Agenda packet — Eastvale City Council, May 25, 2022 (part 5 of 11)

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

2.0 Background and Existing Conditions
The Project site historically functioned as a dairy with associated agriculture, a horse farm, and the Leal family home. The dairy activities and associated agriculture is no longer in use. The Project site currently has 3 horses and associated horse corrals, several homes and associated trailers found scattered around the property, along with dairy and farm equipment. The Project site consists primarily of disturbed land associated with historical dairy activities, as well as developed and ruderal habitat communities.

The Leal Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed and adopted in 2015.

The document identified the general parameters for future development of the 160-acre Project site. The overall approach to planning for development of the Project site, including the envisioned level of quality, expected project characteristics, allowed land uses, etc., is discussed within the adopted Master Plan. The Master Plan is proposed to occur in stages from Adoption of the Master Plant to physical Development of the Project Site.

As part of the 2015 EIR and Master Plan, a brief biological assessment and database search was completed in order to determine the level of impacts to biological resources as a result of the potential Project construction. It was determined that many of the biological impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated or no impact. Minor biological impacts occur as a result of potential develop and would require mitigation measures to lessen impacts to a less than significant level. Those Mitigation Measures (MM) include the following:

MM 3.7.1 All construction and clearing activities shall be conducted outside of the main avian nesting season (January 15– August 31), when feasible. Preconstruction surveys for nesting raptors, special-status resident birds, and other migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, up to 3 days before initiation of construction activities. The qualified biologist shall survey the construction zone and a 250-foot radius surrounding the construction zone to determine whether the activities taking place have the potential to disturb or otherwise harm nesting birds.

If an active nest is located within 100 feet (250 feet for raptors) of construction activities, the project applicant shall establish an exclusion zone (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 100 feet or 250 feet, as appropriate, around the nest). Alternative exclusion zones may be established through consultation with the CDFW and the USFWS, as necessary. The City shall be notified if altered exclusions zones widths are authorized by these agencies prior to the initiation of work. The exclusion zones shall remain in force until all young have fledged.
489 935
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 5 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 MM 3.7.2 Prior to breaking ground, a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potentially jurisdictional waters are present. If potentially jurisdictional features are identified, the project applicant shall submit a preliminary jurisdictional determination to the US Army Corps of Engineers for verification. The verified delineation will be submitted to the City for its records.

MM 3.7.3 Projects shall result in no net loss of sensitive habitats, riparian vegetation, and/or federally protected waters through impact avoidance, impact minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation, as determined in Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 permits and/or a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City prior to approval of each individual grading permit.

Furthermore, since the Project site occurs within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Area, and the City of Eastvale is a participating entity (signatory participant). As such, the following mitigation measures and standard conditions also apply to the Project.

MSHCP A. The project applicant shall submit fees to the City in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Ordinance (Chapter 4.62 of the City of Eastvale Municipal Code).

MSHCP B. The project applicant shall assess the proposed project’s consistency with Section

6.1.2, Section 6.1.3, Section 6.3.2, and Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.

MSHCP C. A qualified biologist shall conduct a burrowing owl habitat assessment. If needed, focused surveys and preconstruction surveys shall be conducted, as well as appropriate avoidance and minimization (Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP).

MSHCP D. A qualified biologist shall conduct habitat assessments for the required Narrow Endemic Plant Species. If needed, focused surveys and shall be conducted, as well as appropriate avoidance and minimization (Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP).

MSHCP E. A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for Delhi sands flowerloving fly in areas underlain by Delhi soil series (Species-specific Objective 1B).

490 936
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 6 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Historical Documentation
Prior to the field investigation, the original Environmental Documents and historical aerials were reviewed and utilized to understand prior biological components, jurisdictional delineation, and authorized impacts. These documents included the following:
• City of Eastvale Leal Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2015031028) • City of Eastvale Leal Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2015031028) • Google Earth Historical Imagery

3.2 Biological Survey
Available literature and databases were reviewed regarding sensitive habitats and special status plant and wildlife species occurring within the Project vicinity. CSLS reviewed and consulted literature and databases focused on Riverside County, California, including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat. The CNDDB is a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) species account database that inventories status and locations of rare plants and wildlife in California. The Project Site is located within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Corona North Quadrangle. The CNDDB was used to identify any sensitive plant communities and special status plants and wildlife that have potential to occur within the Study Area and the adjacent quadrangles (Corona South, Black Star Canyon, Prado Dam, Riverside West, Lake Mathews, Fontana, Guasti, and Ontario).

A two-mile radius surrounding the Study Area was assessed for special status plant and wildlife occurrences (Figure 3).

3.2.1 General Plant Inventory
All plant species observed during the general and focused surveys were either identified in the field or collected and later identified using taxonomic keys. Vegetation communities were characterized utilizing vegetation alliances in accordance with The Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCVII) (Sawyer et al. 2009). All plant species observed were recorded in field notes.

3.2.2 General Wildlife Inventory
All wildlife species observed on the Project site, as well as any diagnostic sign (call, tracks, nests, scat, remains, or other sign), were recorded in field notes. Binoculars and regional field guides were utilized for the identification of wildlife, as necessary. Wildlife taxonomy follows Stebbins (2003) and California Herps (2015) for amphibians and reptiles, the American Ornithologists’ Union (1998) for birds, and Jameson and Peeters (1988) for mammals. All wildlife species detected were recorded in field notes.
491 937
Legend
Approximate Project Boundary
2-mile Buffer
CNDDB Occurence
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly*
Santa Ana River
Santa Ana sucker
Southern California Arroyo
Chub/Santa Ana Sucker
Stephens' kangaroo rat
burrowing owl
least Bell's vireo
steelhead - southern California
DPS
tricolored blackbird
yellow rail
Critical Habitat
Least Bell's vireo
Note: The entire Guasti Quad is
mapped as a Delhi sands flowerloving fly occurence due to teh presence of Delhi soil series
occurence.

I The New Home Company: Leal Project
1 inch = 3,500 feet
0 875 1,750 3,500 5,250 7,000
Feet Bing Map
CNDDB (June 2021)
Data Source:

FIGURE 3
CNDDB Occurences and Critical Habitat
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: June 8, 2021
Project
Site
492 938
Leal Property
March 24, 2022

Page 8 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

3.2.3 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Assessment
Approximately 15-acres of the southeastern portion of the Project site consist of Delhi loamy fine sands (Figure 4). This soil series is suitable to the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). Due to the presence of the soil series a DSF Assessment was conducted. Prior to a site visit, soil maps covering the Project site were reviewed, along with aerial imagery to gain an understanding of historical land use regimens. Photographs were taken of the site, along with field notes on vegetation and soil conditions. The site is then rated based on its potential to support DSF based on the following scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat:

1. Developed areas, non-Delhi sands soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content. Delhi sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash, manure, or organic debris. Unsuitable.

2. Delhi sands are present, but the soil characteristics include a predominance of exotic soils such as alluvial materials, or predominance of other foreign contamination as gravels, manure, or organic debris. Severe and frequent disturbance (such as a maintenance yard or high use roadbed). Very Low Quality.

3. Moderately contaminated Delhi sands. Delhi sands with moderate to high disturbance (such as annual disking). Sufficient Delhi Sands are present to prevent soil compaction (related to contamination by foreign soils). Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity. Low Quality.

4. Abundant clean Delhi Sands with little or no foreign soils (such as alluvial material) present. Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance.

Moderate Quality.

It should be noted that habitat qualities often vary spatially within a site and may range in quality of suitability for DSF habitat. Further, overall habitat quality is affected by the overall habitat area on a site, such that very small areas diminish the overall habitat value of a site. Habitat conditions rated from Very Low Quality up to High Quality, are formally considered as representing Suitable conditions for the DSF.

3.3 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
The Project site is not located within MSHCP Criteria Cell, or Criteria Area Plant Species, Amphibians, Mammals, or Special Linkage Areas. The Study Area was assessed for MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian and Riverine Areas and associated species; MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface; MSHCP Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species, and Section

6.3.2 Species Survey Requirements for the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea [BUOW]) habitat (Figure 5).
493 939
Legend
Approximate Project Boundary
Soils
Delhi loamy fine sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes (DbA)
Hilmar loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, eroded (HhA2)
Hilmar loamy very fine sand, 0 to
2 percent slopes (HlA)
I The New Home Company: Leal Project
1 inch = 450 feet
0 50 100 200 300 400 500 600
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 4
Soil Map
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: May 13, 2021
494 940
Legend
Approximate Project Boundary
MSHCP Overlays
Burrowing Owl
Narrow Endemic Plants
(San Diego ambrosia, Brand's
phacelia, San Miguel savory)
I The New Home Company: Leal Project
1 inch = 500 feet
0 50 100 200 300 400 500 600
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 5
MSHCP Overlays
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: June 8, 2021
495 941
Leal Property
March 24, 2022

Page 11 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

3.3.1 Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Volume I, Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP describes the process through which protection of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools would occur within the MSHCP Plan Area. The purpose is to ensure that the biological functions and values of these areas throughout the MSHCP Conservation Area are maintained. The MSHCP requires that as projects are proposed within the overall Plan Area, the effect of those projects on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools must be addressed. The Study Area was evaluated for the presence/absence of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. With respect to riparian habitat, the Study Area was evaluated for the potential habitat to support the special status species including the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii traillii), the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), listed fairy shrimp, and other species identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.

The Project site was evaluated to determine the limits of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. Suspected areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Any MSHCP riparian/riverine limits were recorded onto a 200-scale (1” = 200’) color aerial photograph and a GPS unit paired with the ARCGIS Collector Application.

3.3.1 Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plants- Survey Area Number 7 The Project site falls within Narrow Endemic Plants (Survey Area Number 7). The CNDDB and MSHCP were reviewed to determine known occurrences of special- status plants in the region.

Based on this information, a list of target plants (including their suitable habitats and soil) was developed and incorporated into a survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) characterize the vegetation associations and land use; (2) prepare a detailed floral compendium; and (3) document the distribution and abundance of any special-status plant species within the Project site.

General surveys were conducted to identify potential sensitive plant habitats, and to establish the accuracy of the data identified from the literature review and previous biological assessment and search. An aerial photograph and topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive species or communities within the Project site and surrounding buffer area. The reconnaissance surveys also considered the guidelines adopted by CNPS and CDFW (Nelson 1984, CNPS 2001).

Where potentially suitable habitat was present, focused plant surveys included those MSCHP Covered Species identified by the NEPSSA Survey Area Number 7. For any locations with positive survey results, the MSHCP requires that 90 percent of those portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the identified species shall be avoided until it is demonstrated that conservation goals for the particular species are met. Findings of equivalency shall be made demonstrating that the 90-percent standard has been met. 496 942
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 12 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

3.3.2 Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface
The MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines presented in Section 6.1.4 are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating commercial, mixed uses and residential developments in proximity to an MSHCP Conservation Area. In order to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed Project on urban/wildlands interface, an analysis of wildlife use/movement was conducted for the Project site and adjacent buffer area. The analysis considered the movement and use of large mammals (i.e., mountain lion and mule deer), medium-sized mammals (mesocarnivores), and other wildlife such as small mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Methods utilized for the wildlife analysis included a review of existing information on wildlife use (including the MSHCP), general and focused biological surveys to document the presence/absence of wildlife, and opportunistic observations of mammal tracks and scat.

3.3.3 Section 6.3.2 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment
Prior to the field survey, available literature and databases including the CNDDB, were reviewed to identify sensitive habitats and special status wildlife species, including BUOW in the vicinity of the Study Area. Consistent with the MSHCP Survey Instructions, pedestrian survey transects were spaced approximately 10 to 15 meters apart to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface.

Consistent with the MSHCP guidelines and where feasible, CSLS biologists walked the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the Project boundary. Parcels of land that could not be accessed (e.g. private property) were viewed using binoculars from vantage points to survey for BUOW activity or signs thereof, as well as other nesting bird activity.

3.4 Jurisdictional Waters
Prior to the field investigation, CSLS biologist reviewed historic aerial imagery, topographic maps, and background information for the Study Area to determine the potential for perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral drainages and associated riparian resources.

3.4.1 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 401 provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 401 requires a project applicant to obtain a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain state certification, thereby ensuring that the discharge will comply with provisions of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board administers the certification program in California. Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Corps implementing regulations are found at 33 CFR 320 and 330. Guidelines for implementation are referred to as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which were developed 497 943
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 13 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with the Corps (40 CFR 230). The guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts.

3.4.2 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States
Aquatic resources, including riparian areas, wetlands, and certain aquatic vegetation communities, are considered sensitive biological resources and fall under the jurisdiction of several regulatory agencies. The Corps exerts jurisdiction over waters of the United States, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; wetlands and other waters such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent or ephemeral streams), mudflats, sandflats, sloughs, prairie potholes, vernal pools, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds; and tributaries of the above features. The extent of waters of the United States is generally defined as the portion that falls within the limits of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The definition of Navigable Waters has undergone several iterations, including a much more streamlined definition which was published and formally adopted in April 2020. However, in August 2021, the April 2020 Navigable Waters definition was challenged in the case Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In light of this case and subsequent order from US District Court for the District of Arizona, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps have halted implementation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule from 2020 and are interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime until further notice.

The pre-2015 definition of Navigable Waters includes (1) all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section; (6) The territorial sea; and (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section.

Wetlands, including swamps, bogs, seasonal wetlands, seeps, marshes, and similar areas, are defined by Corps as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 498 944
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 14 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 CFR 328.3[b]; 40 CFR 230.3[t]). Indicators of three wetland parameters (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetlands hydrology), as determined by field investigation, must be present for a site to be classified as a wetland by Corps (USACE 1987).

It is important to note that the RWQCB definition of wetland was redefined and the new definition went into effect May 28, 2020. The definition of a wetland is as follows: An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation. This RWQCB modified three-parameter definition is similar to the federal definition in that it identifies three wetland characteristics that determine the presence of a wetland: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Unlike the federal definition, however, the RWQCB wetland definition allows for the presence of hydric substrates as a criterion for wetland identification (not just wetland soils) and wetland hydrology for an area devoid of vegetation (less than 5% cover) to be considered a wetland.

However, if any vegetation is present, then the Corps delineation procedures would apply to the vegetated component (i.e., hydrophytes must dominate). Examples of waters that would be considered wetlands by the RWQCB definition, but not by the federal wetland definition, are non-vegetated wetlands, or wetlands characterized by exposed bare substrates like mudflats and playas, as long as they meet the three-parameters as described in the RWQCB definition. It is important to note that while the Corps may not designate a feature as a wetland, that feature could be considered a special aquatic site or other water of the U.S. by the Corps and potentially subject to Corps’ jurisdiction.

3.4.3 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act – California Code, Division 7 The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over waters deemed “isolated” or not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction under the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Corps decision.

Dredging, filling, or excavation of isolated waters constitutes a discharge of waste to waters of the state and prospective dischargers are required to obtain authorization through an Order of Waste Discharge or waiver thereof from the RWQCB and comply with other requirements of Porter-Cologne Act.

Under Section 401 of the CWA, the local RWQCB must certify that actions receiving authorization under Section 404 of the CWA also meet state water quality standards. The RWQCB requires projects to avoid impacts to wetlands if feasible and requires that projects do not result in a net loss of wetland acreage or a net loss of wetland function and values.

Compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands and/or waters of the state is required.

3.4.4 California Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1616
Waters of the State are regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) through Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 1600 et seq. requires notifying the CDFW prior to any project activity that might (1) substantially divert or 499 945
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 15 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. If, after this notification, the CDFW determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will need to be obtained. CDFW may then place conditions in the Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFW jurisdictional limits.

The limits of Waters of the State are defined as the “body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life.

This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." Therefore, the limits extend from the channel bed to the top of the bank, with the addition of the canopy of any riparian habitat associated with the watercourse.

4.0 Project Description
The Applicant proposes to construct a mix of residential units and commercial development and associated infrastructure on the site.

5.0 Results

5.1 Biological Survey
CSLS biologist conducted an analysis of biological resources and jurisdictional waters within the Study Area on June 9, 2021, and focused burrowing owl surveys and narrow endemic plant surveys on June 16, 23, July 1, and 13, 2021. Furthermore, a Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly Assessment was performed on June 18, 2021. The June 9 Biological assessment survey was performed between 7:00 am and 1:50 pm, the temperature measured 82 F with clear skies.

CSLS biologists conducted all the surveys by foot, hiking all accessible areas. Any inaccessible or restricted areas were surveyed using binoculars. The vegetation, jurisdictional waters, and wildlife observed were documented and representative photographs of the Study Area were taken (Attachment A). The following table summarized the field survey data.

Table 1. Survey Information
Survey Date Time Surveys Surveyors
June 9, 2021 0700 - 1350 Biological Assessment,
Jurisdictional Delineation,
Burrowing Owl Assessment,
Narrow Endemic Plant Survey.

Brianna Bernard
June 16, 2021 0715 - 1208 Biological Assessment,
Jurisdictional Delineation,
Brianna Bernard
500 946
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 16 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Survey Date Time Surveys Surveyors
Burrowing Owl Survey #1,
Narrow Endemic Plant Survey.

June 18, 2021 1200 - 1300 Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly Assessment
Ken Osborne
June 23, 2021 0730 - 1145 Burrowing Owl Survey #2,
Narrow Endemic Plant Survey.

Brianna Bernard
July 1, 2021 0658 - 1054 Burrowing Owl Survey #3,
Narrow Endemic Plan Survey.

Brianna Bernard and
Justinne Manahan
July 13, 2021 0715 - 1100 Burrowing Owl Survey #4,
Narrow Endemic Plan Survey.

Brianna Bernard and
Justinne Manahan

5.1.1 Vegetation Communities
The vegetation community remains consistent with the original assumptions in the 2015 Biological Assessment. The communities include disturbed historic dairy farm, ruderal, and developed vegetation communities. Vegetation communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 200-scale (1” = 200’) aerial photograph and CSLS biologists utilized a Trimble R1 GNSS Receiver paired with the ARCGIS Collector Application. Vegetation mapping and acreages for each vegetation community is based on the observations of the field survey and is listed below in Table 2 and graphically depicted on Figure 6.

The surrounding 500 feet consists of developed vegetation community, including residential development and commercial development.

Table 2. Vegetation Communities Observed
Vegetation Community
Acreage within in the
Project Site
Acreage within in the
Surrounding Buffer
Total Acreage within
the Study Area
Ruderal 96.82 - 96.82
Historical Dairy Farm 25.82 - 25.82
Disturbed/Developed 37.87 138.64 176.51
TOTAL 160.0 138.64 299.15
The general description of the vegetation communities observed during the 2021 field surveys are described below.

Ruderal
A majority of the ruderal vegetation community occurs within the southern 80-acres. The vegetation within this area is comprised of predominantly of London rocket (Sisymbrium irio) and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Other species include Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), rat-tail fescue (Festuca microstachys), foxtail brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), Jimson weed (Datura stramonium), and scattered Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta), 501 947
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 17 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). A row of trees bisects the Project site from the north to south and includes mulberry trees (Morus alba), and Shamuel ash (Fraxinus uhdei).

Historical Dairy Farm
This community consists of former dairy activities. The historical dairy farm includes old cowpens and dried manure settling basins, prior grazing areas, and associated outbuildings and infrastructure. The dairy farm is no longer in use and includes areas mostly devoid of vegetation, with the exception of patchy areas supporting non-native ruderal vegetation.

Disturbed/Developed
This community includes bare dirt, residential structures, concrete roads, dirt roads and asphalt roads.

5.1.1 CNDDB and Critical Habitat
The Study Area contains no special-status vegetation type listed by the CNDDB and CDFW. No sensitive wildlife species were observed during the 2021 surveys.

The Study Area is not located within any designated critical habitat. The closest designated critical habitat is for the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus [LBV]) and it is located an approximate 1.5 miles to the south of the Project site (Figure 3). No habitat suitable for LBV occurs on the Project site.
502 948
Legend
Approximate Project Boundary
500-foot Buffer
Vegetation Communities
Ruderal
Historical Dairy Farm
Disturbed/Developed
I The New Home Company: Leal Project
1 inch = 500 feet
0 50 100 200 300 400 500 600
Feet
Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 6
Vegetation Community Map
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: June 8, 2021 503 949
Leal Property
March 24, 2022

Page 19 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

5.1.2 Wildlife Species
Observations regarding the wildlife species present were made during the field visit (Table 3).

Other species observed include California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and coyote (Canis latrans).

Table 3. Wildlife Species Observed Onsite
Scientific Name Common Name
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Cathartes aura turkey vulture
Carpodacus mexicanus house finch
Charadrius vociferus killdeer
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax common raven
Eremophila alpestris California horned lark
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird
Falco sparverius American kestrel
Hirundo rustica Barn swallow
Icterus cucullatus Hooded oriole
Melospiza melodia song sparrow
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird
Pyrocephalus rubinus Vermilion flycatcher
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe
Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe
Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird
Zenaida macroura mourning dove

5.1.3 Sensitive Wildlife Species
Sensitive wildlife include those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), candidates for listing by the USFWS or CDFW, and California Watch List, Fully Protected and Species of Special Concern to CDFW. No listed wildlife was identified or observed within the Project site during the field surveys.

5.2 CMSHCP Assessment
The Project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits.

Furthermore, the Project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits, and the Project site is not located in survey areas for Amphibians, Mammals, or Special Linkage areas. The Project site is subject to Riparian and Riverine Areas pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2, Narrow Endemic Plants (Survey Area 7) pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.3, Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.4, and Western Burrowing Owl overlay pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
504 950
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 20 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

5.2.1 Riparian and Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2) The Project site was assessed for MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The Project site does not contain any MSHCP riparian/riverine features.

Species Protected under Section 6.1.2
During vegetation mapping conducted for the Project site, no special status plants were detected during the 2021 surveys. Likewise, the Project site did not contain any suitable habitat for the avian species listed in Section 6.1.2: Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools.

Vernal Pools
The Project site does not contain vernal pools or any suitable habitat for any of the riparian/riverine vernal pool species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, including listed fairy shrimp.

5.2.2 Narrow Endemic Plant – Survey Area Number 7 (Section 6.1.3) The Project site is located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA) Number 7 overlay, which include the following target species:
• San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1, federally endangered Distribution: Riverside and San Diego Counties.

Habitat(s): Habitats supporting chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Observed in sandy loam or clay soils, sometimes alkaline soils. Known from 20 to 415 meters (65 to 1360 feet) MSL. Blooms April through October.

Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field visit.
• Brand's phacelia (Phacelia stellaris)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1
Distribution: Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties.

Habitat(s): Habitats supporting coastal dunes and coastal scrub. Known from 1 to 400 meters (5 to 1,310 feet) MSL. Blooms May through June.

Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field visit.
• San Miguel savory (Satureja chandleri)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2
Distribution: Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties.

Habitat(s): Habitats supporting chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands. Observed in rocky, gabbroic, or 505 951
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 21 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 metavolcanic soils. Known from 120 to 1,075 meters (395 to 3,525 feet) MSL. Blooms March through July.

Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field visit.

No special status plant species were observed during the 2021 surveys and none are expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat or suitable soil found on the Project site.

5.2.3 Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4)
The Project site is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area.

Furthermore, the Project site is isolated from any large open space areas and instead is surrounded by residential and commercial development and does not function as a regional movement corridor.

5.2.4 Focused Burrowing Owl Survey (Section 6.3.2)
Step I Habitat Assessment survey was conducted on June 9, 2021 to determine if the Project site contains suitable BUOW habitat. Based on the Habitat Assessment it was determined the Project site does contain suitable habitat for BUOW. Therefore, a total of four focused burrowing owl surveys were performed on June 16, 23, July 1, and 13, 2021. The surveys took place between 6:45 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Temperatures during the survey ranged between 65 F and 85 F, with generally predominant sunny, clear skies and 0-2 mph winds. The surveys were conducted during typical BUOW peak activity time and was not conducted during rain, high winds (> 20 miles per hour), dense cloud cover >75%. Prior to the commencement of the survey, CSLS biologist scanned the Study Area, consisting of the Project site and the surrounding 500- foot buffer, using binoculars to look for burrowing owl. The Study Area was assessed for the suitability to support burrowing owls and all suitable burrows were inspected for signs of use by burrowing owls.

No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed within the Study Area during the focused survey. A majority of the Project site is characterized by disturbed dairy land, ruderal, and developed vegetation communities, lacking necessary sized burrows to provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW. The surrounding buffer area is developed with residential and commercial developments. California ground squirrels and their burrows were observed within the Study Area. These burrows were actively utilized by the California ground squirrels and contained no BUOW or keys signs (sight, whitewash, burrows, bones, feathers, pellets, nests, and calls). Furthermore, debris piles and farm equipment were thoroughly examined for any BUOW key signs. Based on the results of the focused surveys and lack of diagnostic signs for burrowing owl, the Project site is not occupied by the burrowing owl. Please refer to Attachment B for the complete results for the focused survey.

5.2.5 Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Assessment
Due to the location of the Project site within the Ontario Recovery Unit for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, a habitat assessment for this species was conducted by Ken Osborne on June 18, 2021 (see Attachment C). The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is a Federally Endangered 506 952
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 22 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 species which is dependent on Delhi sands and Delhi sand dunes with less than 50% vegetation cover. Typical vegetation includes California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California croton (Croton californicus), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora).

The Project site contains a total of 13-acres of Delhi sand series located in the south eastern portion of the property (Figure 4). The remaining portions of the site includes Hilmar loamy sands. Of the total 13-acres, a total of 5-acres of Delhi sands is overlain with a meter depth of exotic soils dominated by alluvial gravely materials. Remaining peripheral areas mapped with Delhi fine soils are intermixed with fine loam soils (Hilmar classification), the mixing and contamination likely the result of decades of dairy operations where pasture lands have been disked. The site has been largely surrounded by residential and commercial development since 2004, isolating the Project site from areas with Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly populations. The last known extant Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly population site in the Ontario Recovery Unit area is located some six kilometers north northeast of the site. Plant species normally associated with Delhi sands ecosystems do not occur on the site.

The entire site is in historical dairy and associated developed residential and dairy infrastructure.

Aerial imagery available on Google Earth, shows that the dairy operations have been maintained since 1985 and is no longer in use today. Site conditions feature continuously irrigated pastures, cattle pens, and developed buildings (including residences) with irrigated landscaping, and ponds. Lands so managed with dairy operations are not suitable for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. Northern, western, and central portions of the site are mapped (and field investigation confirms) with Hilmar loamy sands – soils unsuitable for Delhi Sands flowerloving fly. The site is further set within the larger context of adjacent and surrounding developed lands, further reinforcing the unsuitability of habitat conditions for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly.

The entire Project site is determined to be Unsuitable for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly.

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters
The National Wetlands Inventory map was reviewed, along with USGS 7.5-minute topo map to determine the potential presence or absence of jurisdictional streams/drainages, wetlands, and their location within any watersheds associated with the site, and other features that might contribute to federal authority located within watersheds associated with the Project Site. Lastly, a field survey was performed on June 9 and 16, 2021.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) commented on the Draft EIR in 2015 regarding a potential jurisdictional feature on the southwestern portion of the Project Site. The entire site was inspected for jurisdictional features, specifically the area CDFW referenced in the comment letter, was thoroughly examined for any signs meeting the definition of jurisdictional waters. The Project site consists primarily of disturbed agriculture lands, ruderal, and developed vegetation communities. No wetlands, riparian, or drainage features were observed. 507 953
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 23 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Based on the field survey, there are no features identified on the Project site that meet the definition and are considered jurisdictional Waters of the United States or Waters of the State, pursuant to Section 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code and Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, respectively.

6.0 Thresholds of Significance
The Draft EIR, and subsequent Final EIR, analyzed Biological Impacts as a result of Project implementation. The thresholds below mimic those found within the EIR for the Leal Master Plan.

The thresholds include the following:

Threshold 1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Threshold 2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive plant community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Threshold 3 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Threshold 4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery areas.

Threshold 5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Threshold 6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan.

Threshold 7 Reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or biotic community, thereby causing the species or community to drop below self-sustaining levels.

Threshold 8 Cumulative impacts to biological resources. 508 954
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 24 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 The 2015 EIR analyzed the Project based on a biological desktop review. In 2021, the Project site was formally evaluated for sensitive resources, including performing a jurisdictional delineation and all focused surveys for sensitive wildlife and plant species, as specified within the MSHCP and 2015 EIR. Based on the 2021 results, the Project site does not contain any sensitive biological resources. Below is a summary of the impact analysis and determination within the 2015 EIR in comparison to the 2021 field results and results from the jurisdictional delineation and additional special status species focused surveys. As part of the Project implementation the entire 160-acre site will be permanently impacted.

Table 4. Threshold Comparison
Threshold
Number
2015 Determination 2021 Determination Change from
2015 to 2021
1 Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
No change
2 Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
No Impact Less impactful
3 Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
No Impact Less impactful
4 Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No change 5 No Impact No Impact No change
6 Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No change 7 Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant Less impactful
8 Less Than Cumulatively
Considerable with Mitigation
Less Than Cumulatively
Considerable with Mitigation
No change

6.1 Threshold 1
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation.

6.1.1 Sensitive Plant Species
Development of the Project site would result in the direct removal of non-native and ruderal plant species. The Project site does not contain any suitable habitat for special status species or sensitive species, nor were any observed onsite. The Project would include the removal of nonnative and ruderal species; therefore, impacts would not be considered a significant impact and no mitigation is required. No change from what was analyzed in the 2015 EIR. 509 955
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 25 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

6.1.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species
Development of the Project site would result in the disruption and removal of ruderal and developed habitat and the loss and displacement of non-sensitive common wildlife species.

Due to the level of existing disturbance from the historical use as a dairy farm, human activity onsite and within the vicinity (e.g., nearby development), these impacts would not be expected to reduce the general wildlife populations below self-sustaining levels within the region and impacts to non-sensitive wildlife species do not meet the significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts to common wildlife species would not be considered a significant impact and no mitigation is required. No change from what was analyzed in the 2015 EIR.

As stated in the 2015 EIR analysis, the Project site consists of suitable habitat for nesting, foraging, and/or wintering avian species. While none of the common species carry a Federal or State listing as threatened or endangered, they are all protected under the MBTA during breeding season. Therefore, a pre-construction survey is required in compliance with the MBTA.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.7.1 would reduce potential impacts to the avian species to a less than significant level if nesting individuals are present. This 2015 mitigation measure is still applicable following the 2021 field survey and biological analysis.

Page 26 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

6.2 Threshold 2
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Widlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact.

Based on the 2021 field surveys and focused surveys, no sensitive plant communities or habitats occur on the Project site. Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are protected under the MSHCP, CEQA, Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Furthermore, the 2021 included a formal jurisdictional delineation on the Project site. Based on those results, no jurisdictional features were identified on the Project site subject to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, as regulated by CDFW.

Based on the detailed 2021 biological surveys and investigations of the Project site, no sensitive biological resources or jurisdictional features were identified on the Project site, therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measure 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 have been fulfilled and are no longer required.

MM 3.7.2 Prior to breaking ground, a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potentially jurisdictional waters are present. If potentially jurisdictional features are identified, the project applicant shall submit a preliminary jurisdictional determination to the US Army Corps of Engineers for verification. The verified delineation will be submitted to the City for its records.

The analysis from the 2015 EIR concluded the impacts less than significant with mitigation.

However, based on the lack of sensitive biological resources and jurisdictional resources found onsite during the field investigations, the 2021 conclusion is no impact. The 2021 conclusion is less impactful than what was analyzed in the 2015 EIR.
511 957
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 27 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

6.3 Threshold 3
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact.

No jurisdictional non-wetland or wetland waters regulated under Section 404 of the CWA were identified on the Project site. Based on the detailed 2021 biological surveys and jurisdictional investigations of the Project site, no sensitive biological resources or jurisdictional features were identified on the Project site, therefore, no impacts would occur and Mitigation Measure 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 have been fulfilled and are no longer required.

The analysis from the 2015 EIR concluded the impacts less than significant with mitigation.

However, based on the lack of jurisdictional resources found onsite during field investigations, the 2021 conclusion is no impact. The 2021 conclusion is less impactful than what was analyzed in the 2015 EIR.

6.4 Threshold 4
Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant.

6.4.1 Wildlife Movement
As stated in the 2015 EIR analysis and verified during the 2021 field surveys, the entire Project site has been disturbed by development and intense historical dairy and agricultural uses and is unlikely to facilitate local wildlife movement. In addition, the Project site is completely surrounded by dense urban development, further impairing wildlife movement.

The site supports potential live-in and movement habitat for species on a local scale (i.e., some limited live-in and marginal movement habitat for reptile, bird, and mammal species), however, the site provides little to no function to facilitate wildlife movement on a regional scale.

Furthermore, the site is not identified as a Special Linkage area within the MSHCP. Movement on a local scale likely occurs with species adapted to urban environments due to the surrounding development and disturbances in the vicinity of the site. Although implementation of the Project would result in disturbances to local wildlife movement within the site, those species adapted to urban areas would be expected to persist on-site following construction. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

No change in conclusion from what was analyzed in the 2015 EIR. 512 958
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 28 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

6.5 Threshold 5
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact.

The Project is not subject to any local policies, such as a tree preservation ordinance. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. No change in conclusion from what was analyzed in the 2015 EIR.

6.6 Threshold 6
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant.

The Project site is located within the MSHCP. The Project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits. Furthermore, the Project site is not located in survey areas for Amphibians, Mammals, or Special Linkage areas. The Project site is subject to Riparian and Riverine Areas pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2, Narrow Endemic Plants Overlay, pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.3, Urban/Wildland Interface pursuant to Section 6.1.4, and Western Burrowing Owl overlay pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.3.2. Detailed biological surveys and investigations of the Project site were conducted in 2021 for MSHCP riparian/riverine features and associated special status species, narrow endemic plants, burrowing owl, and Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly. Results of the 2021 surveys are discussed below. Since the Project site occurs within the MSHCP and the City of Eastvale is a participating entity several mitigation measure and standard conditions were applied to the Project within the 2015 EIR. The following MSHCP measures still apply. Several of the measures were completed as part of the field surveys and detail investigations conducted for the 2021 update. Those measures are discussed below.

MSHCP A. The project applicant shall submit fees to the City in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Ordinance (Chapter 4.62 of the City of Eastvale Municipal Code).

MSHCP B. The project applicant shall assess the proposed project’s consistency with Section

6.1.2, Section 6.1.3, Section 6.3.2, and Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.

Page 29 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 MSHCP D. A qualified biologist shall conduct habitat assessments for the required Narrow Endemic Plant Species. If needed, focused surveys and shall be conducted, as well as appropriate avoidance and minimization (Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP).

MSHCP E. A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for Delhi sands flowerloving fly in areas underlain by Delhi soil series (Species-specific Objective 1B).

6.6.1 Riparian and Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2) There are no features identified on the Project site that are considered riparian and/or riverine, nor meet the definition of riparian and/or riverine as outline within the MSHCP Section 6.1.2.

The Project site does not contain suitable habitat for any of the riparian/riverine vernal pool species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, including listed fairy shrimp. No impacts to those species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are associated with Project implementation due to the lack of suitable habitat onsite. Therefore, the Project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.2.

As part of the 2015 EIR, MSHCP B standard condition was to be applied to the Project because the City is a signatory to the MSHCP. MSHCP B has been fulfilled and is considered complete with the 2021 field surveys and detailed jurisdictional investigations.

6.6.2 Narrow Endemic Plant – Survey Area Number 7 (Section 6.1.3) Portions of the Project site are located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas Number 7, which include the following target species:
• San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
• Brand's phacelia (Phacelia stellaris)
• San Miguel savory (Satureja chandleri)
No special status plant species were observed during the 2021 surveys and none are expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat or suitable soil found on the Project site; therefore, there are no potential impacts to special status plants due to Project implementation.

As part of the 2015 EIR, MSHCP D standard condition was to be applied to the Project because the City is a signatory to the MSHCP. MSHCP D has been fulfilled and is considered complete with the 2021 field surveys and detailed investigations.

6.6.3 Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4)
The Project site is not located to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area as pursuant to Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Therefore, there are no potential impacts to Urban/Wildlands Interface due to Project implementation. As part of the 2015 EIR, MSHCP B standard condition was to be applied to the Project because the City is a signatory to the MSHCP. MSHCP B has been fulfilled and is considered complete with the 2021 field surveys and detailed investigations.

6.6.4 Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys (Section 6.3.2)
Based on the Habitat Assessment it was determined the Project site contains suitable habitat for BUOW; therefore, four additional focused BUOW surveys were conducted by qualified 514 960
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 30 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 biologist. Based on the focus surveys, no BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed within the Study Area during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site is characterized by disturbed dairy land, ruderal, and developed vegetation communities, lacking necessary sized burrows to provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW. The surrounding buffer area is developed with residential and commercial developments. California ground squirrels and their burrows were observed within the Study Area. These burrows were actively utilized by the California ground squirrels and contained no BUOW or keys signs (sight, whitewash, burrows, bones, feathers, pellets, nests, and calls). Furthermore, debris piles and farm equipment were thoroughly examined for any BUOW key signs. Based on the results of the focused surveys and lack of diagnostic signs for burrowing owl, the Project site is not occupied by the burrowing owl.

As part of the 2015 EIR, MSHCP C standard conditions were to be applied to the Project because the City is a signatory to the MSHCP. MSHCP C has been partially fulfilled with the 2021 field surveys and detailed investigations. As part of MSHCP C standard condition, should suitable habitat be observed, a pre-construction burrowing owl survey is to be performed within 30-days of ground disturbances. The following Standard Conditions is to be incorporated as part of MSHCP C measure.

SC MSHCP C: Prior to impacts, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl within the Study Area (Project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist where suitable habitat is present within 30 days to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.

If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season, all work within 300 feet of any active burrow will be halted until that nesting effort is finished. The on-site biologist will review and verify compliance with these boundaries and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed.

If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season, then passive and/or active relocation pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan that shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the County of Riverside Environmental Programs Department (EPD) in consultation with CDFW. The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl (March 2012) and MSHCP.

Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied, and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter the holes/dens.

6.6.5 Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Species-specific Objective 1B) Due to the location of the Project site within the Ontario Recovery Unit for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, a habitat assessment for this species was conducted. The entire site is in 515 961
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 31 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 historical dairy and associated developed residential and dairy infrastructure. Aerial imagery available on Google Earth, shows that the dairy operations have been maintained since 1985 to the up to 2020. Site conditions feature continuously irrigated pastures, cattle pens, and developed buildings (including residences) with irrigated landscaping, and ponds. Lands so managed with dairy operations are not suitable for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. Northern, western, and central portions of the site are mapped (and field investigation confirms) with Hilmar loamy sands – soils unsuitable for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. The site is further set within the larger context of adjacent and surrounding developed lands, further reinforcing the unsuitability of habitat conditions for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. The entire Project site is determined to be Unsuitable for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. As part of the 2015 EIR, MSHCP E standard condition was to be applied to the Project because the City is a signatory to the MSHCP. MSHCP E has been fulfilled and is considered complete with the 2021 field surveys and detailed investigations.

6.7 Threshold 7
Reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or biotic community, thereby causing the species or community to drop below self-sustaining levels.

Less than Significant.

There are no previously recorded sensitive biological resources (i.e., special-status species populations, sensitive habitats, or jurisdictional features) within the Study Area. No sensitive biological resources, including i.e., special-status species populations, sensitive habitats, or jurisdictional features occur onsite as confirmed by the 2021 Biological Surveys.

However, suitable habitat for burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, grasshopper sparrow, and mountain plover exists within the Study Area. All of these animal species are covered under the MSHCP. With the City’s participation and implementation of the MSHCP, any direct and indirect impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant with the payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with all applicable requirements of the MSHCP. This provides full mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) for impacts to MSHCP covered species and habitats. The MSHCP also addresses indirect impacts through cores and linkages, criteria cells, and plan fees.

Project compliance with the MSHCP A standard condition fully mitigates impacts for these covered species. Additional surveys/assessments were performed in 2021, and no burrowing owl, narrow endemic plant species, or Delhi sands flower-loving fly occur onsite and no mitigation is required.

The analysis from the 2015 EIR concluded the impacts less than significant with mitigation.

However, based on the lack of sensitive biological resources (i.e., special-status species 516 962
Leal Property
March 25, 2022

Page 32 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 populations, sensitive habitats, or jurisdictional features) within the Study Area, the 2021 conclusion is less than significant. The 2021 conclusion is less impactful than what was analyzed in the 2015 EIR.

6.8 Threshold 8
Cumulative impacts to biological resources.

Less than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation.

The City participates in the MSHCP, which is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in western Riverside County. Project compliance with the MSHCP fully mitigates for impacts on covered species and ensures large segments of natural communities in western Riverside County will be preserved.

Adherence to the standards and conditions of the MSHCP, and implementation of mitigation measure MM 3.7.1, ensures that impacts to avian species and their habitats are minimized.

Based on the detailed 2021 biological surveys and investigations of the Project site, no sensitive biological resources or jurisdictional features were identified on the Project site, therefore, no impacts would occur. MM 3.7.2 and MM 3.7.3 have been fulfilled and are no longer required.

Detailed biological surveys and investigations of the Project site were conducted in 2021 for MSHCP riparian/riverine features and associated special status species, narrow endemic plants, burrowing owl, and Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly. Based on those results, Standard Conditions MSHCP B, MSHCP D, and MSHCP E have been fulfilled and are no longer required. MSHCP A is the fulfillment of MSHCP Fees and still applicable. Furthermore, a portion of MSHCP C is fulfilled with focused protocol Burrowing Owl Surveys. It was determined that the Study Area is not occupied with burrowing owls, however, due to the suitable habitat found onsite, avoidance and minimization measures for the Burrowing Owl are still appliable. Participation in and implementation of the MSHCP will effectively reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively considerable.

7.0 Summary
In summary, the 2015 EIR analyzed the Project based on a biological desktop review. In 2021, the Project site was formally evaluated for sensitive resources, including performing a jurisdictional delineation and all focused surveys for sensitive wildlife and plant species, as specified within the MSHCP and 2015 EIR. Based on the 2021 results, the Project site does not contain any sensitive biological resources. As part of the Project implementation the entire 160- acre site will be permanently impacted.

Page 33 of 33 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 areas for Amphibians, Mammals, or Special Linkage areas. The Project site is subject to Riparian and Riverine Areas pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2, Narrow Endemic Plants Overlay, pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.3, Urban/Wildland Interface pursuant to Section 6.1.4, and Western Burrowing Owl overlay pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.3.2.

Adherence to the standards and conditions of the MSHCP, and implementation of mitigation measure MM 3.7.1, ensures that impacts to special-status avian species and their habitats are minimized. Based on the detailed 2021 biological surveys and investigations of the Project site, no sensitive biological resources or jurisdictional features were identified on the Project site, therefore, no impacts would occur. MM 3.7.2 and MM 3.7.3 have been fulfilled and are no longer required.

Based on the updated 2021 detailed Biological Surveys, it is determined that impacts are either the same as analyzed in the 2015 EIR or less impactful with Project implementation. The Project is not anticipated to have a greater impact than what was originally analyzed in the 2015 EIR.

Please contact me at [email protected] or 949.542.7042, should you have any questions or comments.

Brianna Bernard
Project Manager and Project Biologist
Enclosures:
• Attachment A: Photopages
• Attachment B: Burrowing Owl Survey Results
• Attachment C: Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Assessment 518 964
Attachment A: Photopages
519 965
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken June 16, 2021
Looking over the Project site in the north-east corner.

Historical agriculture and dairy equipment is scattered throughout the site. 520 966
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken June 16, 2021
Typical burrow observed.

A majority of the site is disturbed.
521 967
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken June 16, 2021
Old homes and trailers are scattered throughout the site.

A majority of the site include ruderal habitat.
522 968
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken June 16, 2021
Ruderal Habitat found onsite.

The site also includes disturbed habitat.
523 969
Attachment B: Burrowing Owl
Survey Results
524 970
CARLSON STRATEGIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC.

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Information Summary
Report Date: November 2, 2021
Report Title: Results of MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey for the Leal Project in Riverside County, California
APN Numbers: 164-030-010, 164-030-012, 164-030-013, 164-030-014, 164- 030-024, and 164-030-025.

Principal
Investigator:

Brianna Bernard
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.542.7042 Office
916.218.2644 Mobile
[email protected]
Report Summary
This letter describes the methods and results of a focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia [BUOW]) survey for the Leal Project (Project) located in the City of Eastvale.

The Project site is generally located in the Hemet area of Riverside County. The Project site is bounded by 58th Street to the north, Hamner Avenue to the east, Limonite Avenue to the south, and Scholar Way to the west. It is situated immediately west and north of existing commercial and retail developments and south and east of established residential neighborhoods of varying densities. The Project site is located approximately half a mile west of Interstate 15 (I-15). The Project site is within the Corona North U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic map. Please refer to attached Figure 1 and Figure 2. Access to the Project site is provided off the Hamner Avenue or 58th Street. The Project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer (Study Area) was surveyed.

The surveys were performed on the following days:

Survey Survey Date Time Surveyors
Burrowing Owl
Assessment
June 9, 2021 0700 - 1350 Brianna Bernard
Burrowing Owl
Survey #1
June 16, 2021 0715 - 1208 Brianna Bernard
Burrowing Owl
Survey #2
June 23, 2021 0730 - 1145 Brianna Bernard
Burrowing Owl
Survey #3
July 1, 2021 0658 - 1054 Brianna Bernard
and Justinne
Manahan
525 971
Leal Project
November 2, 2021

Page 2 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Survey Survey Date Time Surveyors
Burrowing Owl
Survey #4
July 13, 2021 0715 - 1100 Brianna Bernard
and Justinne
Manahan
The Project site historically functioned as a dairy with associated agriculture, a horse farm, and the Leal family home. The Project site currently has 3 horses and associated horse corrals, several homes and associated trailers found scattered around the property, along with dairy and farm equipment. The Project site consists primarily of disturbed land associated with historical dairy activities, as well as developed and ruderal habitat communities. Scattered burrows were observed on the Project site. All observed burrows were inspected carefully for any evidence of BUOW presence. Based on the lack of direct observation of BUOW or evidence of BUOW activity (e.g. evidence of active burrows with whitewash, pellets, feather, etc.) during the survey, the Study Area is not currently considered occupied by BUOW.

Field Survey Methods
Prior to the field survey, available literature and databases including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), were reviewed to identify sensitive habitats and special status wildlife species, including BUOW in the vicinity of the Study Area.

Consistent with the MSHCP Survey Instructions, a burrowing owl habitat assessment was conducted on June 9, 2021 and pedestrian survey transects were spaced approximately 15 to 25 meters apart to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface.

According to the MSHCP guidelines, the biologist should also walk the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the Project boundary. If permission to access the buffer area cannot be obtained, the biologist shall not trespass, but visually inspect adjacent habitats with binoculars. Parcels of land that could not be accessed (e.g. private property) were viewed using binoculars from vantage points to survey for BUOW activity or signs thereof, as well as other nesting bird activity.

The Project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer, collectively referred to as the Study Area, was assessed for the suitability to support burrowing owls and all suitable burrows were inspected for signs of use by burrowing owls. After the initial assessment of the site and surrounding areas, the Project site was systematically walked in an east-west direction of the Project site within suitable habitat for BUOW. Adjacent suitable areas, where accessible, were also surveyed to determine possible presence of owls within the buffer area (500-feet surrounding the Project site). Areas not accessible were surveyed using binoculars.

All encountered burrows or structure entrances were checked for the presence of BUOWs, molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, tracks, or 526 972
Leal Project
November 2, 2021

Page 3 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 excrement at or near a burrow entrance. Natural or man‐made structures and debris piles that could support BUOWs were also surveyed.

All wildlife species encountered, visually or audibly during the field survey, were identified and recorded in the field notes. Binoculars were used to aid in the identification of observed wildlife. Photographs were taken to document existing conditions within the Project site (Attachment A).

Results
The BUOW survey was performed on June 9, 2021 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. – 1:50 p.m. on the Project site and surrounding 500-foot area within suitable Burrowing Owl habitat (Figure 2). The survey was performed by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (CSLS) biologists Brianna Bernard. The Biologists performed transects within areas that could potentially provide suitable BUOW habitat. Weather conditions during the survey was conducive to observing signs of BUOW activity, such as owls outside burrows.

Temperatures during the survey ranged from 68° F to 90° F with clear skies and winds from 0-1 mph. The survey was conducted during typical BUOW peak activity time and was not conducted during rain, high winds, or dense fog.

Following the habitat assessment, additional focused surveys took place on June 16, June 23, July 1, and July 13, 2021 generally between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. by CSLS Biologists Brianna Bernard and Justinne Manahan on select dates. Temperatures during the surveys ranged between 70 F and 98 F, with predominant sunny, clear skies and 0-2 mph winds. The survey was conducted during typical BUOW peak activity time and was not conducted during rain, high winds (> 20 miles per hour), dense cloud cover >75%, or extreme temperatures.

The Study Area consist primarily of historical dairy activities, ruderal habitat, and disturbed/developed habitat. The ruderal habitat appears to be routinely maintained.

The ruderal habitat is dominated by London rocket (Sisymbrium irio) and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Other species include Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), rat-tail fescue (Festuca microstachys), foxtail brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), Jimson weed (Datura stramonium), and scattered Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta), and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). A row of trees bisects the Project site from the north to south and includes mulberry trees (Morus alba), and Shamuel ash (Fraxinus uhdei).

The Study Area contains a small population of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), specifically located in the historical dairy activities community, which in turn results in various burrows that could potentially support suitable BUOW foraging and nesting habitat. These areas were inspected carefully for the presence of 527 973
Leal Project
November 2, 2021

Page 4 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 BUOWs and active nests. No pellets, whitewash, feathers, tracks or any other signs indicative of burrowing owl presence were observed within the Study Area.

The Study Area provides suitable foraging and nesting habitats to support wildlife. Bird activity during the survey was moderate. During the field surveys the following species were observed/detected:
• red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
• Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna)
• Coyote (Canis latrans)
• house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)
• Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)
• Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)
• American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
• California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris)
• Common raven (Corvus corax)
• Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus)
• American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)
• Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica)
• Hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus)
• Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia)
• Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
• Vermilion flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus)
• Black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)
• Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya)
• California ground squirrel (Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi)
• lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria)
• desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)
• mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)
Conclusion
Based on the lack of direct observation of BUOW or evidence of BUOW activity (e.g. evidence of active burrows with whitewash, pellets, feather, etc.) during the survey, the Study Area is not currently considered occupied by BUOW. 528 974
Leal Project
November 2, 2021

Page 5 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed: _______________________________________ Dated: 11/02/2021 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or at 916-218-2644.

Figures
• Figure 1: Site Location Map
• Figure 2: Study Area Map
Attachments
• Attachment A: Site Photographs
529 975
Figures
530 976
Approximate Project Location
I The New Home Company: Leal Project
1 inch = 5,000 feet
0 1,250 2,500 5,000 7,500
Feet Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: June 8, 2021 Regional Location Map
FIGURE 1
^_
531 977
Legend
Approximate Project Boundary
500-foot Buffer
I The New Home Company: Leal Project
1 inch = 500 feet
0 50 100 200 300 400 500 600
Feet
Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 2
Project Site Map
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: June 8, 2021 532 978
Attachment A:

Site Photographs
533 979
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken June 16, 2021
Looking over the Project site in the north-east corner.

Historical agriculture and dairy equipment is scattered throughout the site. 534 980
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken June 16, 2021
Typical burrow observed.

A majority of the site is disturbed.
535 981
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken June 16, 2021
Old homes and trailers are scattered throughout the site.

A majority of the site include ruderal habitat.
536 982
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken June 16, 2021
Ruderal Habitat found onsite.

The site also includes disturbed habitat.
537 983
Attachment C: Delhi Sands FlowerLoving Fly Assessment
538 984
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation:160-acre Leal project, Eastvale Osborne Biological Consulting – June 2021 1 Ken H. Osborne
Osborne Biological Consulting
6675 Avenue Juan Diaz
Riverside, CA 92509
June 18, 2021
Attn: Ms. Brianna Bernard
Project Manager/Biologist
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
27134 A, Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
RE: Habitat conditions for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly on a portion of a proposed Leal development site located at the northwestern intersection of Limonite Avenue and Hamner Avenue, Eastvale.

To Whom It May Concern:

At the request of Carlson Strategic Land Solutions and on behalf of The New Home Company, I have conducted an evaluation of habitat suitability for the federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (DSF, Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis), for a 160- acre proposed Leal Project in Eastvale, California, with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 164-030- 010, 164-030-012, 164-030-013, 164-030-014, 164-030-024, and 164-030-025. This area is indicated on the attached maps (Figures 1 and 2), and is located northwest of the intersection of Limonite Avenue and Hamner Avenue, Eastvale. For the purpose of this habitat assessment, I have evaluated site conditions for DSF suitability in terms of site characteristics on the basis of a detailed grading system I have developed in recent years.

Summary Conclusions: All lands on the subject site have a long history (since before 1985) in active dairy use. Site conditions feature continuously irrigated pastures, cattle pens, and developed buildings (including residences) with irrigated landscaping, and ponds. Lands so managed with dairy operations are not suitable for the DSF. Northern, western, and central portions of the site are mapped (and field investigation confirms) with Hilmar loamy sands – soils unsuitable for DSF.

The site is further set within the larger context of adjacent and surrounding developed lands, further reinforcing the unsuitability of habitat conditions for DSF. The entire project area is determined to be Unsuitable for DSF.

Qualifications: Although I possess USFWS 10(a) permitting to survey for the federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly, such permitting is generally awarded to biologists only on the basis of a biologist’s experience with and/or ability to identify adult DSF, such permitting not awarded on the basis of any real understanding of DSF biology, ecology, or habitat requirements. Traditionally, USFWS considered any land (within the known range of DSF) to have been mapped with Delhi Sands soils (Woodruff 1980) as subject to formal survey for the DSF. Thus, my additional qualifications in this regard include BS, MS, degrees in entomology, 45 years general entomological experience, thirty years experience with, research, and discoveries, in 539 985
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation:160-acre Leal project, Eastvale Osborne Biological Consulting – June 2021 2 Rhaphiomidas, life history, biology, and ecology, such that I am now a leading expert in this narrow field of study.

Methods: On June 18, 2021, I visited the study site in order to investigate habitat suitability for the DSF. I have reviewed soil maps covering the subject site, prepared by the California Department of Agriculture (Woodruff 1980, Knecht 1971). Aerial imagery covering the site, dating from 1985 to 2020 (Google Earth) was reviewed in order to gain an understanding of land use regimens in recent years. Photographs were taken of the site along with field notes on vegetation and soil conditions. I examined the subject site to rate its potential to support DSF, the rating based on the following scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat in my judgment:

2. Delhi sands are present but the soil characteristics include a predominance of exotic soils such as alluvial materials, or predominance of other foreign contamination as gravels, manure, or organic debris. Severe and frequent disturbance (such as a maintenance yard or high use roadbed). Very Low Quality.

4. Abundant clean Delhi Sands with little or no foreign soils (such as alluvial material) present. Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover.

Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates.

May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance. Moderate Quality

5. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi Sands. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Sand associated plant and arthropod species may be abundant and vegetation species composition is often indicative of low disturbance. High Quality
It should be noted that habitat qualities often vary spatially within a site so that conditions on a site fall within a range of qualities. Further, overall habitat quality is affected by the overall habitat area on a site, such that very small areas diminish the overall habitat value of a site. Habitat conditions rated from Very Low Quality up to High Quality, are formally considered as representing Suitable conditions for the DSF. Use of this habitat rating system is somewhat subjective and best undertaken by a biologist who has extensive experience with Rhaphiomidas species. It must be noted that these ratings do not infer or imply actual occupancy by DSF, only relative potential to harbor the species, and relative conservation value of the land should DSF be found.
540 986
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation:160-acre Leal project, Eastvale Osborne Biological Consulting – June 2021 3 Results: Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service map (Woodruff 1980) and associated web based resources (https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/) show the site to have Delhi fine sand soils on a southeastern portion of the site, amounting to approximately 13 acres (Figure 3). The remaining portions of the site are on Hilmar loamy sands (Knecht 1971).

Soil conditions on the extreme southeastern corner of the site, over an area of approximately five acres, where mapped with Delhi fine sands, is overlain with a meter depth of exotic soils dominated by alluvial gravely materials. Remaining peripheral areas mapped with Delhi fine soils are intermixed with fine loam soils (Hilmar classification)) – the mixing and contamination likely the result of decades of dairy operations where pasture lands have been disked. Aerial imagery available on Google Earth, shows that the dairy operations have been maintained since at least 1985 up to 2020 for the entire site. The site has been largely surrounded by residential and commercial development since 2004 (Google Earth), isolating the site from areas with Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly populations. The last known extant DSF population site in the Ontario area is located some six kilometers north northeast of the site. Plant species normally associated with Delhi sands ecosystems do not occur on the site. The entire site (160 acres) has been used in dairy operations and is so developed and/or covered in manure, ponds, irritated pasture, or with developed residences with irrigated landscaping, developed dairy buildings, storage facilities, gravel paved roads, drives, stalls or equipment lots, that the entire site has no potential for the DSF and is rated Unsuitable for the species. A list of plant species (not including exotic landscape plants) on the site and their context as to whether marginal, or dominant, is presented in Table 1.

Discussion: A long history of agricultural use has likely resulted in onsite cross contamination of Delhi sand soils with fine silty loamy soils on southeastern portions of the site, and the importation of approximately 24,000 cubic yards of exotic alluvial soils onto the southeastern portion of the site (seen to be underway in June 2004, Google Earth) with the result that all soils on the site that were mapped as Delhi sands (Knecht 1971) actually contain significant quantities contaminating soils rendering them Unsuitable for DSF beyond the long history of diary operation.

In general, the northern, western, and central portions of the project site may be ruled as Unsuitable for DSF on the basis of soil conditions (Figure 3) alone. A long and ongoing history (since before 1985) of agricultural dairy use further foreclosed on DSF suitability for the entire site. The southeastern portions of the site, where they occur over mapped Delhi sands also must be rated as Unsuitable for DSF due to intense degradation of habitat conditions and natural ecological function owing to contaminated soils. Similar findings have previously been made on similar agricultural and dairy lands of southern Ontario on consultation with USFWS (Osborne 2004) and areas with active irrigated agriculture (Osborne 2019).

Conclusions and Recommendations: On the basis of my experience, conditions on the subject site are Unsuitable for DSF. Interim General Survey Guidelines for the DSF, suggested by the USFWS (1996) typically recommend protocol surveys for DSF where undeveloped Delhi sands occur, and agency biologists sometimes assert that such undeveloped areas have potential for DSF.

I would strongly disagree with such and assertion, and view it as an absurdity.

References:

Knecht, A.A. 1971. Soil survey of western Riverside area, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
541 987
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation:160-acre Leal project, Eastvale Osborne Biological Consulting – June 2021 4 Osborne, K. H. 2003. Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly Habitat Assessment for the Hermosa Cemetery, Colton. Prepared for Inland Memorial Cremations and Burial. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA.

Osborne, K. H. 2004. Focused Survey for Delhi Sands Giant Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on a 38.88-acre site in Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.

Submitted to USFWS, Carlsbad, October 2004.

Osborne, K. H. 2019. First year focused survey for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on portions of the Riverside Transmission Reliability Project, Riverside County, California. Submitted to USFWS, Carlsbad, November 2019.

Osborne, K. H., G. R. Ballmer, and T. McGill. 2003. DSF Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Mary Vagle Conservation Area. Prepared for the City of Fontana. Submitted to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, CA.

University of California, Davis, Agriculture and Natural Resources, California Soil Resource Lab, https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Draft Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. December 30.

Woodruff, G. A. 1980. Soil survey of San Bernardino County, southwestern part, California. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
__________________________
Respectfully submitted,
Ken H. Osborne
542 988
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation:160-acre Leal project, Eastvale Osborne Biological Consulting – June 2021 5 Figure 1. Aerial image with vicinity and habitat conditions surrounding the subject site (outlined in blue).

Figure 2. Aerial image showing the subject site (outlined in blue). 543 989
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation:160-acre Leal project, Eastvale Osborne Biological Consulting – June 2021 6 Figure 3. Soil types and habitat conditions on the subject site (outlined in blue):

Yellow lines separate soils: Db = Delhi sands; HlA = Hilmar loamy very fine sands; HhA2 = Hilmar loamy sands.

Figure 4. Photograph of recent dairy cattle pen areas on a northern portion of the site with heavy manure contamination. Soils with high organic contamination are Unsuitable for DSF. View looking to the south from a central northern edge of the site. 544 990
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation:160-acre Leal project, Eastvale Osborne Biological Consulting – June 2021 7 Figure 5. Photograph of the southeastern portion of the site with exotic fill soils over what once were Delhi sand soils. These conditions represent habitat Unsuitable for DSF.

Figure 6. Photograph of soil surface (showing alluvial gravels) on the southeastern portion of the site. Alluvial fill soils present conditions Unsuitable for DSF. 545 991
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation:160-acre Leal project, Eastvale Osborne Biological Consulting – June 2021 8 Table 1. Plant species encountered on the subject site.

FAMILY Species Comment

ARECACEAE
fan palm Washingtonia filed margins

ASTERACEAE
mule fat Baccharis salicifolia filed margins
thistle Ciricium occasional
prickly lettus Lactuca serriola occasional
golden crownbeard Verbesina encelioides common

BRASSICACEAE
shortpod mustard Hirschfeldia incana common
London rocket Sisymbrium irio dominant throughout

CHENOPODIACEAE
Australian saltbush Atriplex semibaccata common
lamb's quarters Chenopodium album common
Kochia Kochia scoparia common
Russion thistle Salsola tragus common

GERANIACEAE
red-stem filaree Erodium cicutarium dominant in areas

LAMINACEAE
Horehound Marubium vulgare occasional

MALVACEAE
cheeseweed Malva parviflora dominant throughout

OLEACEAE
Ash Fraxinus filed margins

POACEAE
Mediterranean barley Hordeum murinum dominant throughout Shismus Schismus barbatus occasional

SOLANACEAE
Tree tobacco Nicotiana glouca occasional
546 992
Appendix D
547 993
Cultural and Paleontological
Resources Assessment
Leal Master Plan, City of Eastvale,
Riverside County, California
Prepared for:

Carlson Strategic Land Solution
27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
The New Home Company
15231 Laguna Canyon Rd, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
Prepared by: Morgan Bender, M.A., RPA,
and Curt Duke, M.A., RPA
Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC
18 Technology Drive, Suite 103
Irvine, CA 92618
April 2022
T2S, R7W Section 24, USGS Corona North, Calif., 7.5-minute quad Keywords: P-33-015333
548 994
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
i

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE CRM) is under contract to Carlson Strategic Land Solution and The New Home Company, to provide cultural and paleontological resources services for the Leal Master Plan Project, located in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California. The property is approximately 156 acres in size. The purpose of this study is to provide the necessary information and analysis to the City of Eastvale (CITY) as the lead agency to determine whether the proposed Project would cause impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources that may exist in or adjacent to the Project area. This work was conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The cultural and paleontological resources assessment included a records search for cultural resources at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and a records search for paleontological resources at the Western Science Center (WSC) and locality searches on the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) and San Diego Natural History Museum (online collections, the online Paleobiology Database and FAUNMAP, and other published resources.

Cultural Resources
The results of the EIC records search indicate that there is one previously recorded cultural resource within ½ mile of the Project and one resource located within the Project. The resource within the Project is the Leal Property, resource (33-015333). The survey and evaluation of the properties found it to be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or local designation (6Z). Additionally, the field survey did not identify any cultural resources within the Project boundary. The research conducted indicates a low sensitivity for prehistoric cultural resources and a low sensitivity for historic resources within the Project boundaries. Therefore, any disturbance of native soils has a low potential to directly impact unique cultural resources according to CEQA. According to CEQA, a unique archaeological resource is defined as archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (Section 21083.2 (g)).DUKE CRM does not recommend any further cultural resources efforts. However, if any cultural resources are discovered during grading and/or ground disturbance during construction an archaeologist shall be retained to assess the nature and significance of the discovery and make recommendations.

If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

Paleontological Resources
The records searches by the WSC and other resources indicate that there are no known fossil specimens within the Project boundaries but did indicate multiple fossil localities from similar deposits nearby (within 3 miles). The Project is situated on young alluvial-fan deposits (middle Holocene Epoch, Qyf), young eolian deposits (late Pleistocene to Holocene Epochs, Qye), and very old axial channel deposits (early to middle Pleistocene Epoch, Qvoa). Due to their age (early Pleistocene to late Pliocene Epochs) and history of producing fossil material nearby, the young eolian deposits (Qye) and very old axial channel deposits (Qvoa) underlying the Project area are assigned a high paleontological sensitivity. 549 995
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
ii
Ground disturbance in the eastern half of the Project area will impact high-sensitivity deposits (Qye and Qvoa), and has the potential to directly impact unique paleontological resources. This would result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources according to CEQA. Therefore, paleontological construction monitoring is recommended during ground disturbance in this area. This, along with appropriate recording and recovery efforts, will mitigate the potential impact to a level that is less than significant for the purposes of CEQA. - A paleontological monitor shall be present during ground disturbing activities in the eastern half of the Project. The monitor shall work under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist (B.S./B.A. in geology, or related discipline with an emphasis in paleontology and demonstrated competence in paleontological research, fieldwork, reporting, and curation).

1. The qualified paleontologist shall be on-site at the pre-construction meeting to discuss monitoring protocols.

2. The paleontological monitor shall be present full-time during ground disturbance in the eastern half of the Project, including but not limited to grading, trenching, utilities, and offsite easements. If, after excavation begins, the qualified paleontologist determines that the sediments are not likely to produce fossil resources, monitoring efforts shall be reduced.

3. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect grading efforts if paleontological resources are discovered.

4. In the event of a paleontological discovery the monitor shall flag the area and notify the construction crew immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area shall occur until the qualified paleontologist has cleared the area.

5. In consultation with the qualified paleontologist the monitor shall quickly assess the nature and significance of the find. If the specimen is not significant it shall be quickly mapped, documented, removed, and the area cleared.

6. If the discovery is significant the qualified paleontologist shall notify the CLIENT and CITY immediately.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ i Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................................................... i Paleontological Resources .............................................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Geology and Paleontology ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Cultural ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Prehistory .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Ethnography ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 History ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Research Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Research ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................................................... 11 CRHR Criteria .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Key Personnel ............................................................................................................................................................... 11 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Records search .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Paleontological Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 CRHR Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 IMPACTS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 18 REFERENCES CITED.................................................................................................................................................. 21

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Project Aerial Photo .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Geology Map ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 5: Ground Cover. ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 6: Freshly Turned Soil. ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 7: Site Overview. ................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 8: Site Overview. ................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 9: Site Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 10: Site Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11: Site Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 12: Site Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 17 TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Paleontological Records Searches Appendix B: Resumes
Appendix C: Native American Heritage Commission for Sacred Land Files Appendix D Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Record 551 997
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
iv

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
B.A. Bachelor of Arts
B.S. Bachelor of Science
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CITY City of Eastvale
CLIENT Carlson Strategic Land Solution
CRHR California Register of Historical ResourcesDPR State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 series forms DUKE CRM Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC
EIC Eastern Information Center
LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
M.A. Master of Arts
M.S. Master of Science
MLD Most Likely Descendant
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places- PCT Paleocoastal Tradition Qvoa early to middle Pleistocene Epoch very old axial channel deposits Qye late Pleistocene to Holocene Epochs young eolian deposits Qyf middle Holocene Epoch young alluvial-fan deposits
RPA Registered Professional Archaeologist
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
WPLT Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition
WSC Western Science Center
552 998
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
1 INTRODUCTION
Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE C R M ) is under contract to Carlson Strategic Land Solution (CLIENT) to provide cultural and paleontological resources services for the Leal Master Plan, Eastvale Project, located in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California. The property is approximately 156-acres in size. The purpose of this study is to provide the necessary information and analysis to the City of Eastvale (CITY) as the lead agency to determine whether the proposed Project would cause substantial significant impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources that may result from the Project in or adjacent to the Project area to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is situated on the Leal dairy farm property located on Limonite Avenue, with 58th street to the north, Hamner Avenue to the east and Scholar Way to the west (see Figure 1, Project Vicinity Map). The Project is located in the Section 24, Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernadino Base and Meridian, USGS Corona North, Calif. 7.5-minute quadrangle (see Figure 2, USGS Project Location Map). The Project is located within a dairy farm that is no longer in use (see Figure 3, Project Aerial Photograph). The Project will have 660 multi-family homes and 1840 single-family/single-family attached homes. Maximum depth will be 15 feet (ft.), with the majority of the project being excavated down to 3 ft. 553 999
1:15,529,340
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Map 1 - Project Vicinity
Leal Master Plan, Eastvale, C-0362
Project Area
Project Area ¯
0 6 12
Miles
1 inch = 6 miles 1:360,000
1000 554
GUASTI

CORONA NORTH
Project Area
USGS 7.5' Quads
Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed ¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
1 inch = 2,000 feet 1:24,000
0 0.25 0.5
Kilometers
Map 2 - Project Location
Leal Master Plan, Eastvale, C-0362 Corona North, Calif USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle T2S R7W Section 24
1001 555
Map 3 - Project Aerial
Leal Master Plan, Eastvale, C-0360
Project Area
¯
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch =400 feet 1:4,800
1002 556
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
5 SETTING
Geology
California is divided into 11 geomorphic provinces, each naturally defined by unique geologic and geomorphic characteristics. The Project is located in the northwestern portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is distinguished by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys following faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The Peninsular Ranges are bound to the east by the Colorado Desert and extend north to the San Bernardino Riverside County line (Norris and Webb 1976), west into the submarine continental shelf, and south to the tip of Baja California.

Project elevation is approximately 730 feet above mean sea level. The geology of the Project area has been mapped by Morton and Miller (2006) at a scale of 1:250,000 (Figure 4). A review of this map indicated that the Project area is predominantly underlain in the western half by young alluvial-fan deposits (Qyf), and in the eastern half by young eolian deposits (Qye) and very old axial channel deposits (Qvoa).

Vegetation within the Project is dominated by grasses and other shrubs present in high density on the south side. The northern half of the site has little vegetation due to the soil being recently turned and several residential and dairy properties along the northern edge.

Cultural
Two primary regional schema are commonly cited in the archaeological literature for western Riverside County where the Project is located. These schema or syntheses generalize the presence or absence of certain artifact types into explanatory frameworks of temporal chronologies and/or subsistence practices. Schemas are necessary because many archaeological sites lack absolute datable material (ex. carbon for radiometric C14 dating) and so researchers need to cross-date sites by comparison to either coastal or desert chronologies with established chronological sequences backed by absolute dates. In western Riverside County, where the Project is located, it is thought to be the meeting ground of both schemas and consequently neither schema (coastal vs inland desert) exclusively explain prehistoric finds.

The first schema, advanced by Wallace (1955), defines four cultural horizons for the southern California coastal province, each with characteristic local variations:

I. Early Man (~9000 8500 B.P.) is a hunting culture based on almost exclusive evidence of chipped-stone hunting materials: dart points, scrapers, choppers, and bifaces.

II. Milling Stone (8500 4000 B.P.) reflects a change to a more sedentary, plant-collecting lifestyle as evidenced by the introduction and dominance of milling stone artifacts and a decrease in wellmade projectile points.

III. Intermediate (4000 1500 B.P.) is characterized by a larger dependency on hunting, introduction of the bow and arrow, and the shift from using the mano/metate to mortar/pestle. However, knowledge of this horizon suffers from lack of knowledge about what occurred during this time, not a lack of inhabitants along the southern California coast.

IV. Late Prehistoric (1500~200 B.P.) contains a more nuanced artifact assemblage indicative of a more complex lifestyle and an increase of population. This horizon is characterized by an increase in bow and arrow use, steatite containers, pottery, circular fishhooks, perforated stones, asphaltum, diversified bone tools, ample shell ornaments, and elaborate mortuary customs. 1003 557
Map 4 - Project Geology
Leal Master Plan, Eastvale, C-0360 Project Area ¯ 0 200 400 Feet
1 inch =400 feet 1:4,800
Qyf: young alluvial-fan deposits, middle Holocene
Qye: young eolian deposits, Holocene and late Pleistocene Qvoa: very old axial-channel deposits, middle to early Pleistocene Qvoa
Qyf
Qye
1004 558
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
7 Warren and Crabtree (1986) employ a more ecological approach to the deserts of southern California, defining five traditions in prehistory:

I. Lake Mojave (12000 7000 B.P.)
II. Pinto (7000 4000 B.P.)
III. Gypsum (4000 1500 B.P.)
IV. Saratoga Springs (1500 800 B.P.)
V. Shoshonean (800~200 B.P.)
Warren and Crabtree (1986) viewed cultural continuity and change in terms of various significant environmental shifts, defining the cultural ecological approach for archaeological research of the California deserts. The authors viewed changes in settlement pattern and subsistence as cultural adaptations to a changing environment, beginning with the gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene, the desiccation of the desert lakes during the early Holocene, the short return to pluvial conditions during the middle Holocene, and the general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals, that continues to this day. The work by Warren and Crabtree (1986) is built upon, in part, Warren (1980) in which he argued for a chronology based on projectile points as period markers backed by radiocarbon assays providing absolute dates.

The two-schema
to Wallace (1955), traditions may be spatially restricted but display temporal continuity. For Wallace, has been
attempted to reconcile these differences. More recently, Koerper and Drover (1983) synthesized chronologies to sequence stylistic changes observed in the artifact assemblages, which they interpreted as material indication of cultural change through time. Regardless of the overall schema to best explain the prehistory of western Riverside County, the region can be understood within broad chronological frameworks and as the meeting ground of the coastal and desert subsistence patterns.

Traditional models of the prehistory of California hypothesize that its first inhabitants were the big game hunting Paleoindians who lived at the close of the last ice-age (~11,000 years before present [BP]). As the environment warmed and dried, large Ice Age fauna died out, requiring adaption by groups to survive. The western Great Basin and deserts of southern California were characterized by large pluvial (rainfall-fed) lakes, streams, marshes, and grasslands. The human response to this environment is known as the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (WPLT) (Moratto 1984). The WPLT is generally identified by an advanced flaked-stone industry of foliate knives/points, Silver Lake and Lake Mojave points, lanceolate bifaces, and long-stemmed points (Warren & Crabtree 1986). Other flaked-stone tools include crescents, scrapers, choppers, scraperplanes, hammer stones, cores, drills, and gravers. People of this period hunted diverse populations of smaller animals and collected a wide number of plants from diverse eco-zones. Importantly, this period lacks widespread evidence of milling stones, and, therefore, hard seed processing was likely not widely practiced.

Sites are generally found along the shores of former pluvial lakes, marshes, and streams (Moratto 1984). The desert manifestation of the WPLT is the Lake Mojave Complex, while along the coast the WPLT is seen in the San Dieguito Complex. Along the coast, rising sea levels created bays and estuaries. Following initial settlement along the coast, groups adopted marine subsistence including fish and shellfish. These shell middens contain flaked cobble tools, metates, manos, discoidals, and flexed burials and allowed for a semi sedentary lifestyle (Byrd and Raab 2007). Eventually, shellfish became the primary source of food, while plant gathering, hunting and fishing were less important.

The middle Holocene is a time of change and transition. As conditions continued to warm and dry, lakes and streams in the desert disappeared. This resulted in a shift in subsistence strategies, namely a shift to the gathering of plant seeds, grasses and shellfish along the coast as the primary dietary staple. Fishing and the 1005 559
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
8 hunting of smaller animals played a less important role in day-to-day activity. This shift in subsistence is what Wallace named the Millingstone Horizon (Wallace 1955) and this name has continued among archaeologists working on the coastal province of southern California. Large habitations are seen in the inland areas and considerable variability is seen along coastal occupation of southern California. Occupation revolved around seasonal and semi-sedentary movements in coastal Orange and San Diego counties. Trade networks are postulated by researchers that have dated Olivella grooved rectangle shell beads as far north as central Oregon dating to 4900-3500 BP (Byrd and Raab 2007). Characteristics of the middle Holocene sites include ground stone artifacts (manos and metates) used for processing plant material and shellfish, flexed burial beneath rock or milling stone cairns, flaked core or cobble tools, dart points, cogstones, discoidals, and crescentics.

During the late Holocene there was a migration of Takic speakers from the Great Basin into southern introduction of the bow and arrow, mortar and pestle, use of ceramics, and a change in mortuary behavior from inhumations to cremations in much of southern California. This was also a period of climatic fluctuation. Paleoenvironmental data show that periods of drought alternated with cooler and moister periods (Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002; Byrd and Raab 2007; Jones et al. 2004). This resulted in dynamic regional cultural patterns with considerable local variation. Byrd and Raab (2007) suggest that foragers in southern California over-exploited high-ranked food, such as shellfish, fish, marine and land mammals, and plant remains. This led to resource depression, causing people to forage more costly resources that were more abundant, such as acorns.

The Project is located along the periphery of the traditional territory of four Native American groups, the Gabrielino, the Luiseno, the Cahuilla, and the Serrano (Kroeber 1925). The Native American languages of these Tribes are part of the Takic subfamily of the larger Uto-Aztecan language family. Similarly, these groups were organized into independent but interconnected village communities. These groups were hunters and gatherers who exploited both large and small game, as well as numerous plant resources.

The Gabrielino are one of the least ethnographically understood Native American groups in California.

Generally, their territory included all of the Los Angeles Basin, parts of the Santa Ana and Santa Monica Mountains along the coast from Aliso Creek in the south to Topanga Canyon in the north, and San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina Islands. The environmental conditions within this territory are very diverse, including the following zones: interior mountains/foothills, Prairie, exposed coast, and sheltered coast (Bean and Smith 1978a, Shipley 1978).

The Gabrielino lived in villages year-round and utilized smaller camps from which they could hunt and gather, likely on a seasonal basis. Villages were almost always situated near water. Gabrielino families lived in domed, round structures with thatching made from local plants. Other structures included semi-circular, earth covered sweathouses, menstrual huts, and ceremonial structures. Villages were politically autonomous from other villages, while each village was led by a chief who would, at times, reign over several villages (Bean and Smith 1978a). Acorns were the most important food for the Gabrielino; although the types and quantity of different foods varied by season and locale, common and important sources of food were acorn, piñon nuts, yucca, cacti, many varieties of seeds and grasses, deer, rabbit, jackrabbit, woodrat, mice, ground squirrels, quail, doves, ducks and other fowl, fish, shellfish, and marine mammals (Bean and Smith 1978a, Shipley 1978).

The Luiseño share many similar cultural traits to the Gabrielino. The Luiseño lived in sedentary and independent village groups, each with specific subsistence territories encompassing hunting, food gathering, and fishing areas. Villages were usually located in valley basins, along creeks and streams adjacent to mountain ranges where water was available and where the villages would be protected from environmental conditions 1006 560
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
9 and potential enemies. Most inland populations had access to fishing and food gathering sites on the coast (Bean and Shipek 1978).

Luiseño economic and subsistence practices centered upon the seasonal gathering of acorns and seeds; the hunting of deer and small mammals such as rabbits, wood rats, ground squirrels, and birds. Coastal foods included sea mammals, fish and shellfish. Tool technologies were organized around food collection, storage, and preparation strategies, which was reflected in the type, size, and quantity of food items gathered. Stone (lithic) tools included two types: ground stone and flaked stone tools. Ground stone equipment included:
mortars, pestles, manos and metate grinding slicks, made from granite, schist, and gneiss. Flaked tools included: bifaces, projectile points, scrapers, and gravers, fabricated from siliceous rock such as chert and jasper, microcrystalline chalcedony, obsidian, fine grain ingenious rocks such as basalt rhyolite, and andesite, and hard silica such as quarts and quartzite. Utilitarian tools were constructed from wood, animal bones, skins, and/or woven from flora materials depending on need (Lovin 1963). Hunting activities were conducted both on an individual basis and/or organized into group activities, depending on seasonal factors and the game hunted. Acorns encompassed as much 50 percent of the Luiseño diet (White 1963). Acorns provided a reliable and abundant food source that was high in calories and could be easily stored for future use. Acorn collection was a central tenant in the lives of the Luiseños and dominated their economic and social structure (Basgall 1987, Johnson and Earle 1987).

Villages were organized around an inherited chief who exerted sole control over the economy, religious rituals, and territorial matters within the village (Bean and Shipek 1978:555). The chief at times would consult with a council of elders and shamans on matters of religious practices and on environmental conditions effecting village life. Large villages may have had a complex behavioral and political structure due to their mplexity was limited by their
territorial size (Strong 1929; Bean and Shipek 1978:555).

The Project is located near the western boundaries of Cahuilla Indians. The center of their territory included the Coachella Valley, the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountain ranges. Ethnographers have divided this population by habitation locale (Mountain, Pass, and Desert) whereas the Cahuilla divided themselves by patrilineal descent clans and one of two moieties (Wildcat and Coyote). Further distinctions were made within clans of politically important and independent subsidiary lineages. These lineages occupied their own villages as documented by Cahuilla ethnographic consultants in the early 20th century and from Franciscan Mission records (Earle 2004).

The three ethnographically documented zones of Cahuilla habitation (Pass, Mountain, and Desert) serve as general guidelines for understanding their subsistence practices. In general, Mountain and Pass Cahuilla diet emphasized acorn, salvia islay, yucca, agave and pinyon gathering in the mountain and foothill regions. In contrast Desert Cahuilla focused on the gathering of mesquite, cactus, and hard seeds such as screwbean, juniper and mesquite (Bean and Saubel 1972). These generalizations can only be broadly applied as the Cahuilla inhabiting different zones however were not mutually exclusive to each other. Desert Cahuilla in the Coachella Valley retained gathering areas in the Santa Rosa Mountains or other upland regions. Desert Cahuilla also utilized the resources in the foothills. The eastern foothills of the Coachella Valley produced agave and hard seeds. Also, the foothills on the western side of the Coachella Valley produced cactus, agave and hard seeds and higher upslope, pinyon, for the Desert Cahuilla.

The Cahuilla were also observed to cultivate small quantities of corn, beans, squashes, pumpkins, melons and wheat as early as 1824 by the Romero expedition. These crops and the cultivation of them potentially made their way from the Colorado River area to the Coachella Valley. The inhabitants of the Coachella did not practice flood recessional agriculture of the Colorado River groups (Bean and Lawton 1973). Based upon ethnographic interviews, Strong (1929:38) noted that he had been told by Francisco Nombre that his grandfather told him that the cultivation of corn and other crops by the Cahuilla was a recent practice and that the Cahuilla
1007 561
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
10 exchange systems between foraging groups who have access to resources outside of the Colorado River and horticulturalists along the river. Regardless of the timing of cultivation of these crops, by the 1850s oasis gardens and to a lesser extent, canyon gardens were important sources of foodstuffs (Bean et al. 1995).

The Project is located within the southwester area of the Serrano Indians, though Bean and Smith (1978b:570) note difficulty of determining traditional Serrano use-areas due to the lack of data and the nature of Serrano sociopolitical structure in that, as Strong (1929) organized themselves into autonomous localized lineages that favored a home base from which generalized land usage was practiced, no a pan-tribal land holding. Serrano territory extends across the San Bernardino Mountains east of the Cajon Pass south to and in the Yucaipa Valley and north to at least to the area of Victorville and as far east as Twentynine Palms.

Water availability was a large determining factor of Serrano habitation though they lived in diverse ecozones such as the high desert basins of the Lower Sonoran, the Upper Sonoran, and the Transition zone as well as a range of elevations from as low as 1,500 feet to over 11,000 feet in the mountains. Like their neighboring groups, the Serranos were hunter-gathers but with their diverse topographical access to different ecozones, food varied by elevation. They hunted mountain sheep, deer, rabbits, antelope, and small rodents; and gathered acorns, piñon nuts, berries, mesquite, yucca, and various bulbs, seed-grasses, tubers, roots and shoots. Also, like other Native groups in Southern California, the Serrano situated their most dense populations around water sources. Their houses were round, with a domed of willow frames and thule thatching protecting the inhabitants during sleep. Additional structures consisted of a ramada where most of s occurred, and each family had a central fire pit. Each village had a large ceremonial structure ore the leader of the lineage of the village lived. Other structures included sweat lodges, and granaries. Serrano material culture closely resembled the Cahuilla (Bean and Smith 1978b).

In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present). The first Europeans in the Jurupa Valley/Eastvale area came through the area in the occurred in the area until in 1838 when Rancho Jurupa was granted to Juan Bandini. Within a few years Bandini divided Rancho Jurupa into two properties. He sold Able Stearns, his son-in-law, approximately 25,000 acres which continued to operate as Rancho Jurupa. About 1889 a six square mile portion of the Rancho was purchased by the Fuller family who established the Pioneer Ranch. The following history is largely adapted from
Fuller family owned the bulk of the ranch until 1954 and during the early 20th century the ranch had a reputation as one of the best cattle and racehorse ranches in California. Also, according to Meissner, the of the biggest names in entertainment at the time. The main Hacienda of the ranch was approximately a half mile northeast of the Project property. In 1954 the ranch was sold to dairyman Walter Koenig who, according to Meissner, almost immediately sold off parcels of the ranch to individual buyers. Historic aerial photographs show that the Project property was being used for agriculture in 1938 and that purpose continued until the first home appeared on the property sometime after 1994 (HistoricAerials.com 2021).

Research Objectives
The manner by which archaeological material is recovered and analyzed at each site is based on the formulation of research questions and associated research domains. The domains focus data recovery efforts on regionally important archaeological research issues and have been developed to identify basic knowledge common to archaeological research. These research objectives include:

1. Conduct a record search with the EIC and other archives.

2. Conduct an intensive pedestrian survey of the property.

3. Document and evaluate the three historic buildings on the property.

4. Summarize survey results in report.
1008 562
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
11 METHODS
Research
On June 6, 2021, Morgan Bender, M.A., RPA, DUKE C R M conducted a records search at the EIC. The EIC is the Riverside County regional office of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and is located at the University of California, Riverside. This research was undertaken to establish the status and extent of previous surveys in the Project and to note what types of cultural resources have been identified or might be expected to occur within or adjacent to the Project. In addition, the records search identified cultural resources listed on or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP and/or CRHR located within or near the Project area. In addition, Ms. Bender contacted the NAHC for a search of the Sacred Land Files on June 8, 2021. The internal archives at DUKE CRM along with a review of historic aerial photographs and historical USGS topographical maps were also inspected for relevant background information.

DUKE C R M requested a paleontological records search from the Western Science Center (WSC), and received the response on June 15, 2021. On June 16, 2021 (Appendix A), DUKE C R M Paleontologist Benjamin Scherzer conducted locality searches on the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) and San Diego Natural History Museum (online collections, the online Paleobiology Database and FAUNMAP, and other published resources.

Field Survey
On June 17 and 18, 2021, a pedestrian survey of the property was conducted by Morgan Bender, M.A., RPA, Benjamin Scherzer, M.S, Edgar Alverez, B.S., and Zachary Duke. The goal of the pedestrian survey was to identify all historic built environment resources, prehistoric/ historic period archaeological resources, and paleontological resources within the Project boundaries. Transects were spaced no greater than 15 meters apart. A Garmin Etrex GPS, an IPhone X with Google Earth, and field map was used to locate the Project boundary and to record the location of identified cultural resources. Built-environment resources were documented on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms.

Photographs were taken on a Fuji FinePix XP70 16.0 MP digital camera, an IPhone X camera.

CRHR Criteria
The regulatory framework for this historic resource study and the evaluation lies within the guidelines imposed for the CEQA and the CRHR under Public Relations Code section 5024.1. CEQA guidelines define resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it:

1. Is associated with events that made a signific
history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

The CRHR also requires that a resource possess integrity, which is defined as the ability of a property to convey its significance. The aspects of integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To determine which of these factors are most important will depend on the particular CRHR criterion under which the resource is considered eligible for listing.

Key Personnel
This report was prepared by Morgan Bender, M.A, RPA and Benjamin Scherzer, M.S., under the direct supervision of Curt Duke, MA, RPA. Ms. Bender holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology/ Sociology and minored in Classical Studies from Agnes Scott College in Decatur, Georgia. She received her 1009 563
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
12 MA in Anthropology California State University, Los Angeles. She meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for principal investigator, is RPA-certified and has over four years of experience in California archaeology.

Ms. Bender acted as field technician and the laboratory director for the Project and assisted in artifact analysis.

Mr. Scherzer has worked in all phases of paleontology (archival research, field survey, excavation, laboratory analysis, construction monitoring) since 2006. Mr. Scherzer is a certified paleontologist for Riverside County.

Mr. Scherzer holds a Master of Science degree in Earth Sciences with an emphasis in vertebrate paleontology from Montana State University, Bozeman, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geosciences and Math from Earlham College, Indiana. Mr. Scherzer has worked throughout southern California, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Edgar Alvarez (DUKE CRM) holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from California State University, Northridge and has five years of experience in California archaeology. Mr. Alvarez served as field technician and GPS/GIS specialist.

Mr. Duke is the Principal Archaeologist of DUKE C R M . Mr. Duke meets the professional qualifications of the Secretary of the Interior for prehistoric and historical archaeology; he is also a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) who has worked in all phases of archaeology (archival research, field survey, testing and data recovery excavation, laboratory analysis, construction monitoring) since 1994. He is also listed on the Mr. Duke holds a Master of Arts degree in
Anthropology with an emphasis in archaeology from California State University, Fullerton and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Mr. Duke has worked throughout southern and Northern California and parts of Arizona and Nevada. Please see Appendix B resume.

RESULTS
Records Search
The map data from the EIC records search indicates that there are two previously recorded cultural resources within ½ mile of the Project area. These resources are summarized below in Table 1. Additionally, On June 29, 2021, the NAHC responded with a negative result for tribal resources within the Project (See Appendix C). DUKE CRM did not conduct any tribal outreach.

Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within ½ Mile of the Project Site No. Age Description Distance
P-33-001848 Historic Historic Debris 2,500 ft. east
P-33-015333 Historic Leal Property Project
Site P-33-015333 was recorded by -Leblond from December 2005 August 2006 during an intensive survey. In addition to the pedestrian survey, the westernmost house was also evaluated. The survey found the westernmost building to be ineligible for NRHP, CRHR, or local designation (6Z).

Twenty-one (21) reports within ½ mile of the Project area are on file at the EIC. Of these, one is the Project area property. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Leal Property Near the City of Norco, Riverside County, California as a result of the intensive survey done by Tang et al. (2005). One of the historical buildings on the property was recorded, however no other cultural or historical resources were recorded within the Project.
1010 564
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
13 The paleontological records search by the WSC did not produce any documented fossil localities in the Project but did produce one fossil locality 2 miles north of the Project. In addition, the review of other online and published databases produced two additional fossil localities within 3 miles of the Project:

Vanderham produced limb remains from Camelops (Western camel) at a depth of 11 ft approximately 2 miles north of the Project in young eolian deposits (Qye) (Appendix A); Corona East (UCRV 8601) produced remains of Mammut (mastodon), horse (Equus), western camel (Camelops), bison (Bison), rabbit/hare (lagomorphs), rodent (rodentia), lizard (sauria), and bony fish (Osteichthyes) approximately 3 miles southeast of the Project in deposits from the Pleistocene Epoch (UCMP, Jefferson 1991a, b);
Corona (LACM 1207) produced remains of deer (Odocoileus) approximately 3 miles south of the Project in deposits from the Pleistocene Epoch (Jefferson 1991b) The young alluvial-fan deposits (Qyf) underlying the western half of the Project are too young to have accumulated or preserved significant biological material and have a low potential for containing paleontological resources. The young eolian deposits (Qye) and very old axial channel deposits (Qvoa) in the eastern half of the Project have a high potential to contain paleontological resources, and ground disturbing activities in this area has the potential to impact these resources. . Field Survey
An intensive pedestrian survey was conducted on June 17 and 18, 2021. Ground visibility varied, with 0-15 percent visibility in the south half and 100% visibility in the north half where the soil has been turned (Figures 6 and 7). Visible sediment is 10YR 4/2 dark gray silt. Gravel density varied throughout site but on average was low. The land within the Project has been disturbed by activities such as cattle and farming (Figures 8 through 13). The three historic homes were photographed and documented as well as the nonhistoric buildings on the property. Other than the homes, no additional cultural resources were observed. 1011 565
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
14 1012 566
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
15 1013 567
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
16 1014 568
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
17 1015 569
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
18 CRHR Evaluation
The subject property, which encompasses 160-acres, is today one of the last remaining dairy farms left in present-day Eastvale. The dairy, however, was established in the mid to late-1950s by John C. and Elizabeth Leal, who later passed the ranch onto their son Bradley Leal, who owned and operated it until his death in 2016. The Leal Ranch and Dairy was not one of the first or pioneer dairy operations in Corona in what later became Eastvale. Historic photographs and maps indicate that the subject property was cultivated with a walnut orchard in the late-1920s, which included a small residence, barn, and outbuildings. Between 1954- 1967, the westernmost residence, dating to the late-1920s, was likely demolished and replaced with the current Spanish Revival style residence, which was the former home of John C. and Elizabeth Leal. On the far east of the main core buildings and structures within the ranch was a bunkhouse, which dates before 1954.

Between 1967 and 1980, as well as other improvements.

In order for a property to be significant under any criteria, it must retain integrity. The National Park Service, along with state and local agencies, define integrity as retaining location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In applying the definition of integrity to the subject property, the following findings are made below:

Location The subject property retains its original location, although the original function of the property has changed since it was settled in the 1920s from a cultivated orchard to a ranch and dairy.

Design The original farmhouse was either demolished or rebuilt in its current configuration. Two other residences were built in subsequent years, both of which appear to retain their original architectural design, but the easternmost house is in very poor condition with structural deterioration, and it partially collapsed.

Setting The setting of the property has changed since its initial development. Today, the property is surrounded by contemporary residential housing tracts and commercial shopping centers.

Materials- All three residences retain most of their original materials, although the westernmost residence may have been rebuilt with more contemporary materials, such as windows and doors.

Workmanship The workmanship of the three residences is consistent with the post-World War popularity high-level or workmanship or craftsmanship.

Feeling The feeling of the original pre-1950s orchard and farm no longer exists, however, the property as a whole still looks and feels like a dairy and cattle ranch.

Association The property
bears a strong association with post-1950s dairy operations in Eastvale.

In summary, the subject property does not appear to be eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1 since it is not associated with a significant event or events in the History of Corona or Eastvale. Under CRHR Criterion 2, the subject property does not appear to be associated with a person or persons of significance in the history of Corona or Eastvale, however, Brad Leal, the former owner of the Leal Ranch, was a respected rancher, who served on numerous agricultural related committees and commissions locally, regionally, and statewide, and was a person of importance in Eastvale before and after its incorporation as a city. Under CRHR Criterion 3, as a whole, the extant residences and outbuildings remaining within the ranch do not appear to be significant examples of Spanish Revival or California Ranch style architecture. Finally, under Criterion 4, there is no evidence that the various properties within the ranch have the potential to provide -day ranching, farming, dairying, given that most of the development on the property occurred in the late 1950s-1980s with early-day ranching, farming, dairying, given that most of the development on the property occurred between the 1950s-1980s. See Appendix C for the DPR 523 site record.
1016 570
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
19 IMPACTS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DUKE C R M evaluated the proposed Project for impacts to cultural and paleontological resources according to CEQA. The records search and field survey identified one previously recorded cultural resource within the Leal Project area. The pedestrian survey did not yield significant cultural resources, this indicates a low sensitivity for prehistoric cultural resources and a low sensitivity for historic cultural resources. None of the three extant buildings are recommended CRHR-eligible or important cultural resources under CEQA. Based on the low sensitivity for cultural resources DUKE C R M recommends an archaeologist does not need to be present during ground disturbing activity. Therefore, any disturbance of native soils has a low potential to directly impact unique cultural resources according to CEQA. DUKE CRM does not recommend any further cultural resources efforts. However, if any cultural resources are discovered during grading and/or ground disturbance during construction an archaeologist shall be retained to assess the nature and significance of the discovery and make recommendations.

If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

No paleontological resources were identified within the Project boundaries, but multiple fossil localities in similar deposits are documented nearby (within 3 miles). Ground disturbance in the eastern half of the Project area will impact high-sensitivity deposits (Qye and Qvoa) and has the potential to directly impact unique paleontological resources. This would result in a potentially significant impact to paleontological resources according to CEQA. Therefore, paleontological construction monitoring is recommended during ground disturbance in this area. This will mitigate the potential impact to a level that is less than significant for the purposes of CEQA.

Paleontological Monitoring- A paleontological monitor shall be present during ground disturbing activities in the eastern half of the Project. The monitor shall work under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist (B.S./B.A. in geology, or related discipline with an emphasis in paleontology and demonstrated competence in paleontological research, fieldwork, reporting, and curation).

1. The qualified paleontologist shall be on-site at the pre-construction meeting to discuss monitoring protocols.

3. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect grading efforts if paleontological resources are discovered.

6. If the discovery is significant the qualified paleontologist shall notify the CLIENT and CITY immediately.

7. In consultation with the CLIENT and CITY the qualified paleontologist shall develop a plan of mitigation which will likely include full-time monitoring, salvage excavation, and removal of the find, removal of sediment from around the specimen (in the laboratory), research to 1017 571
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
20 identify and categorize the find, curation of the find in a local qualified repository, and preparation of a report summarizing the find.
1018 572
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
21 REFERENCES CITED
Basgall, Mark E.
1987 Resource Intensification among Hunter-Gathers: Acorn Economies in Prehistoric Southern California. Research in Economics Anthropology 9:21-52.

Bean, Lowell J., and Harry W. Lawton
1973 Some Explanations for the Rise of Cultural Complexity in Native California with Comments on Proto-agriculture and Agriculture. In Patterns of Indian burning in California: Ecology and Ethnohistory, Anthropological Papers 1, edited by M.W. Allen and J. Reed, pp. v-xlvii. Ballena Press, Ramona.

Bean, Lowell J., and Katherine S. Saubel
2014 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning.

Bean, Lowell J., and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, William C Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell J., Jerry Schaefer, and Sylvia B. Vane
1995 Archaeological, Ethnographic, and Ethnohistoric Investigations at Tahquitz Canyon, Palm Springs, California. Cultural Systems Research, Inc. Submitted to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Copies available from Eastern Information Center, Riverside.

Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.538-549. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, William C Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978b Serrano. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.570-574. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, William C Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Byrd, Brian F. and L. Mark Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar eds., pps. 215-227. AltaMira Press, New York.

Davis, E.L., C.W. Brott, and D.L. Weide
1969 The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers Vol. 6, San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego.

Earle, David D.
2004 Native Population and Settlement in the Western Mojave Desert in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. In Proceedings of the Millennium Conference: The Human Journey and Ancient Life in , edited by Mark W. Allen and Judyth Reed. Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest.

Hearth and Duke
2016 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Vantage Point Church, Eastvale, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Vantage Point Church.

HistoricAerials.Com
2021 Historic Aerial Imagery and USGS Maps. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed July 2021.
1019 573
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
22 Jefferson, G.T.
1991a A catalogue of Late Quaternary vertebrates from California: part one. Non-marine lower vertebrate and avian taxa: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports, Number 5.
1991b A catalogue of Late Quaternary vertebrates from California: part two. Mammals: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports, Number 7.

Johnson, Allen W. and Timothy Earle
1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Jones, Terry L., G. M. Brown, L. M. Raab, J. L. McVickar, W. G. Spaulding, D. M. Kennett, A. York, and P.

L. Walker
2004 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. In Prehistoric California: Archaeology and the Myth of Paradise, edited by L. Mark Raab and Terry L. Jones, pp. 12-32. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Koerper, H. C. and Christopher Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-Ora-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Quarterly, 19(2):1-34.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted 1976. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Originally published 1925, Bulletin 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Lovin, June
1963 A Summary Description of Luiseño Material Culture. In Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1962- 1963, pp. 81-130. University of California, Los Angeles Meissner, Loren P.
2014 Fuller Ranch at Eastvale. Preferred Choice Printing, Corona.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando.

Morton, D.M., and F.K. Miller
2006 Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1217, Version 1.0, Digital preparation by Pamela M.

Cossette and Kelly R. Bovard: pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1217/ Norris, Robert M., and Robert W. Webb
1976 Geology of California. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Shipley, William F.
1978 Native Languages of California. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.80-90. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1): 1-358.
1020 574
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE
23 Tang, Bai, Michael Hogan, and Mariam Dahdul
2005 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Leal Property Near the City of Norco, Riverside County, California. Digital copies available at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Vellanoweth, Rene L. and Donn R. Grenda
2002 Paradise or Purgatory: Environments, Past and Present. In Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, Jeffrey H. Altchul and Donn R. Grenda eds. Chapter 4, pgs. 67-

84. SRI Press, Tucson.

Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230.

Warren, Claude N.
1980 Chapter II: Cultural Chronology of the Mojave Desert. In A Cultural Resources Overview for the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Planning Units, edited by C. N. Warren, M. Knack, and E. von Till Warren. U.S.

Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resources Publications, Anthropology/History, Riverside.

Warren, Claude N. and Robert H. Crabtree
1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Great Basin, edited by War -193.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

White, Raymond C.
1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91 194.
1021 575
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE

APPENDIX A (CONFIDENTIAL)
Paleontological Record Searches
1022 576
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org Duke CRM June 15, 2021
Benjamin Scherzer
18 Technology Drive, Suite 103
Irvine, CA 92618
Dear Mr. Scherzer,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Leal MP Eastvale Project in Riverside County, California. The project site is located north of Limonite Avenue, south of 58th Street, west of Hamner Avenue, and east of Scholar Way in Section 24 of Township 2 South and Range 7 West on the Corona North, CA USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles.

The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped entirely as Quaternary alluvial fan and channel deposits dating from the early Pleistocene to Holocene epochs (Morton, Gray, Bovard & Dawson, 2002). Pleistocene sedimentary units are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or a one mile radius, but does have numerous localities throughout the region in similarly mapped sediments including one locality associated with the Vanderham Project that is less than two miles northeast of the Leal MP Eastvale Project area. The Vanderham Project locality produced a camleops specimen that indicates the alluvial units in the area are indeed Pleistocene in age.

Any fossils recovered from the Leal MP Eastvale Project area would be scientifically significant.

Excavation activity associated with development of the area has the potential to impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene units and it is the recommendation of the Western Science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation plan be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the current study area.

If you have any questions, or would like further information about the Vanderham Project, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] Sincerely,
Darla Radford
Collections Manager
1023 577
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE

APPENDIX B (CONFIDENTIAL)
Resumes
1024 578
18 Technology Drive, #103
Irvine, CA 92618
949 356 6660
www.dukecrm.com

ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORY PALEONTOLOGY
Morgan Bender
Archaeologist
Professional Experience: 4 Years
Expertise
Cultural Resources Management
California Prehistory
Historical Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Education
California State University, Los Angeles,
M.A. Anthropology, 2019
Agnes Scott College, B.A., Anthropology/
Sociology, 2014
Professional Registrations
RPA, No. 18011
Professional Memberships
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
Professional Experience
Ms. Bender attended Agnes Scott College in Decatur, Georgia where she obtained her BA in 2014 in Anthropology/ Sociology and minored in Classical Studies. During her time there, she studied abroad and traveled throughout Turkey where she visited many archaeological sites. Ms. Bender attended California State University, Los Angeles where she received her MA in
Anthropology, emphasis in California Archaeology in 2019. Her thesis focused on tracking climatic shifts using crab and sea urchin remains from a Middle Holocene site on San Nicolas Island, California (CA SNI 40). She has four years of professional experience as a staff archaeologist where she became a Registered Professional Archaeologist. During this time, she has monitored major infrastructure sites such as Metro and utility projects as well as private commercial and residential developments projects. While monitoring, she identifies historic and prehistoric resources and is cross trained in paleontology. Additionally, she prepares the necessary DPR and archaeological reports for these finds. She has also surveyed sites in Arizona and California. Ms. Bender partook in the Woolsey Fire reconnaissance work with Cardno and Southern California Edison. She has training and significant experience in faunal and shellfish analysis, and lithic identification.

Selected Project Experience
San Marcos Creek Project, San Marcos 2021.

Metro Purple Line Section 3, West Los Angeles 2019 2021.

I 405 Project, Orange County 2020 2021.

ICF Metro Division 20, Los Angeles 2019 2021.

ICF Metro Regional Connector, Los Angeles 2017 2021.

Southern California Edison, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, 2019 2021.

Moorefield French Valley, Murrieta 2020.

Caltrans Collection, Redlands 2019.

Stanton Energy Reliability Center, Stanton 2019.

Southern California Edison Pole Survey, Lake Isabella 2019. 10 West Walnut Morley Construction, Pasadena June 2019.

Survey, Redlands November 2018.

Woolsey Fire, Los Angeles December 2018.

Survey, Nothing July 2018.

Brookfield Residential Nelles Project, Whittier 2018 2020.

Brookfield Kaplan Project North, Ontario 2017 2018.

Brookfield Kaplan Project, Eastvale 2017.
1025 579
18 Technology Dr., Ste. 103
Irvine, CA 92618
949 356 6660
www.dukecrm.com
Curt Duke
President/Principal Archaeologist
Expertise
Cultural Resources Management
California Prehistory
Section 106 Compliance
CEQA Compliance
Native American Consultation
Education
CSU, Fullerton, M.A., Anth, 2006
SDSU, Grad Studies, Anth, 1996 97
UC Santa Cruz, B.A., Anth, 1994
Professional Registrations
RPA, No. 15969
County of Riverside (No. 151)
County of Orange
Professional Memberships
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Assoc. of Environmental Professionals
Building Industry Association
Professional Experience
President/Principal Archaeologist, DUKE CRM, March 2011 to present Archaeologist/Principal, LSA Associates, 1997 2011
Archaeological/Paleontological Technician, Various Companies, 1995 97 Archaeological Technician/Teachers Assistant, Cabrillo College, 1994 Anthropological Laboratory Technician, UC Santa Cruz, 1994 Selected Project Experience
Reid/Baldwin Adobe, LA Arboretum, Arcadia, 2019 Present Veteran Affairs Medical Clinic, Santa Rosa, 2019
Deane Dana Friendship Park, Rancho Palos Verdes, 2019
Makayla Mine Expansion Project, Olancha, 2019
Sweeny Road, Lompoc, 2018
Vantage Point Church, Eastvale, 2016 and 2018
VA West Los Angeles Campus Master Plan, 2017 Present
Avenue S 8 and 40th St. E. Roundabout, Palmdale, 2017 18 SR 110 Improvements, Los Angeles, 2017
Diamond Valley Estates Specific Plan, Hemet, 2017
VA West Los Angeles Campus Hospital Replacement, 2016 Present Shoemaker Bridge Replacement, Long Beach, 2016 Present
Spruce Goose Hangar, Playa Vista, 2016
Rice Avenue at 5th Street Grade Separation, Oxnard, 2015 Present Vila Borba, Chino Hills, 2013 Present
Skyridge Residential, Mission Viejo, 2011 Present
Baker Water Treatment Plant, Lake Forest, 2014 2015
VA Clinic, Loma Linda, 2014 Present
Evanston Inn, Pasadena, 2014 2016
Petersen Ranch, Leona Valley, 2013 2014
California Street/Highway 101, Ventura, 2014 Present
6 th Street Bridge Replacement, Los Angeles, 2013 Present I 15/I 215 IC Project, Devore, 2008 10
Colton Crossing Rail to Rail Grade Separation, 2008 11
City of LA DPW BOE, On Call, Cultural/Paleo Services, 2008 11 Mid County Parkway, Riverside County, 2014 10
McSweeny Farms Specific Plan, Hemet, 2004 08
Mesquite Regional Landfill, Coachella Valley, 2006 08
Hacienda at Fairview Valley Specific Plan, Apple Valley2007 08 Majestic Hills Specific Plan, Hesperia, 2006 07
Chuckwalla Solar I Project, Desert Center, 2007 08
Needles Highway Improvement Project, 2004 06
Superstition Solar I Project, Salton Sea, Imperial County, 2008 Muddy Canyon Archaeological Project, Newport Beach, 1997 2001 Temecula 32, Archaeological Phase II Testing, 2007
Mammoth Lakes Parks/Rec and Trail System Master Plan, 2010 24th Street Improvements, City of Bakersfield, 2008 11
California Valley Solar Ranch, San Luis Obispo County, 2009 10 Delano Alpaugh Water Pipeline, Kern/Tulare Counties, 2006 09 I 15/SR 79 IC Project, Temecula, 2006 10
Westlake Historic Resources Survey, Los Angeles, 2008 09 CETAP, western Riverside County, 1999 2001
Los Coches Creek Elementary School, near Alpine, 2003 06 Oak Valley Specific Plan 1 Amendment, Beaumont, 2004
San Nicolas Island, Naval Base Ventura County, CA, 1997 1026 580
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE

APPENDIX C (CONFIDENTIAL)
Native American Heritage Commission for Sacred Land Files 1027 581
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 1 ends

June 29, 2021
Morgan Bender
Duke CRM
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Leal MP (C-0362) Project, Riverside County
Dear Ms. Bender:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

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

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
1028 582
APRIL 2022 LEAL MASTER PLAN, EASTVALE

APPENDIX D (CONFIDENTIAL)
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Record
1029 583
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ______________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ___________________________________________ NRHP Status Code: ___________________________________
Other Listings _____________________________________
Review Code ____ Reviewer _________ Date ________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DPR 523A *Required Information

Page 1 of 2 ends

P1. Other Identifier: Leal Ranch and Dairy
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication ◼ Unrestricted *a. County: Riverside *b. USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle: Corona North, California 1967 and 2012 Portion of SE 1/4 of Section 24 Township 2 South Range 7 West c. Address: 12740 58th Street City: Eastvale Zip: 92880 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data (APN #164030025): The ranch is bordered on the north by 58th Street, on the west by Scholar Way, on the east by Hammer Avenue, and on the south by Limonite Avenue.
*P3a. Description: The property consists of a part of a former 160-acre ranch and dairy located in Eastvale, Riverside County, California. The ranch was acquired by John and Elizabeth Leal and later owned and managed by their son Brad Leal until his death in 2016. Besides a cow barn, Quonset hut, sheds, calving barns, pastures, cross-fencing, corrals, and other ranch related infrastructure, there are four single-family residences built from the 1950s through the 1980s. Three of the oldest residences are described in this record. The first house is the westernmost residence, which appears to have either replaced an older residence built in the late-1920s or the older residence was extensively remodeled when the Leal family acquired the ranch in the 1950s. The residence is characterized by a red clay barrel tile cross-gable roof, stucco exterior wall cladding, wood-sash and metal windows, French doors, an arcaded veranda along the building’s south elevation, and shed roof verandas along the building’s south elevation.

The second residence lies to the east and is characterized by its irregular-shape created through numerous additions to the original residence. Like the westernmost house, the second residence features an intersecting gable roof, asphalt shingles atop the roof, brick walls covered with stucco and painted white, along with wood shingle sided exterior walls. The residence also features an arched brick entryway facing north, vertical board cladding above some of the gable ends, metal and aluminum casement and slider windows, replacement doors with security metal screens, shed-roof porches supported by 4” x 4” wood columns, a brick exterior chimney on the gable end, a leaded and stained-glass window to the left of the chimney, and a shed-roof veranda facing south towards the pastures (refer to Primary Record, Page 2 of 2). *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP33 – Ranch/Dairy
*P4. Resources Present: ◼ Building ◼ Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District P5b. Description of Photo: View looking northeast at the westernmost residence.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: ◼ Historic
Circa 1950-1980.
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by: Dana E. Supernowicz, Historic Resource Associates, 3142 Bird Rock Road, Pebble Beach, CA 93953. *P9. Date Recorded:July 2021
*P10. Type of Survey: ◼ Architectural
Describe: CEQA Evaluation
*P11. Report Citation: Architectural Assessment Study of 12740 58th Street, Eastvale, Riverside County, California 92880.

Prepared for Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC, 18 Technology Drive, Suite 103, Irvine, CA 92618. Prepared by Historic Resource Associates, 3142 Bird Rock Road, Pebble Beach, CA 93953. July 2020.
*Attachments: Building, Structure, and Object Record; Photograph Record P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects).
1030 584
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ______________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ___________________________________________ NRHP Status Code: ___________________________________
Other Listings _____________________________________
Review Code ____ Reviewer _________ Date ________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DPR 523A *Required Information

Page 2 of 2 ends

*P3a. Description: (Continued):

Immediately to the east of the irregular-shaped residence is a third residence, a contemporary Spanish style residence reportedly built in the 1980s. Further to the east is what is referred to as the “bunkhouse.” The bunkhouse is a simple rectangular-shaped, gabled-roof painted brick building with a detached chimney that appears to have once been part of the house. The grouting technique used on the brick masonry walls of the residence was designed to give it the appearance of adobe bricks. The gabled roof of the building is in very poor condition and is clad with wood shingles, with stucco used beneath the gable ends. The south elevation of the residence features a large, rectangular picture style window with a large wooden header. The west elevation of the residence once included a shed-roof porch supported by simple wood columns, but is now largely collapsed. The most unusual feature of the residence is a wrap-around metal-sash corner Modernist style window.
1031 585
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 1 of 18 ends

B1. Historic Name: Leal Ranch
B2. Common Name: Same as above
B3. Original Use: Walnut Orchard and Farm/Cattle Ranch/Dairy B4. Present Use: Ranch *B5. Architectural Style: California Ranch/Mediterranean/Vernacular *B6. Construction History: Based upon oral history and historic aerial photographs, the Leal Ranch began as a cultivated walnut orchard during the 1920s through the late-1940s. By the late-1950s, the farm transitioned to a dairy and cattle ranch after it was acquired by the Leal family. The westernmost house appears to have been the first residence constructed within the 160-acre farm, although it may have been added on to and remodeled when the Leals purchased the property since historic topographic maps suggest it started as a simple rectangle. Besides one primary residence, there was once a small shed to its east and another barn or shed further east. Later, a cow barn was built near 58th Street at the entrance to the ranch. By 1959, a second residence had been constructed to the east of the original farm residence, and during the 1970s, yet another house was built further to the east. By the 1980s, a more contemporary or modern residence was built, that in later years had multiple additions. Besides the residences, development on the property included a Quonset hut, crossfencing, corrals, wells, pastures, cultivated fields, and sheds where feed was stored and dairy cows were raised. *B7. Moved? ◼ No  Yes  Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Outbuildings, a Quonset hut, barn, sheds, corrals, wells, pastures, and cross-fencing.

B9a. Architect: Undetermined B9b. Builder: Undetermined *B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture/Ranching/Dairies Area: Eastvale Period of Significance: 1950s-1974 Property Type: Farm/Ranch/Dairy Applicable Criteria: CRHR 1, 2, 3, and 4 The historic context of the subject parcel is largely tied to the development of Corona and the area that later became part of Eastvale during the 1950s. Eastvale’s history is associated with its neighbors - Corona, Norco, Chino, and Ontario. For at least the last 176 years, the land now part of Eastvale was used for ranching and farming, particularly dairies. It wasn’t until 1893, that Riverside County was created. In the minutes of one of the first meetings of the Riverside County Board of Commissioners, “East Vale” is listed as one of 53 school districts. During the late-1920s much of Eastvale, like other parts of Riverside County, featured walnut orchards and citrus groves intermixed with farms and ranches (Netronline Website 2021). By the 1950s, Los Angeles’ population had expanded into outlying farm lands and dairymen began moving their operations into the valley. Dairies in Eastvale, the Chino Valley, and Ontario were owned and primarily operated by Dutch and Portuguese (Azorean) families. In the spring of 2007, five individuals were tasked by residents to explore cityhood for Eastvale. These five residents formed the Eastvale Incorporation Committee. Today, Eastvale is still tied to Corona and Norco as a member of the Corona-Norco Unified School District and shares a zip code with the City of Corona (92880) and the City of Jurupa Valley (91752). Until incorporation, Eastvale was a community residing in an unincorporated area of Western Riverside County (City of Eastvale Website. “History.” 2021). Refer to BSO, Page 2 of 18.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
B12. References: Ancestry.com Website. https://www.ancestry.com/search, accessed July 2021; City of Eastvale Website. “History.” https://www.eastvaleca.gov/our-city/about-eastvale/history. Accessed July 6, 2021; City of Eastvale Website. “Leal Master Plan.” https://www.eastvaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9676/636675443383230000. Accessed July 6, 2021); Halsted, Byron D., ed. Barns, Sheds and Outbuildings. New York: O. Judd Co., 1881. Reprinted Brattleboro, VT: Stephen Greene Press. 1977; Legacy Website. “Obituary:

Brad William Leal.” https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/pe/name/brad-leal-obituary. November 2016 (refer to BSO, Page 7 of 18).

B13. Remarks:

B14. Evaluator: Dana E. Supernowicz, Architectural Historian, 3142 Bird Rock Road, Pebble Beach, CA 93953 Date of Evaluation: July 2020
Aerial Photograph (Google Earth 2021)

(This space reserved for official comments.)

1032 586
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 2 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Figure 1: 3D Aerial view of the former Leal Ranch (Google Earth 2021).

Figure 2: 3D Aerial view looking north at the main buildings, structures, and objects within the former Leal Ranch and Dairy. The three black boxes represent the evaluated residences in the ranch built from the 1950s-1970s. 1033 587
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 3 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Figure 3: Street view of the entrance to the Leal Ranch from 58th Streeet.

The Leal family are of Portuguese descent, and Portuguese immigrants began settling in California in the mid-1800s with a dream to build a new life for their families and to escape the restrictions of the old world that limited their opportunities. With varied skills and little education, they were determined to improve their quality of life. A number of Portuguese Americans have been prominent in contributing to the development of American culture and society. Benjamin Cardoza, the Supreme Court Justice (1932-1938), John Dos Passos (1896-1970), the author of the famous USA trilogy and other works on American society, and John Phillip Sousa (1854- 1932), the composer of many of America’s best-loved marching songs, were men of Portuguese heritage who played important roles in the history of the United States. Just as important, but rarely told, is the story of the everyday immigrant, such as those who established farms and dairies throughout parts of Riverside County during the first few decades the twentieth century (Portuguese Historical Museum 2016).

The area that was once part of Corona and later became Eastvale attracted a wide range of immigrants, many of whom came from the Azores, Portugal, as well as the Netherlands. Most came for economic reasons and particularly the lands surrounding Eastvale that were conducive to dairy operations. Portuguese immigrant dairy owners and workers had a large presence in Eastvale and many reportedly settled in and around Chandler Street, between Archibald and Hellman Avenues, an area that had been subdivided before 1915 as part of the Persimmon Acres Tract. Over time, people constructed houses afterwhich the area was common referred to as “Portugee Village” (Meissner and Johnson 2013: 119-120). Around 1900, there were an estimated 80 dairies in what is now Eastvale with about 90,000 cows. Beginning in the late-twentieth century and early twenty-first century, Eastvale dairy farmers began a mass migration to other parts of California and other states to escape urban sprawl, stricter regulations, and aging dairy machinery (Stockley 2013; City of Eastvale Website. “Leal Master Plan.” 2021). By the time the city was incorporated in 2010, nine dairies remained. By 2020, there was reportedly only one dairy still operating in Eastvale owned by the David Downey (Press-Enterprise Website 2020).
1034 588
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 4 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

In 1881, the lands that were later acquired by the Leal family and other Portuguese ranchers had not as yet been subdivided into smaller parcels (Figure 4). The Leal Ranch was located just south of the border of San Bernardino County in Section 24.

Figure 4: General Land Office Survey Plat Map 1881 (T2S, R7E).

While the Leal Ranch appears to have been established in the mid to late-1950s by John and Elizabeth (nee Kruidhof) Leal, and later owned and operated by their son Bradley Leal, the 160-acre parcel appears to have been previously cultivated as a walnut orchard with a single residence and a small barn or shed (Ancestry.com Website 2021; Netronline Website 2021). Elizabeth Leal, whose parent were from the Netherlands, was born on March 10, 1932 and died on July 22, 2009, while her husband, John C. Leal was born in 1923 and died in 1978. John and Elizabeth were married in Los Angeles in 1949, and had four children: Sonia, Bradley, Brenda, and Craig. The various residences within the ranch were built by the Leal family and occupied by different family member from the 1950s through the 2010s. Bradley was apparently the primary heir to the ranch.

On November 11, 2016, Bradley William Leal passed away. According to his obituary in 2016, Brad was survived by his brother, Craig Leal of Corona; sister, Brenda Martin of Porterville; and sister, Sonia Leal of Chino. Besides his dairy business for over 40 years, Bradley was chairman on multiple boards in the dairy industry, including the Southern Dairyman's Association, Southern California Producers Council, and “Land O Lakes.” He was on the Board of Directors for the Southern California Environmental Foundation, Chairman for the Leadership Council, Nominating Committee, Leader Development Committee, Credentials Committee, and the "Policy and Resolutions" Committee. On a state level, Brad was appointed to the State of California Department of Food and Agriculture Producers Review Board. He also acted as a lobbyist in the House of Congress on Capitol Hill, Washington DC. advocating special interests for the Agricultural Industry (Legacy Website 2016). 1035 589
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 5 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

A review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs helped illustrate the evolution of the Leal Ranch. As previously described the ranch evolved in the second decade of the twentieth century as a small farm producing walnuts. The farm remained largely intact through the early 1950s, with the main residence on the left adjacent to an outbuilding on the right, perhaps a detached garage, a barn to the north still intact, and to the right of another residence referred to as the “bunkhouse” (Figure 5). By 1967, the westernmost residence (Figure 6) was enlarged or entirely rebuilt, creating an “L” shaped residence, the bunkhouse to the east remained intact, and other outbuildings had been constructed.

Figure 5: USGS 7.5’ Corona North, CA Topographic Map, 1954.

Figure 6: USGS 7.5’ Corona North, CA Topographic Map, 1967.

Westernmost
Residence
Bunkhouse
Barn
Rebuilt or
enlarged
Westernmost
Residence
Bunkhouse
Barn
1036 590
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 6 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

REGULATORY AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
The regulatory framework for this historic resource study and the evaluation lies within the guidelines imposed for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) under Public Resources Code section 5024.1. CEQA guidelines define a significant cultural resource as “a resource listed in or eligible for listing on the CRHR.

A historical resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

Even if a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, the lead agency may consider the resource to be an “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA provided that the lead agency determination is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines 14 CCR 15064.5). According to the state guidelines, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (14 CCR 15064.5[b]). CEQA further states that a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. Actions that would materially impair the significance of a historical resource are any actions that would demolish or adversely alter those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its significance and qualify it for inclusion in the CRHR or in a local register or survey that meet the requirements of PRC 5020.1(k) and 5024.1(g).

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The subject property, which encompasses 160 acres, is today one of the last remaining dairy farms left in present-day Eastvale.

The dairy, however, was established in the mid to late-1950s by John C. and Elizabeth Leal, who later passed the ranch onto their son Bradley Leal, who owned and operated it until his death in 2016. The Leal Ranch and Dairy was not one of the first or pioneer dairy operations in Corona in what later became Eastvale. Historic photographs and maps indicate that the subject property was cultivated with a walnut orchard in the late-1920s, which included a small residence, barn, and outbuildings.

Between 1954 and 1967, the westernmost residence, dating to the late-1920s, was likely demolished and replaced with the current Spanish Revival style residence, which was the former home of John C. and Elizabeth Leal. On the far east of the main core of buildings and structures within the ranch was a bunkhouse, which dates before 1954. Between 1967 and 1980, two other residential California Ranch style houses were built between the 1950s residence and the bunkhouse, as well as other improvements.

In order for a property to be significant under any criteria, it must retain integrity. The National Park Service, along with state and local agencies, define integrity. Integrity is defined as retaining location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In applying the definition of integrity to the subject property, the following findings are made below:

Location - The subject property retains its original location, although the original function of the property has changed since it was settled in the 1920s from a cultivated orchard to a ranch and dairy.

Design - The original farm house was either demolished or rebuilt in its current configuration. Two other residences were built in subsequent years, both of which appear to retain their original architectural design, but the easternmost house is in very poor condition with structural deterioration and is partially collapsed. 1037 591
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 7 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Setting - The setting of the property has changed since its initial development. Today, the property is surrounded by contemporary residential housing tracts and commercial shopping centers.

Materials - All three residences retain most of their original materials, although the westernmost residence may have been rebuilt with more contemporary materials, such as windows and doors.

Workmanship - The workmanship of the three residences is consistent with the post-World War popularity of California Ranch architecture in the “Spanish” or “Mediterranean” style. None of the residences display a high-level or workmanship or craftsmanship.

Feeling - The feeling of the original pre-1950s orchard and farm no longer exists, however, the property as a whole still looks and feels like a dairy and cattle ranch.

Association - The property's association with its original owner and occupant no longer exists. The property bears a strong association with post-1950s dairy operations in Eastvale.

APPLICATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
In summary, the subject property does not appear to be eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1, since it is not associated with a significant event or events in the history of Corona or Eastvale Under CRHR Criterion 2, the subject property does not appear to be associated with a person or persons of significance in the history of Corona or Eastvale, however, Brad Leal, the former owner of the Leal Ranch was a respected rancher, who served on numerous agricultural related committees and commissions locally, regionally, and statewide, and was a person of importance in Eastvale before and after its incorporation as a city. Under CRHR Criterion 3, as a whole, the extant residences and outbuildings remaining within the ranch lack integrity and do not appear to be significant examples of Spanish Revival or California Ranch style architecture. Finally, under CRHR Criterion 4, there is no evidence that the various properties within the ranch have the potential to provide “significant” archaeological data associated with early-day ranching, farming, dairying, given that most of the development on the property occurred in the late-1950s-1980s.

B12. References: (Continued):

May, Cliff. Sunset Western Ranch Houses. Editorial Staff of Sunset Magazine in Collaboration with Cliff May. 1946, reprinted with permission, Hennessey+Ingalls. 1999; May, Cliff. Western Ranch Houses. Editorial Staff of Sunset Magazine and Books. 1958, reprinted with permission, Hennessey+Ingalls. 1997; Meissner, Loren P. and Kim Jarrell Johnson. A Brief History of Eastvale. Charleston, S.C.: History Press. 2013; NetroOnline Website. “Historic Aerials.” https://www.historicaerials.com. Accessed July 10, 2020; Portuguese Historical Museum. "History." www.portugesemuseum.org. Accessed July 2021; Press-Enterprise Website. “On Eastvale’s 10th anniversary.” https://www.pe.com/2020/10/01/on-eastvales-10th-anniversary-here-are-5-things-to-watch-for. October 1, 2020; Rumsey, Davis. Historical Map Collection. http://www.davidrumsey.com. Accessed March 25, 2016; Schuler, Stanley. American Barns: In a Class by Themselves. Exton, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1984; Schultz, LeRoy G., comp. Barns, Stables and Outbuildings: A World Bibliography in English, 1700-1983.

Jefferson, NC and London: McFarland and Company. 1986; Stockley, Sandra. Press-Enterprise Website. “Eastvale: Dairies are a Bittersweet Link to the Past.” https://www.pe.com/2013/09/27/eastvale-dairies-are-bittersweet-link-to-past. September 27, 2013; USDI, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, n.d. 1038 592
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 8 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

PHOTOGRAPH RECORD
Photograph 1: View looking south at the westernmost residence, built between 1954 and 1967.

Photograph 2: View looking southwest at the westernmost residence. 1039 593
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 9 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Photograph 3: View looking southeast at the west elevation of the westernmost residence.

Photograph 4: View looking southeast at the westernmost residence. 1040 594
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 10 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Photograph 5: View looking north at the westernmost residence.

Photograph 6: View looking west at the westernmost residence. 1041 595
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 11 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Photograph 7: View looking north at the arcaded porch of the westernmost residence.

Photograph 8: View looking at the altered window detail of the westernmost residence. 1042 596
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 12 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Photograph 9: View looking at the French doors
and porch brackets on the westernmost residence.

Photograph 10: View looking at the front elevation of the residence to the right or east of the late-1950s era residence. This residence, which was added onto numerous times, was likely built between 1967 and 1980. 1043 597
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 13 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Photograph 11: View looking east at the centermost residence.

Photograph 12: View looking northeast at the centermost residence. 1044 598
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 14 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Photograph 13: View looking at the side entrance on the centermost residence.

Photograph 14: View looking at the fireplace on the east end wall of the centermost residence. 1045 599
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 15 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Photograph 15: View looking at the side elevation of
the bunkhouse residence, built prior to 1954.

Photograph 16: View looking northeast at the southeast elevation of the bunkhouse residence. 1046 600
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 16 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Photograph 17: View of the south elevation of the bunkhouse residence.

Photograph 18: View looking at the south elevation of the bunkhouse residence. 1047 601
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 17 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Photograph 19: View of the east elevation of the bunkhouse residence and the brick chimney.

Photograph 20: View looking east at the brick chimney.
1048 602
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B *Required Information

Page 18 of 18 ends

*B10. Significance (Continued):

Photograph 21: View of the brick masonry wall detail on the bunkhouse residence.

Photograph 22: View of window detail and wooden
header above the window of the bunkhouse residence.
1049 603
Appendix E
1050 604
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) 1051 605
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 1052 606
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 1053 607
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.

1054 608
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 1055 609
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.
1056 610
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
1057 611
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 1058 612
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 1059 613
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. 1060 614
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). 1061 615
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 1062 616
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.
1063 617
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.
1064 618
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. 1065 619
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 1066 620
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 1067 621
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 1068 622
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 1069 623
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 1070 624
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 1071 625
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 1072 626
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
1073 627
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. 1074 628
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. 1075 629
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 1076 630
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.
1077 631
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;
1078 632
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.
1079 633
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.

1080 634
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
1081 635
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
1082 636
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
1083 637
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 21116-01 638 1084
Appendix A
References
1085 639
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, 1086 640
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/
1087 641
Appendix B
Boring, CPT & Geotechnical Trench Logs
1088 642
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 25, 2022

Eastvale City Council
May 25, 2022