for 1565
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 17 June 21, 2021
untreated base materials and/or City of Ontario requirements. It is our understanding that the City of Ontario only allows crushed aggregate base (CAB) and crushed miscellaneous base (CMB) is not allowed.

4.1.7 Placement and Compaction of Fills
Material to be placed as fill should be brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to achieve adequate compaction. Drying and/or mixing the very moist soils will be required prior to reusing the materials in compacted fills. Soils are also present that will require additional moisture in order to achieve the required compaction.

The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Each lift should be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts. Generally, placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances and with observation and testing by LGC Geotechnical. Oversized material as previously defined should be removed from site fills.

During backfill of excavations, the fill should be properly benched into firm and competent soils of temporary backcut slopes as it is placed in lifts.

Aggregate base material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557 at near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content).

4.1.8 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill, provided the soils are screened of rocks and other material greater than 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. If trenches are shallow or the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities, sand having a sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater (per California Test Method [CTM] 217) may be used to bed and shade the pipes. Sand backfill within the pipe bedding zone may be densified by jetting or flooding and then tamping to ensure adequate compaction. Subsequent trench backfill should be compacted in uniform thin lifts by mechanical means to at least the recommended minimum relative compaction (per ASTM D1557).

Retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils as outlined in preceding Section 4.1.6.

The contractor should anticipate the importing of soils for the required retaining wall backfill. The limits of select sandy backfill should extend a minimum ½ the height of the 1566
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 18 June 21, 2021
retaining wall or the width of the heel (if applicable), whichever is greater, refer to Figures 3 and 4 (rear of text). Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557).

Jetting or flooding of retaining wall backfill materials should not be permitted.

A representative from LGC Geotechnical should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project recommendations.

4.1.9 Shrinkage and Subsidence
Allowance in the earthwork volumes budget should be made for an estimated 0 to 5 percent reduction in volume of near-surface (upper approximate 5 feet) soils. It should be stressed that these values are only estimates and that an actual shrinkage factor would be extremely difficult to predetermine. Subsidence due to earthwork equipment is expected to be up to 0.1 feet. These values are estimates only and exclude losses due to removal of vegetation or debris. The effective change in volume of onsite soils will depend primarily on the type of compaction equipment, method of compaction used onsite by the contractor, and accuracy of the topographic survey.

Due to the combined variability in topographic surveys, inability to precisely model the removals and variability of on-site near-surface conditions, it is our opinion that the site will not balance at the end of grading. If importing/exporting a large volume of soils is not considered feasible or economical, we recommend a balance area be designated onsite that can fluctuate up or down based on the actual volume of soil. We recommend a “balance” area that can accommodate on the order of 5 percent (plus or minus) of the total grading volume be considered.

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations
Provided that the remedial grading recommendations provided herein are implemented, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the residential structures using a conventional or post-tensioned foundation system. Site soils are anticipated to be “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829) and special design considerations from a geotechnical perspective is not required, however, this must be verified based on as-graded conditions. Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical.

Preliminary foundation recommendations are provided in the following sections. Recommended soil bearing and estimated settlement due to structural loads are provided in Section 4.3.

4.2.1 Provisional Conventional Foundation Design
Due to the very low expansion potential of the onsite soils, the foundation/structural engineer may design a conventional foundation system that is tied together based upon the anticipated dead and live loads (wind, seismic) that will be imparted by the 1567
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 19 June 21, 2021
structure. The recommendations provided in the “Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance” section may be utilized in the design of a rigid slab-on-grade conventional foundation designed in accordance with Section 1808 of the 2019 C.B.C.

4.2.2 Provisional Post‐Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters The foundation designer may use a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pounds per square inch per inch of deflection). This value is for a 1-foot by 1-foot square loaded area and should be adjusted by the structural designer for the area of the proposed footing using the following formula:
k = 200 x [(B+1)/2B]2
k = modulus of vertical subgrade reaction, pounds per cubic inch (pci) B = foundation width (feet)
The moisture content of near surface fill soils should be maintained at the level it was placed up to the time of concrete placement.

4.2.3 Shallow Foundation Maintenance
The geotechnical parameters provided herein assume that if the areas adjacent to the foundation are planted and irrigated, these areas will be designed with proper drainage and adequately maintained so that ponding, which causes significant moisture changes below the foundation, does not occur. Our recommendations do not account for excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape design. Plants should only be provided with sufficient irrigation for life and not overwatered to saturate subgrade soils. Sunken planters placed adjacent to the foundation, should either be designed with an efficient drainage system or liners to prevent moisture infiltration below the foundation. Some lifting of the perimeter foundation beam should be expected even with properly constructed planters.

In addition to the factors mentioned above, future owners/property management personnel should be made aware of the potential negative influences of trees and/or other large vegetation. Roots that extend near the vicinity of foundations can cause distress to foundations. Future owners (and the owner’s landscape architect) should not plant trees/large shrubs closer to the foundations than a distance equal to half the mature height of the tree or 20 feet, whichever is more conservative unless specifically provided with root barriers to prevent root growth below the building foundation.

It is the owner’s responsibility to perform periodic maintenance during hot and dry periods to ensure that adequate watering has been provided to keep soil from separating or pulling back from the foundation. Future owners and property management personnel should be informed and educated regarding the importance of maintaining a constant level of soil-moisture. The owners should be made aware of the potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing potentially expansive soils to become too dry. Expansive soils can undergo shrinkage 1568
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 20 June 21, 2021
during drying, and swelling during the rainy winter season, or when irrigation is resumed. This can result in distress to building structures and hardscape improvements. The builder should provide these recommendations to future owners and property management personnel.

4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines
The following is for informational purposes only since slab underlayment (e.g., moisture retarder, sand or gravel layers for concrete curing and/or capillary break) is unrelated to the geotechnical performance of the foundation and thereby not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. Post-construction moisture migration should be expected below the foundation. The foundation engineer/architect should determine whether the use of a capillary break (sand or gravel layer), in conjunction with the vapor retarder, is necessary or required by code. Sand layer thickness and location (above and/or below vapor retarder) should also be determined by the foundation engineer/architect.

4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance
Provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and minimum embedment of 15 inches below lowest adjacent ground surface.

This value may be increased by 400 psf for each additional foot of embedment and 200 psf for each additional foot of foundation width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. A mat foundation a minimum of 6 inches below lowest adjacent grade may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,200 psf. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. Bearing values indicated are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by ⅓ for short duration loading (i.e., wind or seismic loads).

Soil settlement is a function of footing dimensions and applied soil bearing pressure. In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity, assumed structural loads, and provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, foundation settlement due to structural loads is anticipated to be on the order of 1-inch or less and ½-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet for total and differential settlement, respectively. Differential settlement should be anticipated between nearby columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists Furthermore, seismic settlement due to dry-sand settlement is anticipated to be 0.5 inches or less. Differential seismic settlement may be taken as half of the seismic settlement (i.e., ¼-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet).

Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. For concrete/soil frictional resistance, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed with dead-load forces. An allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 270 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,700 psf may be used for the sides of footings poured against properly compacted fill. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 360 pcf (maximum of 3,600 psf) for short duration seismic loading. This passive pressure is applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. Frictional resistance and 1569
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 21 June 21, 2021
passive pressure may be used in combination without reduction. We recommend that the upper foot of passive resistance be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete or asphalt. The provided allowable passive pressures are based on a factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, respectively. The structural designer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety and/or load factors in their design.

4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in pound per square foot (psf) per foot of depth or pcf. The values for the active condition do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the retaining wall designer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of soil over the wall footing.

Lateral earth pressures are presented in Table 2. Table 2 contains values for approved select sandy backfill for both drained and undrained conditions. Typically, retaining walls are designed for a drained condition with select sandy soils used as backfill. Should retaining walls have constraints limiting the ability to install or drain or appropriately outlet a drain, the values for undrained conditions should be used. Approved select sandy soils should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater as determined by ASTM D2419.

The retaining wall designer should clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans if drains are required.

The drained equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions and a drainage system will be installed and maintained to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures. A relatively sandy backfill along with a subdrain pipe wrapped in drainage aggregate and filter fabric (e.g., “burrito” subdrain) properly outletted to a suitable discharge point is typically used for conventional retaining walls. Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. Typical conventional (i.e., backfilled) retaining wall drainage is shown in Figure 3. At similar sites, wall drainage through the face has been a preferred option. For this condition wall drainage is shown in Figure 4. If conditions other than TABLE 3
Lateral Earth Pressures – Select Sand Backfill
Condition
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)
Level Backfill
Approved Sandy Backfill
Material ‐ Drained
Approved Sandy Backfill
Material ‐ Undrained
Active 35 80
1570
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 22 June 21, 2021
those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical consultant.

Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward projection from the bottom of the proposed retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining structure. Uniform surcharges may be estimated using the applicable coefficient of lateral earth pressure using a rectangular distribution. A factor of 0.5 and 0.33 may be used for at-rest and active conditions, respectively. The retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for any required geotechnical input in estimating any applicable surcharge loads.

If required, the retaining wall designer may use a seismic lateral earth pressure increment of 5 pcf for retaining walls up to a maximum of 10 feet in height with level backfill. This increment should be applied in addition to the applicable static lateral earth pressure using a triangular distribution with the resultant acting at H/3 in relation to the base of the retaining structure (where H is the retained height). For the restrained, at-rest condition, the seismic increment may be added to the applicable active lateral earth pressure (in lieu of the at-rest lateral earth pressure) when analyzing short duration seismic loading. Per Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC, the seismic lateral earth pressure is applicable to structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D through F for retaining wall structures supporting more than 6 feet of backfill height. This seismic lateral earth pressure is estimated using the procedure outlined by the Structural Engineers Association of California (Lew, et al, 2010). The provided seismic lateral earth pressure is for a level backfill condition and a maximum of 10 feet in height; a sloping backfill condition and greater retaining wall heights are not anticipated. However, if a sloping backfill condition or retaining walls greater than 10 feet in height are proposed, the retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for specific seismic lateral earth pressure increments based on the configuration of the planned retaining wall structures.

For soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) is provided in Section 4.3 “Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance”. Earthwork considerations (temporary backcuts, backfill, compaction, etc.) for retaining walls are provided in Section 4.1 “Site Earthwork” and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections.

4.5 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal
Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the corrosion potential of soils to buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the results of our testing with regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessary.

Corrosion testing of near-surface bulk samples indicated a soluble sulfate content value of 78 ppm (less than 0.02 percent) and a chloride content of 100 ppm. Based on Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (2015), soils are considered corrosive if the chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater, or the sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm (0.2 percent) or greater. Based on the test results, soils are not considered corrosive using Caltrans criteria. 1571
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 23 June 21, 2021
Based on our laboratory test results of representative site soil samples, onsite soils should be considered as having a severity categorization of “not applicable” and are designated class “S0” per ACI 318, Table 19.3.1.1, sulfate. As a result, the minimum compressive strength of the concrete shall be 2,500 psi.

Laboratory testing may need to be performed at the completion of grading by the project corrosion engineer to further evaluate the as-graded soil corrosivity characteristics.

Accordingly, revision of the corrosion potential may be needed, should future test results differ substantially from the conditions reported herein. The client and/or other members of the development team should consider this during the design and planning phase of the project and formulate an appropriate course of action.

4.6 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
For the purposes of these preliminary recommendations, we have selected a preliminary design R-value of 40 and calculated pavement sections for Traffic Indices of 5.5, 6.0 and 6.5. R-value testing of the street subgrade will need to be performed to confirm our preliminary testing results/assumptions once the streets have been graded to finish subgrade elevations and the final Traffic Index is determined by the Civil Engineer. It is our understanding that the City of Ontario requires that local streets have a minimum pavement section consisting of 4 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of crushed aggregate base (CAB).

TABLE 4
Preliminary Pavement Sections
Assumed Traffic Index 5.5 6.0 6.5
R ‐Value Subgrade 40 40 40
AC Thickness 4.0 inches 4.0 inches 4.0 inches
CAB Thickness 6.0 inches 6.0 inches 6.0 inches
Increasing the thickness of asphalt or adding additional base material will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its service life. The above recommendations are based on the assumption that proper maintenance and irrigation of the areas adjacent to the roadway will occur through the design life of the pavement. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement.

Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in the previous Section “Site Earthwork” and the related sub-sections of this report. 1572
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 24 June 21, 2021

4.7 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork
Nonstructural concrete (such as flatwork, sidewalks, patios, etc.) has a potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete should be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 5 below. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress.

TABLE 5
Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Placed on Very Low to Low Expansion Potential Subgrade
Homeowner
Sidewalks Private Drives Patios/Entryway
s
City Sidewalk
Curb and
Gutters
Minimum
Thickness (in.) 4 (nominal) 4 (full) 4 (full) City/Agency Standard
Presoaking Wet down prior
to placing
Wet down prior
to placing
Wet down prior to
placing
City/Agency
Standard
Reinforcement 
No. 3 at 24
inches on
centers
No. 3 at 24 inches
on centers
City/Agency
Standard
Thickened Edge
(in.)  8 x 8  City/Agency
Standard
Crack Control
Joints
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint
to a minimum
of 1/3 the
concrete
thickness
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint
to a minimum of
1/3 the concrete
thickness
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint to
a minimum of 1/3
the concrete
thickness
City/Agency
Standard
Maximum Joint
Spacing 5 feet
10 feet or
quarter cut
whichever is
closer
6 feet City/Agency
Standard
Aggregate Base
Thickness (in.)    City/Agency
Standard
To reduce the potential for driveways to separate from the garage slab, the builder may elect to install dowels to tie these two elements together. Similarly, future homeowners should 1573
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 25 June 21, 2021
consider the use of dowels to connect flatwork to the foundation.

4.8 Subsurface Water Infiltration
Recent regulatory changes have occurred that mandate storm water be infiltrated below grade rather than collected in a conventional storm drain system. Typically, a combination of methods are implemented to reduce surface water runoff and increase infiltration including; permeable pavements/pavers for roadways and walkways, directing surface water runoff to grass-lined swales, retention areas, and/or drywells, etc. It should be noted that collecting and concentrating surface water for the purpose of intentionally infiltrating below grade, conflicts with the geotechnical engineering objective of directing surface water away from slopes, structures and other improvements. The geotechnical stability and integrity of a site is reliant upon appropriately handling surface water. In general, we do not recommend that surface water be intentionally infiltrated into the subsurface soils.

Considering the results of the infiltration testing, if required, stormwater may be infiltrated into the subsurface soils at the depths tested below existing grade, using the values presented in Table 1 and the appropriate County of Riverside Flood Control (2011) safety factors. The Civil Engineer should determine the appropriate safety factor applicable to the proposed infiltration system. Results of field infiltration testing are provided in Appendix D.

The following should be considered for design of any required infiltration system:
 Water discharge from any infiltration systems should not occur within the zone of influence of foundation footings (column and load bearing wall locations). For preliminary purposes we recommend a minimum setback of 15 feet from the structural improvements, or the County recommended minimum setback, whichever is more conservative.
 An adequate setback distance between any infiltration facility and adjacent private property should be maintained.
 It may be prudent to provide an overflow system directly connected to the storm drain system in order to prevent failure of the infiltration system, either as a result of lower than anticipated infiltration and/or very high flow volumes. It should be noted that if pretreatment of runoff to remove debris, soil particles, etc., cannot be performed, design infiltration rates may need to be further reduced. Over time, siltation and plugging may reduce the infiltration rate and subsequent effectiveness of the infiltration system.  Any designed infiltration system will require routine periodic maintenance.  As with any systems that are designed to concentrate the surface flow and direct the water into the subsurface soils, some type of nuisance water and/or other water-related issues should be expected.

LGC Geotechnical should be provided with details for any planned required infiltration system early in the design process for geotechnical input.
1574
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 26 June 21, 2021

4.9 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control
From a geotechnical perspective, we recommend that compacted finished grade soils adjacent to proposed structures be sloped away from the proposed structures and towards an approved drainage device or unobstructed swale. Drainage swales, wherever feasible, should not be constructed within 5 feet of buildings. Where lot and building geometry necessitates that drainage swales be routed closer than 5 feet to structural foundations, we recommend the use of area drains together with drainage swales. Drainage swales used in conjunction with area drains should be designed by the project civil engineer so that a properly constructed and maintained system will prevent ponding within 5 feet of the foundation. Code compliance of grades is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant.

Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Overwatering must be avoided.

4.10 Supplemental Field Explorations
It should be noted that a portion in the northwestern corner of the site was not accessible at the time of our field evaluation (see Figure 2). This area was not explored and did not receive testing for near surface organic rich soils. We recommend performing a future evaluation addressing the organic content of the area prior to the export of high organic “soils” from the site.

4.11 Geotechnical Plan Review
Project plans (grading, foundation, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated. Additional or modified geotechnical recommendations may be required based on the proposed layout.

4.12 Geotechnical Observation and Testing
The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC Geotechnical. Geotechnical observation and testing is required per Section 1705 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC).

Geotechnical observation and/or testing should be performed by LGC Geotechnical at the following stages:
 During grading (removal bottoms, fill placement, etc.);  During retaining wall backfill and compaction;
 During utility trench backfill and compaction;
1575
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 27 June 21, 2021
 After presoaking building pad and other concrete-flatwork subgrades, and prior to placement of aggregate base or concrete;
 Preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base;  After building and wall footing excavation and prior to placement of steel reinforcement and/or concrete; and
 When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent to issuance of this report.
1576
Project No. 21116‐01 Page 28 June 21, 2021

5.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.

This report is based on data obtained from limited observations of the site, which have been extrapolated to characterize the site. While the scope of services performed is considered suitable to adequately characterize the site geotechnical conditions relative to the proposed development, no practical evaluation can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the anticipated geotechnical conditions in connection with a subject site. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during grading and construction.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the other consultants (at a minimum the civil engineer, structural engineer, landscape architect) and incorporated into their plans. The contractor should properly implement the recommendations during construction and notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe, or unsuitable.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if LGC Geotechnical has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client, any use of or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk.

In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and modification.

1577
OTP-7
OTP-9
OTP-10 OTP-8
OTP-11
OTP-6
OTP-13
OTP-12
OTP-15
OTP-14
OTP-16 OTP-17 OTP-18
OTP-19
OTP-20
OTP-21
OTP-25 OTP-3
OTP-5
OTP-4
OTP-24
OTP-1 OTP-22
OTP-23
TP-4
TP-6
TP-7
TP-8
TP-9
TP-10
TP-3
TP-1
TP-5
OTP-2
I-1
T.D. = 10'
I-2
T.D. = 10'
HS-2
T.D. = 50'
HS-1
T.D. = 50'
HS-7
T.D. = 25'
HS-4
T.D. = 25'
HS-6
T.D. = 25'
HS-5
T.D. = 25'
HS-8
T.D. = 25'
HS-10
T.D. = 25'
HS-9
T.D. = 25'
TP-2
Afu
Qyf
OTP-26
TP-10
HS-10
T.D. = 25'
I-2
T.D. = 10'
Legend
Artificial Fill - Undocumented
Quaternary Alluvial Fan/Eolian Deposits - Undifferentiated (Circled Where Buried) Approximate Limits of This Report
Approximate Location of Organic Test Pit
Approximate Location of Geotechnical Test Pit
Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Boring by LGC Geotechnical, Inc, with Total Depth in Feet Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Infiltration Boring by LGC Geotechnical, Inc, with Total Depth in Feet Qyf
Afu
Area Not
Accessible
Limits of approximately 1 to
2 feet deep organics and
approximately 4 foot high
organic stockpiles.

Limits of approximately 1
to 2 feet deep organics
and approximately 4 foot
high organic stockpiles.

Limits of approximately 15
foot deep organics.

Limits of approximately 5.5
foot deep undocumented fill
containing trash/debris.

OTP-26
Limonite Ave
Scholar WayHamner Avenue
58th Street
FIGURE 2
Geotechnical Map ENG. / GEOL.

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT NAME
SCALE
DATE
1" = 300'
June 2021
TNHC - Eastvale

BJE / BPG
21116-01 LGC Geotechnical, Inc.
131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200
San Clemente, CA 92672
TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142
1578
4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED

PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE PER

PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER

NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED
TO MINIMUM 90% RELATIVE
COMPACTION PER ASTM1557-D
MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT

BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF
3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN
MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT

FOOTING/WALL PER DESIGN ENGINEER

WATER PROOFING PER DESIGN ENGINEER
12" MINIMUM
18" MAXIMUM

SAND BACKFILL
(SE > 30)

BACKCUT PER OSHA

EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM
HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER

WALL HEIGHT, H
NOTE:

PLACEMENT OF SUBDRAIN

AT BASE OF WALL WILL NOT

PREVENT SATURATION OF SOILS

BELOW AND / OR IN FRONT OF WALL
FIGURE 3
Retaining Wall
Backfill Detail
Option 1 DATE June 2021
ENG./GEO.

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT NAME
SCALE

BJE/BPG
Not to Scale
The New Home Company - Eastvale
21116-01
1579
3 INCH DIAMETER WEEP HOLE @ 6' O.C.

SAND BACKFILL
(SE > 30)

NATIVE BACKFILL CAP COMPACTED
PER REPORT PER ASTM D1557
MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT

BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF
3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN
MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT

FOOTING/WALL PER DESIGN ENGINEER

WATER PROOFING PER CIVIL ENGINEER
12" MINIMUM
18" MAXIMUM

BACKCUT PER OSHA

EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM
HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER

WALL HEIGHT, H
NOTE:

PLACEMENT OF SUBDRAIN

AT BASE OF WALL WILL NOT

PREVENT SATURATION OF SOILS

BELOW AND / OR IN FRONT OF WALL
FIGURE 4
Retaining Wall
Backfill Detail
Option 2 DATE June 2021
ENG./GEO.

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT NAME
SCALE

BJE/BPG
The New Home Company - Eastvale
21116-01
Not to Scale
1580
Design Cut Remedial Quantity Original Grade Remove and Dispose Organic Soils Offsite Removals 5' Below Original Grade Design Grade 3' 5' Minimum 3' Overexcavation below Design Grade Minimum 5' Removal Below Original Grade Removal Bottom Surface Design FILL Design Grade Original Grade DATE ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE FIGURE 5 Remedial Grading Diagram June 2021 BJE/BPG NTS The New Home Company - Eastvale 21116-01 1581
Appendix A
References
1582
Project No. 21116‐01 A‐1 June 21, 2021

APPENDIX A
References
American Concrete Institute, 2019, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19).

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, Third Printing, 2017.

ASTM International, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08.

California Building Standards Commission, 2019, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Volumes 1 and 2, dated July 2019.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, CDMG Special Publication 117. ________, 2000, Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region, CDMG CD 2000-03.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2018, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.0, dated March 2018.
________, 2017, Highway Design Manual, Updated November 20, 2017. ________, 2011, Method of Test for Sand Equivalent, June 2011.

California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), 2021, Historic Data Map Interface, Website Address: http://wdl.water.ca.gov
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, California Geological Society Special Publication 117A:

Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. ________, 2018, Special Publication 42: Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Revised 2018.
________, 2000, Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region, CDMG CD 2000-03.

City of Eastvale (CE), 2012, City of Eastvale General Plan, adopted June 13, 2012.

Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., 2021, Encumbrance Map – Leal Ranch, City of Eastvale CA, dated May 19, 2021.

Pradel, Daniel, 1998, Procedure to evaluate earthquake-induced settlement in dry sandy soils, 1583
Project No. 21116‐01 A‐2 June 21, 2021
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 124(4), pp. 364-368, dated April and October 1998.

Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2011, Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, dated September 2011.

Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, “Recommended Procedure for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigation Liquefaction Hazards in California”, Edited by Martin, G.R., and Lew, M., dated March 1999.

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) & California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2021, Seismic Design Maps, Retrieved June 14, 2021 from: https://seismicmaps.org/
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2002, Geologic Map of the Corona North 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, Open File Report 02-22, Prepared in Cooperation with the California Geological Survey; Compiled by D.M. Morton and C.H.

Gray, Jr.
________, 2003, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30 x 60 Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 2.0, Compiled by Douglas M. Moran, 2004, Open File Report 99-172, Sheet 1 of 2.
________, 2014, Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (v4.2.0), Retrieved June 14, 2021, from https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ ________, 2021, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, Retrieved June 14, 2021, from https://seismicmaps.org/
1584
Appendix B
Boring, CPT & Geotechnical Trench Logs
1585
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
670
665
660
655
650
645
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
5/21/2021
~671' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 2 ends

Eastvale City CouncilMay 11, 2022

Eastvale City Council
May 11, 2022