Agenda packet — Eastvale City Council, April 23, 2025 (part 3 of 6)

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Survey Date Time Temp. Surveys Surveyors
August 8, 2024 0630 - 0845 68° F - 75° F
Clear skies
and 50%
cloud cover at
approximately
8:00 am
Burrowing Owl #4, Brianna Bernard
and Dylan
Donahoe
The Project site consists of several developed animal pens for goats, sheep, cattle, etc.

The Project site also contains 2 residential units with a pool house, covered horse arena, and stables. Overall, the site includes developed communities and ruderal habitat consisting of non-native species. Located to the east of the Project site is the Santa Ana River. Habitat within the Santa Ana River consists of arundo thickets and southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and open water.

The site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east.

Scattered burrows were observed on the Project site, specifically around the perimeter near the fencing. 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 was conducted on March 28, 2024 to determine any suitable BUOW habitat onsite. Following the habitat assessment, additional focused surveys took place on June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 8, 2024. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced approximately 15 to 25 meters apart in suitable habitat 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.
419
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
August 30, 2024

Page 3 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 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 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 habitat assessment was conducted on March 28, 2024 on the Project site and surrounding 500-foot area within suitable Burrowing Owl habitat (Figure 2).

Following the habitat assessment, additional focused surveys took place on June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 8, 2024. The survey was performed by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (CSLS) biologists. 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 surveys ranged from 70° F to 95° 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 Project site consists of several developed animal pens for goats, sheep, cattle, etc.

The site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east. 420
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
August 30, 2024

Page 4 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 The Study Area contains a small population of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), specifically located along the perimeter fencing and around the animal pens, 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 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:

Birds:
• Chicken (Gallus gallus
domesticus)
• Peacock (Pavo cristatus)
• Common yellowthroat
(Geothypis trichas)
• Rufous-crowned sparrow
(Aimophila ruficeps)
• Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte
anna)
• American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos)
• American Kestrel (Falco
sparverius)
• Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes
bewickii)
• Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides
nuttallii)
• California towhee (Melozone
crissalis)
• California quail (Callipepla
californica)
• Black phoebe (Sayornis
nigricans)
• Spotted towhee (Pipilo
maculatus)
• Northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos)
• house finch (Haemorhous
mexicanus)
• mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura)
• American bushtit (Psaltriparus
mimimus)
• song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia)
• Red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis)
• turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
• yellow warbler (Setophaga
petechia)
• Great horned Owl (Bubo
virginianus)
• Barn owl (Tyto alba)
• Lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria)
• Song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia)
• Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria
virens)
• Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
Reptiles:
• western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
421
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
August 30, 2024

Page 5 ends

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Mammals
• California ground squirrel (Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi) Conclusion
No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed on site within the Study Area during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site is characterized by vegetated ruderal and disturbed/developed habitats and contains suitably sized burrows and satellite burrows to provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW. Much of the buffer area is developed or consists of the Santa Ana River. 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). Therefore, based on the focused surveys it is determined the Project site is not occupied by BUOW.

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: 08/30/2024 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
422
Figures
423
^_
Approximate Project Location
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 10,000 feet
0 2,500 5,000 10,000 15,000
Feet Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024 Regional Map
FIGURE 1
424
Legend
Project Boundary
500-Foot Buffer
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 250 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 2
Project Location Map
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024
425
Attachment A:

Site Photographs
426
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 Most of the Project site consists of disturbed/developed and ruderal habitat.

The Project site is regularly mowed. Two residential homes occur on the Project site. 427
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 Suitable burrows were observed within the Project Site.

Suitable burrows were observed around the fences.
428
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 Some burrows were observed within the flat ruderal areas.

Some burrows were observed along the driveway.
429
PLN24-20053 – Warmington Residential
City of Eastvale
APPENDIX B-2

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY

MSHCP CONSISTENCY

DETERMINATION
430

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION

SEC ARCHIBALD AND GRAPEWIN PROJECT

Submitted Pursuant to MSHCP
Section 6.1.2 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools;
Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Surveys; and
Section 6.3.2 Species Survey Requirements.

Prepared for:

Warmington Residential
Greg Ocasek
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Prepared by:

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Tel: (949) 542-7042

January 31, 2025
431
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page i January 2025
Table of Contents
I. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1 II. Definition of Project Area.................................................................................................... 1 III. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 4 IV. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 4 V. Environmental Setting.......................................................................................................12 A. Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................12 B. Soils....................................................................................................................................12 C. Topography and Hydrology..........................................................................................13 D. Plant Communities..........................................................................................................13 E. Other MSHCP Sections ..................................................................................................16 VI. Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................................16 A. Section 6.1.2 -- Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas..19

1. Description and Quantification of Unavoidable Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas............................................................................................................................19

2. Impacts to Species Protected under Section 6.1.2 ..............................................19

3. Vernal Pools................................................................................................................19 B. Section 6.1.3 – Narrow Endemic Plants .......................................................................20 C. Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface ....................................................................21 D. Section 6.3.2 -- Species Survey Requirements...........................................................21 VII. Description of Avoidance, Mitigation Measures and Consistency............................22 VIII. Certification.........................................................................................................................27 IX. List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................27 X. References...........................................................................................................................28 TABLES
Table 1. Vegetation Communities Observed Onsite..........................................................13 Table 2. Proposed Vegetation Communities Impacts ........................................................17

FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Map .............................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map.................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: MSHCP Overlays......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Vegetation Mapping................................................................................................14 Figure 6: Soil Mapping .............................................................................................................15 Figure 7: Vegetation Impacts ..................................................................................................18 432
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page ii January 2025
Executive Summary
The SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project proposes to construct residential units with associated streets and infrastructure on the approximately 8-acre site. The Project site consists of ruderal and disturbed/developed vegetation communities.

The Project site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east.

The Project is located within the Eastvale Area Plan of the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP); however, the Project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits. The Project is not located within any Reserve Features (Core, Linkage, Public/Quasi Public Land etc.). However, the Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is designated as a wildlife corridor known as Existing Core A within the MSHCP. MSHCP Existing Core A consists of Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River and functions as a linage, connecting Orange County to the west with San Bernardino County to the north. The Existing Core A is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and agricultural use, and planned land uses surrounding the Core exists largely of high impact land uses such as city and community development.

Therefore, the Project is subject to:
• Riparian and Riverine Areas (Section 6.1.2)
• Narrow Endemic Plant Survey (Section 6.1.3)
• Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (Section 6.1.4)
• Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) (Section 6.3.2) No MSHCP riparian/riverine features occur onsite, therefore no Determination of Biologically Superior or Equivalent Preservation (DBESP) is required.

Furthermore, no MSHCP sensitive species associated with riparian/riverine areas protected under Section 6.1.2 were observed during the field surveys and no suitable habitat occurs for Section 6.1.2 plant and wildlife species. The proposed project is consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.

Portions of the Project site are located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA) Number 7, which include the following target species:
433
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page iii January 2025
• San Diego ambrosia
• Brand's phacelia
• San Miguel savory
No special status plant species were observed during the 2024 focused 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 and no mitigation required. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.1.3.

The Project site is not designated as an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area or Core Linkage areas. However, the Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is designated as a wildlife corridor known as Existing Core A within the MSHCP. MSHCP Existing Core A consists of Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River and functions as a linage, connecting Orange County to the west with San Bernardino County to the north. The Existing Core A is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and agricultural use, and planned land uses surrounding the Core exists largely of high impact land uses such as city and community development.

The Project site is composed of large spans of ruderal and disturbed habitat lacking suitable cover and resources that are typically associated with wildlife movement areas (i.e. water). Furthermore, the Project site is located at a substantially higher elevation than the Existing Core A of the MSHCP. The Project site currently includes several residential homes and fenced animal pens. Furthermore, north, west, and south of the Project is residential development and Vantage Point Church further restricting any regional movement. Therefore, the Project site is not used as a wildlife corridor, linkage, or specific travel route to and from nursery sites other important resources.

However, due to the adjacency to Existing Core A and preserving the highquality riparian habitat found within the Santa Ana River, the Project site may have indirect impact to the Existing Core A due to noise and or lighting.

Therefore, the Project would adhere to the urban/wildland guidelines interface for the management of edge factors.

The site was evaluated for suitable burrowing owl habitat pursuant to Section

6.3.2, Species Survey Requirements. It is determined the Project site is not occupied by BUOW. No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed within 434
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page iv January 2025
the Project site during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site was characterized by ruderal fields, which may provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW but lack proper vegetation cover for the species. Much of the buffer area is developed. 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). However, a pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist 30 days prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. The proposed project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
435
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 1 January 2025

SEC ARCHIBALD AND GRAPEWIN PROJECT

Consistency Determination

Pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2: Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas
MSHCP Section 6.1.3: Narrow Endemic Plants
MSHCP Section 6.3.2: Species Survey Requirements
I. INTRODUCTION
The following Consistency Determination has been prepared by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (CSLS), pursuant to Section 6.1.2 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine areas and Vernal Pools, Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species, Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildland Guidelines Interfaceand Section 6.3.2 Species Survey Requirements of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). This report presents the findings of the Consistency Determination for the approximately 8-acre Project Site known as the SEC Archibald and Grapewin in the City of Eastvale.

II. DEFINITION OF PROJECT AREA
The proposed Project site encompasses approximately 8‐acres and is located in the City of Eastvale, California. The Project site can be found on the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) Map Corona North topographic map. The Project Site can be found within Section 00, Township 2 South, and Range 7 West. The Project Site is located is located n The Study Area is located east of Archibald Street and south of Grapewin Street. (Figures 1 and 2). The Project’s Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) includes 130-070-021, 130-070-015, and 130-080-004.

Access to the Project site is from Grapewin Street, as well as Archibald Avenue. 436
^_
Approximate Project Location
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 10,000 feet
0 2,500 5,000 10,000 15,000
Feet Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024 Regional Map
FIGURE 1
437
Legend
Project Boundary
500-Foot Buffer
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 250 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 2
Project Location Map
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024
438
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 4 January 2025
The Project site consists of several developed animal pens for goats, sheep, cattle, etc. The Project site also contains 2 residential units with a pool house, covered horse arena, and stables. Overall, the site includes developed communities and ruderal habitat consisting of non-native species. Located to the east of the Project site is the Santa Ana River. Habitat within the Santa Ana River consists of arundo thickets and southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and open water. The Santa Ana River is designated as Existing Core A wildlife corridor and core linkage area. As such the Project would adhere to the urban/wildland guidelines interface for the management of edge factors and prevent any indirect impacts.

The site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east.

The Project Study Area discussed in this analysis consists of the 8-acre Project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer area. The buffer area was evaluated for potential off-site impacts.

The Project is located within the Eastvale Area Plan of the MSHCP. The Project is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits. Portions of the Survey Area are located within MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian and Riverine Areas, Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plants, and Section 6.3.2 Species Survey Requirements for the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) habitat. The Project site is not located within MSHCP survey areas for Criteria Area Plant Species, Amphibians, Mammals, Wildland corridor, or Special Linkage Areas. However, the Project is subject to adhere to the appropriate Urban/Wildland Guidelines due to the adjacency of the Santa Ana River and Existing Core A to prevent any indirect impacts.

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As shown in Figure 3, the Project proposes to construct 76 single-family lots, open space lots, water quality basins, and landscape. All development is anticipated to occur on the Project site, and no direct impacts to the Santa Ana River is anticipated.

IV. METHODOLOGY
The Project site is located within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), but is not located within any Criteria Cells, Cell Groups, or Subunits. Portions of the Project Study Area are located within the 439
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 5 January 2025
survey areas for narrow endemic plants and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (Figure 4).

A number of these species have survey requirements based on a project’s occurrence within a designated MSHCP survey area and/or based on the presence of suitable habitat. These include:
• Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2); • Species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats, including least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, and three species of listed fairy shrimp (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2);
• Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.3), as identified by the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA); • Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (MSHCP Section

6.1.4);
• Criteria Area Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2) identified by the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas (CAPSSA);
• animal species (BUOW, mammals, amphibians) identified by survey areas (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2); and
• Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C ).

An additional 28 species (MSHCP Volume I, Table 9.3) not yet adequately conserved have species-specific objectives for the species to become adequately conserved. However, these species do not have project-specific survey requirements.

The Western Riverside County Resource Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Application website was reviewed to verify any overlays that may occur on the Project site.

Biologists and Regulatory Specialists from Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (CSLS) conducted site-specific surveys on the Study Area. Surveys included a general biological survey, vegetation mapping, a habitat assessment and focused burrowing owl survey, general plant survey, and a delineation of any jurisdictional waters and wetlands. The survey was conducted on the Project site by CSLS biologists. Findings from the field surveys conducted on March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 8, 2024 are included in the Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project prepared by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions dated August, 2024 (January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment).
440
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 6 January 2025
CSLS conducted biological studies in three main components in order to identify and evaluate actual or potential impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed Project, including: (1) vegetation mapping; (2) site-specific biological surveys to evaluate the presence/absence of specialstatus species (or potentially suitable habitat) to the satisfaction of the MSHCP, CEQA, and Federal and State regulations; and (3) delineation of aquatic resources (including wetlands/riparian habitat) subject to the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site is not located within lands identified as Reserve Linkage or a Core area. However, the Project is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River which is designated as Existing Core A. Therefore, analysis and adherence of Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines is warranted.

Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for criteria area species. No additional surveys are required.

Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for amphibians. No additional surveys are required.

Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for mammals. No additional surveys are required.

Since the Project is located within the MSHCP, Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C ) will be implemented as part of Project Design features in order to be consistent with the MSHCP.

Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site is subject to Consistency Analysis with MSHCP Sections 6.1.2 (Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), 6.1.3 (Narrow Endemic Plants), 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines), and 6.3.2 (Special Survey Requirements).

441
442
Legend
Project Boundary
MSHCP Overlays
Burrowing Owl
Narrow Endemic Plants
(San Diego ambrosia, Brand's
phacelia, San Miguel savory)
MSHCP Conserved Public/QuasiPublic Lands - Existing Core A I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 600 feet
0 150 300 600 900 1,200
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 4
MSHCP Overlays
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: January 2025
Project
Site
443
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 9 January 2025
The field studies focused on a number of primary objectives that would satisfy the special provisions of the MSHCP and also comply with CEQA requirements, including: (1) general reconnaissance surveys and vegetation mapping; (2) general wildlife surveys; (3) habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status plants; (4) habitat assessments and focused biological surveys for special-status animals (including species designated by MSHCP survey areas); (5) wildlife movement analysis; (6) assessments of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats; and (7) delineation of areas subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW. Observations of plant and wildlife species were recorded during the survey.

The January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment evaluates individual plants and animal species based on their special-status. For the purpose of the Biological Assessment, plants were considered special-status based on one or more of the following criteria:
• Listing through the Federal and/or State Endangered Species Act (ESA); • Occurrence in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (List 1B, 2, 3, or 4);
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Global/State Rankings; and/or
• Evaluation and coverage under the MSHCP.

Prior to conducting fieldwork, pertinent literature on the flora of the region was examined. A thorough archival review was conducted using available literature and other historical records. These resources included, but were not limited to, the following: CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California [CNPS 2024]; CNDDB for the Corona North and surrounding USGS quadrangle maps (CNDDB 2024); and MSHCP Document, including Sections 6.1.2, Section

6.1.3, and 6.3.2; and Table 9.3 (Riverside County Integrated Project 2003).

Vegetation communities were characterized utilizing vegetation alliances in accordance with The Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCVII) (Sawyer et al. 2009). Where necessary, deviations were made when areas did not fit into exact habitat descriptions provided by MCVII. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 200-scale (1"=200') aerial photograph.

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 444
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 10 January 2025
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 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 Study Area was evaluated to determine the limits of (1) Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA; (2) RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Porter-Cologne; (3) CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code; and (4) MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Suspected wetland habitats on the Project site and surrounding buffer area were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the Corps’ 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Wetland Manual) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region Version 2.0 (Arid West Supplement) and according to the March 2023 definition of Waters of the US. While in the field, the limits of MSHCP Features were recorded onto a 200-scale color aerial photograph using visible landmarks and limits of jurisdiction were recorded with a Trimble R1 Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver with ARC Collector application with sub-meter accuracy.

Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plants
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.
445
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 11 January 2025
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
Section 6.3.2 Special Survey Requirements
The CNDDB and MSHCP were initially consulted to determine known occurrences of special- status animals in the region. Based on this information, a list of target animal species (including their suitable habitats) was developed and incorporated into a survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) prepare a detailed faunal compendium; and (2) implement general reconnaissance field work and focused surveys to document the distribution and abundance of the special-status animal species within the Study Area.

The Study Area was evaluated for suitable burrowing owl habitat, and where present, focused surveys were conducted for the burrowing owl to satisfy the requirements of the MSHCP and CEQA.

General Biological Surveys
Wildlife species were evaluated and detected during field surveys by sight, call, tracks, and scat. Site reconnaissance was conducted in such a manner as to allow inspection of the Study Area by direct observation, including the use of binoculars. Observations of physical evidence and direct sightings of wildlife were recorded in field notes during each visit. A complete list of wildlife species observed within the Study Area is provided in the June 2024 Biological 446
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 12 January 2025
Resource Assessment. Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow the Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species in California (CDFW 2023), Standard Common and Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians 6th Edition, Collins and Taggert (2009) for amphibians and reptiles, and the AOU Checklist (2010) for birds. The methodology (including any applicable survey protocols) utilized to conduct the focused surveys or the habitat assessments for special-status animals is included below.

Wildlife Movement Analysis
In order to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed Project on wildlife movement, an analysis of wildlife use/movement was conducted for the Study 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 observations of mammal tracks and scat.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Existing Conditions
The Project site consists of several developed animal pens for goats, sheep, cattle, etc. The Project site also contains 2 residential units with a pool house, covered horse arena, and stables. Overall, the site includes developed communities and ruderal habitat consisting of non-native species. Located to the east of the Project site is the Santa Ana River. Habitat within the Santa Ana River consists of arundo thickets and southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and open water.

The site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east.

B. Soils
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service lists five soil types (series) for the Project site (Figure 6). Please see below for the following soil type, which was used to determine the possibility for sensitive wildlife and plant species. No unique soil types as identified by the 447
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 13 January 2025
MSHCP, such as clays for vernal pools or soils for sensitive or rare plants, exist on the Project site. Furthermore, no soils that would potentially provide hydrophilic soils for vernal pools occur onsite.

The following soil types are mapped within the Study Area and shown on Figure 6:
• Grangeville sandy loam, sandy substratum, drained, saline-alkali , 0 to 5 percent slopes (GsB)
• Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent slopes (GuB)
• Pachappa fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (PaA) • Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (ReC2) • Terrace escarpments (TeG)
C. Topography and Hydrology
The Project site does not contain any jurisdictional features. Santa Ana River occurs to the east of the Project site within the 500-foot buffer and is considered Waters of the State and Waters of the United States, as regulated by CDFW, RWQCB, and the Corps. No impacts are anticipated to occur to Santa Ana River due to Project implementation.

D. Plant Communities
Several plant communities were observed within the Study Area. The acreages of plant communities are shown in Table 1 and depicted in Figure 5. Site photographs are included within the January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment also provide representative photographs of site conditions.

Table 1. Vegetation Community Observed Onsite
Vegetation Community
Acreage within the Project
site (acres)
Ruderal 1.64
Disturbed/Developed 6.66
TOTAL 8.30
The general description of the habitat observed during the field survey are described below.
448
Legend
Project Boundary
Vegetation Community
Ruderal
Disturbed/Developed
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 5
Vegetation Community Mapping
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: June 20, 2024
Sana Ana River
449
Legend
Project Boundary
Soil Type
Grangeville sandy loam,
sandy substratum, drained,
saline-alkali , 0 to 5 percent
slopes (GsB)
Grangeville fine sandy
loam, poorly drained,
saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent
slopes (GuB)
Pachappa fine sandy loam,
0 to 2 percent slopes (PaA)
Ramona very fine sandy
loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes,
eroded (ReC2)
Terrace escarpments (TeG)
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 6
Soils Map
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: June 20, 2024
Sana Ana River
450
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 16 January 2025
Ruderal
The Project site contains portions of the ruderal vegetation community. These areas are regularly mowed and maintained. The vegetation within this area is comprised of predominantly of summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Other species include tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), canary island date palm (Phoenix canariensis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), wall barley (Hordeum murinum), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), bristly ox tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), storksbill (Erodium moschatum), lemon trees (Citrus limon), oleander (Nerium oleander), prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), and red brome (Bromus rubens).

Disturbed/Developed
The developed areas include animal pens, previously used equestrian corals and arena, residential homes, horse stalls, and animal pens. Ornamental species occur within this community and include Russian thistle (Salsola australis), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), mustard, tocalote, carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), pine tree (Pinus ssp.),a single cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia), and canary island date palm.
500-foot Buffer Area
Areas found to the north and west of the Project site are developed with singlefamily residential developments. To the south is developed with Vantage Point Church. To the east of the Project site is Santa Ana River.

E. Other MSHCP Sections
Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site is not:
• within a predetermined Survey Area for mammals. No additional surveys are required.

Since the Project is located within the MSHCP, Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C ) will be implemented as part of Project Design features in order to be consistent with the MSHCP.

VI. IMPACT ANALYSIS
Proposed impacts to vegetation communities are summarized in Table 2 below.

The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on the proposed Project development plan (Figure 3) and the biological values of the habitat and/or sensitivity of plant and wildlife species to be affected. Any recommended 451
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 17 January 2025
mitigation measures to address impacts are discussed below, along with compliance of existing regulations. Based on the preliminary plans, the following vegetation impacts are anticipated (Figure 7). The Project site heavily disturbed/developed with Ruderal habitat, therefore, impacts as a result of Project implementation are to common vegetation species.

Table 2. Proposed Vegetation Communities Impacts
Vegetation Community
Existing Vegetation
(acres)
Impacts
(acres)
Avoided
(acres)
Ruderal 1.64 1.23 0.41
Disturbed/Developed 6.66 6.65 0.01
TOTAL 8.30 7.88 0.42
452
Legend
Project Boundary
Project Impact Boundary
Development Footprint
Vegetation Community
Ruderal
Disturbed/Developed
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200
Feet Bing Map
Adkan Engineers (08/30/2024)
Data Source:

FIGURE 7
Vegetation Impact Map
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: August 30, 2024
Sana Ana River
453
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 19 January 2025
A. Section 6.1.2 -- Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas

1. Description and Quantification of Unavoidable Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas
No MSHCP Riverine/Riparian features occur onsite. The offsite MSHCP Riverine/Riparian will not be impacted due to Project implementation.

2. Impacts to Species Protected under Section 6.1.2
No Riverine/Riparian habitat occurs onsite and no Section 6.1.2 special status plants were detected. 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. However, The Project site is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is suitable habitat for Section 6.1.2 Sensitive Avian Species. Implementation of the Project may indirectly impact these Section 6.1.2 Sensitive Avian Species during breeding season should construction take place during the typical nesting season.

3. Vernal Pools
No evidence of vernal pools, seasonal depressions, seasonally inundated road ruts or other wetland features were recorded on the Project Site. Vernal pools are depressions in areas where a hard-underground layer prevents rainwater from draining downward into the subsoils. When rain fills the pools in the winter and spring, the water collects and remains in the depressions. In the springtime, the water gradually evaporates away, until the pools became completely dry in the summer and fall. Vernal pools tend to have an impermeable layer that results in ponded water. The soil texture (the amount of sand, silt, and clay particles) typically contains higher amounts of fine silts and clays with lower percolation rates. Pools that retain water for a sufficient length of time will develop hydric cells. Hydric cells form when the soil is saturated from flooding for extended periods of time and anaerobic conditions (lacking oxygen or air) develop.

No indication of clay substrates or hydric soils were documented within the Project Site. Furthermore, a review of prior google aerials was reviewed to determine if inundated features were present during years of high rainfall when features would certainly be documented. Aerials taken in 2011 represent an ideal baseline during which known (previously documented) inundated vernal pools, seasonal depressions and road ruts can easily be seen. No sign or indication of inundation was documented within the Project Site during a review of historic aerials.
454
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 20 January 2025
In summary, none of the conditions (i.e., no inundated depressions including road ruts, hydric soils, historic inundation, etc.) were observed on documented within the Project site. No features are present that would support fairy shrimp.

No standing water or other sign of areas that pond water was observed onsite.

B. Section 6.1.3 – Narrow Endemic Plants
The Project site is located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) Number 7 overlay, which include the following target species:
• San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1, federally endangered 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 surveys and focused narrow endemic plant surveys. • Brand’s Star Phacelia (Phacelia stellaris)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1
Habitat(s): Habitats supporting coastal dunes and coastal scrub Known from below 1 to 400 meters (5 to 1,310 feet) MSL. Blooms March through June.

Status onsite: None. None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field surveys and focused narrow endemic plant surveys. • San Miguel Savory (Clinopodium chandleri)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2
Habitat(s): Rocky areas in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. Soils include rocky and gabbroic substrates. Known from 120 - 1075 meters (395 - 3525 feet) MSL.

Blooms March through July.

Status onsite: None. None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field surveys and focused narrow endemic plant surveys.

Several rare plant surveys were conducted during the blooming periods of the identified species above. No special status plant species were observed during the focused 2024 narrow endemic plant surveys and, and none are expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat or suitable soil found on the Project site.
455
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 21 January 2025
C. Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface
The Project site is not designated as an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area or Core Linkage areas. However, the Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is designated as a wildlife corridor known as Existing Core A within the MSHCP. MSHCP Existing Core A consists of Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River and functions as a linage, connecting Orange County to the west with San Bernardino County to the north. The Existing Core A is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and agricultural use, and planned land uses surrounding the Core exist largely of high impact land uses such as city and community development.

However, indirect impacts may occur due to the adjacency to the Existing Core A.

D. Section 6.3.2 -- Species Survey Requirements
Per the MSHCP BUOW Survey Instructions, a Habitat Assessment was conducted on March 28, 2024 to determine any suitable BUOW habitat onsite.

Burrows were observed onsite along the fence line as well as debris piles.

Following the habitat assessment, additional focused surveys took place on June 11, June 25, July 16 and August 8, 2024 as identified within January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment. 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%, or extreme temperatures.

No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed on site within the Study Area during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site is characterized by vegetated ruderal and disturbed/developed habitats and contains suitably sized burrows and satellite burrows to provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW. Much of the buffer area is developed or is consists of the Santa Ana River. California ground squirrels and their burrows were observed within the 456
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 22 January 2025
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). Therefore, based on the focused surveys it is determined the Project site is not occupied by BUOW. The Project is considered consistent with MSHCP Guidelines. Additional information can be found in the Biological Report.

VII. DESCRIPTION OF AVOIDANCE, MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONSISTENCY 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 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.

No MSHCP Riparian/Riverine features occur onsite. The Santa Ana River occurs to the east of the Project site within the 500-foot buffer that 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. Specifically, the Project site lacks suitable soils, sign of inundation (seasonal depression, soil cracking, etc.) and/or characteristic vernal pool plant species, no suitable habitat for fairy shrimp is present onsite. The Project site is dominated by well drained substrates and focused surveys for fairy shrimp are not warranted.

No impacts are anticipated to occur to the offsite drainage due to Project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation is required, and no Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is required. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section

6.1.2. However, during construction of the Project, indirect short-term noise impacts could temporarily affect Section 6.1.2 species heard and identified to occur within the Santa Ana River during breeding season, including the yellowbreasted chat and yellow warbler, both of which were heard within the Santa 457
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 23 January 2025
Ana River during the biological field surveys. As outlined within January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment Mitigation Measure Bio – 3 (MM BIO-3) is proposed to ensure that activities affecting potential nesting habitat are restricted to periods outside of the avian breeding season or, where activities must occur, pre-activity surveys and avoidance measures are implemented.

MM BIO-3 Prior to ground disturbances that would impact potentially suitable nesting habitat for avian species, the Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to the extent feasible to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds and/or ground nesters.

2. Any construction activities that occur during typical nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) will require that all suitable habitat, on-site and within 300-feet surrounding the site (as feasible), be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement ground disturbances.

If active nests are identified, the biologist would establish buffers around the vegetation (500 feet for raptors and sensitive species, 200 feet for non-raptors/non-sensitive species). All work within these buffers would be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e. the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The onsite biologist would review and verify compliance with these nesting boundaries and would verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume within these areas when no other active nests are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that construction can be permitted within the buffer areas and would develop a monitoring plan to prevent any impacts while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up
construction avoidance management, a report shall be prepared and submitted to City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.
458
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 24 January 2025
Portions of the Project site are located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA) Number 7, which include the following target species:
• San Diego ambrosia
• Brand's phacelia
• San Miguel savory
No special status plant species were observed during the 2024 focused 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 and no mitigation required. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.1.3.

Indirect Project impacts by themselves would not be expected to interfere with the wildlands interface within the region; however, the due to the Santa Ana River being designated as the Existing Core A, the following Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines will be implemented through the participation in the MSHCP and implemented through the Conditions of Approval. No direct impacts are proposed within the Existing Core A.

Water Quality/Hydrology
The Project will comply with all applicable water quality regulations and Best Management Practices as part of prepared Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the Project and required by Conditions of Approval.

Toxics
Toxic sources within the Project Site would be limited to those commonly associated with landscape activities such as pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The Project will comply with all applicable water quality regulations to ensure adequate long-term treatment.

Lighting
Night lighting associated with the proposed Project site improvements that are adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Existing Core A would be directed away to reduce potential indirect impacts to wildlife species.
459
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 25 January 2025
Noise
The Project site impacts are limited to the western portion of the site, which is adjacent to Archibald Street therefore, already subject to ambient roadway noise. Short-term construction related noise impacts will be reduced by the implementation of the following as implemented within the Conditions of Approval:
• During all Project Site excavation and construction on-site, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site, which includes the Santa Ana River. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels according to the construction hours.

Invasive Species
As part of Project design, the landscape plans do not utilize any invasive species adjacent to the Santa Ana River/Existing Core A.

Implementation of the aforementioned guidelines will minimize Project indirect impacts to a less than significant level and would be consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.1.4.

Furthermore, based on the Habitat Assessment and focused burrowing owl surveys it is determined the Project site is not occupied by BUOW. No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed within the Project site during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site was characterized by ruderal fields, which may provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW but lack proper vegetation cover for the species. Much of the buffer area is developed. 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).

Due to the negative results of the focused surveys and with the City’s participation in the MSHCP, a BUOW pre-construction survey outlined within the January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment Mitigation Measure BIO-4 460
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 26 January 2025
(MM BIO-4) will be required to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined within the MSHCP.

MM BIO-4: 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.

Therefore, with the implementation of the Mitigation Measure the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.3.2.

Since the Project is located within the MSHCP, Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C ) will be implemented as part of Project Design features in order to be consistent with the MSHCP.
461
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 27 January 2025
VIII. CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attachments present the 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
Signature: _____________________________________________ Date: 01/31/2025 IX. LIST OF PREPARERS
This report was prepared by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions:
- Peter Carlson, President
- Brianna Bernard, Project Manager and Biologist
462
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 28 January 2025
X. REFERENCES
American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Checklist of North American Birds, Seventh Edition. American Orinthologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Accessed using the AOU website at
http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/
California Department of Fish and Game. 2024. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species in California. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California.

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. (Sixth Edition). Rare Plant Advisory Committee, David P.

Tibor, Convening Editor, California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California, 388 pp.

California Native Plant Society. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Accessible online at http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgibin/inv/inventory.cgi Carlson Strategic Land Solutions. January 2025. Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project.

Collins, Joseph T. and Travis W. Taggart. 2009. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians. Sixth Edition. Publication of The Center For North American Herpetology, Lawrence. iv +44p.

Haug, E.A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.:

The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Hickman, J.C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.

University of California Press. 1,400 pp.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. 1,086 pp. Nelson, J. 1984. Rare plant survey guidelines. In: Inventory of 463
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 29 January 2025
rare and endangered vascular plants of Californa. J. Smith and R. York (eds). Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society.

Roberts, F.M., S.D. White, A.C. Sanders, D.E. Bramlet, and S. Boyd. 2004. The Vascular Plants of Western Riverside County, California, An Annotated Checklist. F.M. Roberts Publications. 192 pp.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp.
464
PLN24-20053 – Warmington Residential
City of Eastvale

APPENDIX C

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES

ASSESSMENT AND BUILT

ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION

465
VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.218.2442 | vcsenvironmental.com November 19, 2024 (Revised January 30, 2025)
Greg Ocasek
Warmington Residential - Southern California Division
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Subject: Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Built Environment Evaluation, Eastvale Grapewin. Archaeological and Paleontological Records Searches, NAHC Sacred Land File Search, Built Environment Evaluation Memorandum Dear Mr. Ocasek:

This Memorandum summarizes Archaeological and Paleontological records searches, an NAHC Sacred Lands File search, a pedestrian survey, and a built environment evaluation for the Eastvale Grapewin Project in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California.

As shown in Figure 1 below, the proposed Project site is located in Section 2 of Township 3 South, Range 7 West on the USGS Corona North, CA 7.5’ Quadrangle Map. Figure 2 is an aerial depicting the Project site.

Cultural Resources Records Search
A California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) record search was requested of the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University on September 4, 2024 (Attachment A). Prior to the request, we learned that the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside had recently closed permanently and that both Universities and the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) are working collaboratively to ensure that the records are transferred as efficiently and quickly as possible to the SCIC.

We received the following statement from Jaime Lennox at the SCIC on September 20, 2024. This statement is what the SCIC is currently sending to those requesting records searches:

The SCIC is taking on the Riverside County portion of the EIC's archive. At this time, we are able to offer PDF copies of Riverside reports and resource records as well as database output.

WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO RIVERSIDE MAPS and there is no GIS data available.

Maps will only be available once we receive the full Riverside archive. We do not know when we'll be receiving Riverside County materials but once received, we will 466
November 19, 2024 (Revised January 20, 2025)

Page 2 of 6 ends

VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.489.0309 | vcsenvironmental.com make everything available to clients ASAP including for in-house search appointments.

We've recently updated our website to accept Riverside staff conducted records search requests, site forms, and reports, however we are not processing Riverside requests until we receive the Riverside archive.

Please note that we cannot provide expected turnaround times for requests at this time. Once we receive the Riverside archive, clients can anticipate longer than normal processing times as the EIC already had a processing queue ahead of closing.

Update: Jaime Lennox, SCIC Coordinator, informed us on November 12, 2024 that the Riverside archive was finally received this week, and we can expect our request to be completed and returned to us in approximately one month as the SCIC is working through a backlog of records search requests.

Paleontological Resources Records Search
Brittney Stoneburg, Collections Manager at the Western Science Center (WSC) in Hemet, completed a paleontological records search on October 21, 2024 (Attachment B) that determined no paleontological resources are recorded on the Project Site, nor within a one-mile radius, but the WSC does have fossil localities within similarly mapped units across southern California.

The geologic units underlying the Project site consist of Holocene and Pleistocene age alluvial deposits. Pleistocene alluvial units are highly paleontologically sensitive; therefore, any fossil material recovered from this project would likely be scientifically significant. The WSC, therefore, recommends requiring the preparation of a paleontological resource mitigation program to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils from the Project site (Stoneburg 2024).

Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File Search The Native American Heritage Commission responded to our Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request on September 17, 2024 (Green 2024). The results of the NAHC’s SLF search are negative for the presence of sacred lands in the vicinity of the Project site (refer to Attachment C); however, the absence of specific cultural resources information does not necessarily indicate the absence of such resources on the Project site.

The NAHC identified 45 individuals from 24 Tribes as having traditional lands or cultural places in the vicinity. Please refer to Attachment C for the complete list. 467
VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.489.0309 | vcsenvironmental.com November 19, 2024 (Revised January 20, 2025)

Page 3 of 6 ends

Built Environment Evaluation – Urbana Preservation and Planning Urbana Preservation and Planning conducted an evaluation of the project site’s built environment (Baker & Kupel 2024). The site contains fourteen buildings and structures built after World War II and before 2003. The property was evaluated as not eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources and, therefore, does not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA. No mitigation measures are recommended. Refer to Attachment D.

Summary/Recommended Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Despite the largely built nature of the Project site, it does not appear to have been graded— particularly in the western and southern portions of the Project site. Because of the proximity of the Santa Ana River that attracted precontact populations, and the presence of known archaeological sites nearby along the river, archaeological monitoring of grading for the project is recommended.

Recommended Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to develop and implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP). The CRMP shall address the details of all monitoring activities and procedures to be followed to reduce the impacts to cultural and historic resources to a less than significant level as well as address potential impacts to undiscovered buried archaeological resources associated with this project. The CRMP shall be reviewed by the consulting Tribe and reviewed and approved by the City.

CUL-2: The Project applicant shall provide Native American monitoring during grading if the Lead Agency determines it is necessary. If applicable, the Native American monitor shall work in concert with the archaeological monitor to observe ground disturbances and search for cultural materials. The Lead Agency shall coordinate with the consulting Tribe(s) to facilitate communications with the Project developer/applicant so that all Parties can develop a mutually-acceptable Tribal Monitoring and Treatment Agreement which includes the scope of monitoring, scheduling of monitors from individual consulting Tribe(s), and the course of action for inadvertent discoveries.

CUL-3: The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. 468
VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.489.0309 | vcsenvironmental.com November 19, 2024 (Revised January 30, 2025)

Page 4 of 6 ends

CUL-4: The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

1. During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological and Tribal monitors (if applicable) shall be on-site, as determined by the consulting archaeologist, to monitor excavations. The frequency of inspections will depend upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The consulting archaeologist shall have the authority to modify the monitoring program if the potential for cultural resources appears to be less than anticipated.

2. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field so the monitored grading can proceed.

3. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the Lead Agency at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead Agency, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Lead Agency must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be implemented by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the Lead Agency before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the county coroner and Lead Agency shall be contacted. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant (as identified by the NAHC) shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains.

4. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered, and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. The Project archaeologist in consultation with the consulting Tribe(s) shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis.

CUL-5: One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be used in the event of a cultural resources discovery:

1. Preservation-in-Place. Avoidance, or preservation-in-place, involves leaving a resource where it was found with no development affecting its integrity. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological and cultural resources.

2. Reburial on the Project site in an area not subject to future disturbance. Reburial of a resource shall include provisions to protect the selected reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all required cataloging and basic recording have been completed, with the exception of sacred items, burial goods and Native 469
November 19, 2024 (Revised January 30, 2025)

Page 5 of 6 ends

VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.489.0309 | vcsenvironmental.com American human remains. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. The listing of contents and the location of the reburial shall be included in a confidential Phase IV monitoring report.

3. If Preservation-in-Place or reburial is not feasible, all cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository standards in a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources (OHP 1993). The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title and accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.

CUL-6: A Phase IV Monitoring Report, documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context, shall be completed and submitted to the satisfaction of the Lead Agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report will include DPR Primary and Archaeological Site Forms. The Phase IV report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request and a copy of the report shall be submitted to the consulting Tribe(s).

Paleontological Resources
Deep excavations that extend down into paleontologically sensitive formations could uncover significant fossil remains. Therefore, paleontological monitoring is recommended to be conducted in the documented Pleistocene alluvial sediments during grading and trenching operations to recover any fossil remains quickly and professionally so as not impeding development. Sediment samples should be collected and processed as necessary to determine the small fossil potential in the proposed project area.

Recommended Paleontological Mitigation Measures:

PAL-1: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the project Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City, that the Applicant has retained a qualified paleontologist to develop and implement a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) to guide monitoring procedures and establish protocols to follow in the event of a fossil discovery. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference, shall describe procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish in the PRIMP, in cooperation with the Applicant and City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.

PAL-2: If paleontological resources are uncovered and after completion of the project, the Applicant shall submit the paleontologist’s follow-up report for approval by the City. The report shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and the present repository of the fossils. The Applicant’s qualified paleontologist shall prepare excavated material to the point 470
November 19, 2024 (Revised January 30, 2025)

Page 6 of 6 ends

VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.489.0309 | vcsenvironmental.com of identification. The Applicant shall offer excavated finds for curatorial purposes to the City or its designee, on a first refusal basis. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to approval by the City. Applicant shall make a one-time payment of curatorial fees for the storage of these resources in perpetuity.

The City of Eastvale may have standard mitigation measures that it may wish to use for cultural and paleontological resources monitoring that would be acceptable if the spirit of the above recommended measures is retained.

Please contact Patrick Maxon at [email protected] or 949.234.6077 should you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Patrick Maxon, M.A., RPA
Director, Cultural Services
References
Baker, Alexandrea and Douglas Kupel
2024 Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) Memorandum | 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale, California.

Green, Andrew
2024 Eastvale Grapewin Project, Riverside County, Sacred Lands File Search and Tribal Consultation list. Native American Heritage Commission, Sacramento.

Stoneburg, Brittney
2024 Results of a Records Search for the Eastvale Grapewin project, Western Science Center, Hemet.

Enclosures (3)
• Attachment A: South Coastal Information Center, California Historic Resources Information Center Records Search (submitted separately)
• Attachment B: Western Science Center, Hemet, Paleontology Records Search • Attachment C: Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search and Tribal Contacts List • Attachment D: Urbana Preservation and Planning, Built Environment Evaluation 471
VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.489.0309 | vcsenvironmental.com

CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT A
South Coastal Information Center
California Historic Resources Records Search

NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
Submitted as a separate document on January 8, 2025
472
VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.489.0309 | vcsenvironmental.com

ATTACHMENT B
Western Science Center
Paleontological Records Search
473
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org October 21st, 2024
Patrick O. Maxon
VCS Environmental
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Dear Mr. Maxon,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Eastvale Grapewin Project located in the city of Eastvale, Riverside County, California. The project area is located along Archibald Avenue at the southeast corner of Grapewin Street on Township 3 South, Range 7 West, on an unsectioned portion of the Corona North CA USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.

The geologic units underlying the project are composed of alluvial deposits from the Holocene and Pleistocene epochs (Morton and Miller 2006). Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be highly paleontologically sensitive. The Western Science Center does not have any localities within the project area or a 1 mile radius, but does have localities within similarly mapped units across Southern California.

Any fossil specimens recovered from the Eastvale Grapewin Project would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene units, and it is the recommendation of the Western Science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils from the study area.

If you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Brittney Elizabeth Stoneburg, MSc
Collections Manager
474
475
VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.489.0309 | vcsenvironmental.com

ATTACHMENT C
Native American Heritage Commission
Sacred Lands File Search and Tribal Contacts List
476
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 1 ends

September 17, 2024
Patrick O. Maxon
VCS Environmental
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Eastvale Grapewin Project, Riverside County
To Whom It May Concern:

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
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
477
Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address Cultural Affiliation Last Updated Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians F Lacy Padilla, Director of Historic Preservation/THPO
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
(760) 333-5222 (760) 699-6919 [email protected] Cahuilla 1/11/2024 Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians F Tribal Operations, 84-001 Avenue 54 Coachella, CA, 92236
(760) 398-4722 [email protected] Cahuilla 4/18/2024 Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians F Doug Welmas, Chairperson 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Indio, CA, 92203
(760) 342-2593 (760) 347-7880 [email protected] Cahuilla Cahuilla Band of Indians F Erica Schenk, Chairperson 52701 CA Highway 371 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 590-0942 (951) 763-2808 [email protected] Cahuilla 2/1/2024 Cahuilla Band of Indians F BobbyRay Esparza, Cultural
Director
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla 6/28/2023 Cahuilla Band of Indians F Anthony Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla 6/28/2023 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation
N Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
(844) 390-0787 [email protected] Gabrieleno 8/18/2023 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation
N Christina Swindall Martinez,
Secretary
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
(844) 390-0787 [email protected] Gabrieleno 8/18/2023 Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians
N Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
(626) 483-3564 (626) 286-1262 [email protected] Gabrieleno 12/4/2023 Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
N Robert Dorame, Chairperson P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
(562) 761-6417 (562) 761-6417 [email protected] Gabrielino 3/16/2023 Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
N Christina Conley, Cultural
Resource Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
(626) 407-8761 [email protected]
u
Gabrielino 3/16/2023
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation N Sandonne Goad, Chairperson 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., #231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
(951) 807-0479 [email protected] Gabrielino 3/28/2023 Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe N Charles Alvarez, Chairperson 23454 Vanowen Street West Hills, CA, 91307
(310) 403-6048 [email protected] Gabrielino 5/30/2023 Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
9/17/2024
Counties
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
09/17/2024 09:00 AM
1 of 4 478
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
9/17/2024
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe N Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resource Director
P.O. Box 3919
Seal Beach, CA, 90740
(909) 262-9351 [email protected] Gabrielino 5/30/2023 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians N Sonia Johnston, Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Santa Ana, CA, 92799
[email protected] Juaneno
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation - Belardes
N Joyce Perry, Cultural Resource
Director
4955 Paseo Segovia
Irvine, CA, 92603
(949) 293-8522 [email protected] Juaneno 3/17/2023
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation 84A
N Heidi Lucero, Chairperson, THPO 31411-A La Matanza Street San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675
(562) 879-2884 [email protected] Juaneno 3/28/2023 La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians F Norma Contreras, Chairperson 22000 Highway 76 Pauma Valley, CA, 92061
(760) 742-3771 Luiseno
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño
Indians
F Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
(760) 782-0711 (760) 782-0712 Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission Indians F Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5110 (951) 755-5177 [email protected] Cahuilla Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission Indians F Ann Brierty, THPO 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5259 (951) 572-6004 [email protected] Cahuilla Serrano
Pala Band of Mission Indians F Christopher Nejo, Legal
Analyst/Researcher
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Road
Pala, CA, 92059
(760) 891-3564 [email protected] Cupeno
Luiseno
11/27/2023
Pala Band of Mission Indians F Alexis Wallick, Assistant THPO PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road
Pala, CA, 92059
(760) 891-3537 [email protected] Cupeno
Luiseno
11/27/2023
Pala Band of Mission Indians F Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Road
Pala, CA, 92059
(760) 891-3515 [email protected] Cupeno
Luiseno
11/27/2023
Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians F Temet Aguilar, Chairperson P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley, CA, 92061
(760) 742-1289 (760) 742-3422 [email protected] Luiseno Pechanga Band of Indians F Steve Bodmer, General Counsel for Pechanga Band of Indians
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
(951) 770-6171 (951) 695-1778 [email protected] Luiseno 8/2/2023 Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Orange,Riverside,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Orange,Riverside,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Orange,Riverside,San Diego
09/17/2024 09:00 AM
2 of 4 479
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
9/17/2024
Pechanga Band of Indians F Tuba Ebru Ozdil, Pechanga
Cultural Analyst
P.O. Box 2183
Temecula, CA, 92593
(951) 770-6313 (951) 695-1778 [email protected] Luiseno 8/2/2023 Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 261-0254 historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan 5/16/2023
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman -
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 210-8739 culturalcommittee@quechantribe.
com
Quechan 5/16/2023
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jordan Joaquin, President,
Quechan Tribal Council
P.O.Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(760) 919-3600 executivesecretary@quechantribe
.com
Quechan 5/16/2023
Ramona Band of Cahuilla F John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 [email protected] Cahuilla 8/16/2016 Ramona Band of Cahuilla F Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson P.O. Box 391670 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 [email protected] Cahuilla Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Denise Turner Walsh, Attorney General
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 689-5727 [email protected] Luiseno 7/7/2023
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Joseph Linton, Tribal
Council/Culture Committee
Member
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 803-3548 [email protected] Luiseno 5/31/2023 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Laurie Gonzalez, Tribal Council/Culture Committee
Member
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 484-4835 [email protected] Luiseno 5/31/2023 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Cheryl Madrigal, Cultural Resources Manager/Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 648-3000 [email protected] Luiseno 5/31/2023 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians F Steven Estrada, Tribal Chairman P.O. Box 391820 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 [email protected] Cahuilla 4/8/2024 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians F Vanessa Minott, Tribal Administrator
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 [email protected] Cahuilla 4/8/2024 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-5279 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
7/14/2023
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-6261 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
7/14/2023
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
09/17/2024 09:00 AM
3 of 4 480
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
9/17/2024
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians F Mary Belardo, Cultural Committee Vice Chair
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 [email protected] Cahuilla 10/30/2023
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians F Abraham Becerra, Cultural Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 [email protected] Cahuilla 10/30/2023
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians F Thomas Tortez, Chairperson P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 (760) 397-8146 [email protected] Cahuilla 10/30/2023 Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians F Alesia Reed, Cultural Committee Chairwoman
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 [email protected] Cahuilla 10/30/2023 Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians F Gary Resvaloso, TM MLD P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 777-0365 [email protected] Cahuilla 10/30/2023
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Eastvale Grapewin Project, Riverside County.

Record: PROJ-2024-004861
Report Type: List of Tribes
Counties: Riverside
NAHC Group: All
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
09/17/2024 09:00 AM
4 of 4 481
VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.489.0309 | vcsenvironmental.com

ATTACHMENT D
Urbana Preservation and Planning
Built Environment Evaluation
482
.

October 31, 2024
Attn: Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA
VCS Environmental
30900 Rancho Viejo Road | Suite 100 | San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) Memorandum | 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale, California.

Introduction and Purpose
The subject property at 8312 Grapewin Street and 8330 Archibald Avenue is composed of three developed parcels identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 130-070-021, 130-070-015, and 130-080-004. The property contains fourteen buildings and structures built after World War Two and before 2003. The primary structure is a Ranch style single-family home (Building 1) constructed circa 1945-1948. Building 2 is a simple single-family home, also constructed between 1945 and 1948. The pool and pool structure (Building 6) were constructed between 1945 and 1948. An ancillary structure (Building 8) and a secondary pool structure (Structure 7) were constructed between 1948 and 1959. Three ancillary structures were constructed in 1970 (Building 9, Structures 13 & 14). Two ancillary structures (Buildings 3 and 5) and a stable (Building 4) were constructed between 1994 and 1998. A barn, riding arena, and ancillary structure (Buildings 10, 11, & 12) were constructed in 2003.

The property is not located within a historic district and is not identified on the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD). The property has not been previously surveyed for eligibility under the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

This Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) Memorandum was prepared by Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC with contributions by Alexandrea Baker, MCP, and Douglas Kupel, Ph.D., RPA. Ms. Baker and Dr. Kupel exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the disciplines of history and architectural history. Preparer qualifications are included as Attachment 2.

The purpose of the HRA Memorandum is to determine the potential for the property’s eligibility under the criteria of the CRHR and to assess possible impacts to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines resultant from a proposed project.

Definition of Study Area / Area of Potential Impact
The study area encompasses the proposed project boundary which conforms to the parcel boundaries. The property is comprised of three parcels, addressed as 8312 Grapewin Street (Riverside County Assessor Parcel No. 130-070-021) and 8330 Archibald Avenue (Riverside County Assessor Parcel Nos. 130-070-015 & 130-080-004). The study area was intensively surveyed to inform historical resource identification and project impacts analysis.

A study area map is included as Figure 1 on the following page. Results are summarized in the following pages. 483
Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum | 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale Attn: Patrick O. Maxon, VCS Environmental

Page 2 of 4 ends

Figure 1. Study Area Map
Building 1: Ranch Style Single-Family Home, ca. 1945-
1948
Building 2: Single-Family Home, ca. 1945-1948
Building 3: Ancillary Structure, ca. 1994-1998
Building 4: Stable, ca. 1994-1998
Building 5: Ancillary Structure, ca. 1994-1998
Building 6: Pool Structure, ca. 1945-1948
Structure 7: Pool Shelter, ca. 1948-1959
Building 8: Ancillary Structure, ca. 1948-1959
Building 9: Ancillary Structure/Tack, ca. 1970
Building 10: Barn, ca. 2003
Structure 11: Riding Arena, ca. 2003
Building 12: Ancillary Structure, ca. 2003
Structure 13: Ancillary Structure, ca. 1970
Structure 14: Ancillary Structure, ca. 1970
Property Boundaries:
6 484
Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum | 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale Attn: Patrick O. Maxon, VCS Environmental

Page 3 of 4 ends

Intensive Level Survey Findings
The study area and subject property, 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue, is located within the Fuller Ranch subdivision. The property was originally platted circa 1942. At the time of the original development, much of the surrounding area was part of the Fuller “RanchO,” owned by O.R. Fuller. The Fuller family operated a guest house at their home that was located approximately half a mile northeast of the subject property. In the late 1930s/early 1940s, Fuller began selling parcels adjacent to the Fuller Lake, located adjacent to the Santa Ana River and likely touted as an amenity to the subdivision. The subject property was one of these lakeside properties and was originally developed with a singlefamily ranch style residence after WWII. In the following years, the property was further developed with the addition of a second single family residence, pool structures, and ancillary structures related to equestrian/agricultural uses. Based on property reports, it appears that the property was divided into three separate parcels in the 1990s.

The property has been used as a residential property for most of its history, though in recent years it has been used as an equestrian training facility and as an agricultural property. The property features fourteen buildings and structures, eight of which date to the historic era (more than 45 years of age). The builder and architect of these buildings could not be identified.

There does not appear to have been significant alterations to the property, aside from the construction of additional buildings and structures. The most significant alteration was made to the secondary residence (Building 2); the residence was enlarged, and a porch cover was constructed between 1980 and 1994. This residence has also had window replacements. The main residence (Building 1) was also reroofed and has had window replacements. Most of the buildings and structures on the property are utilitarian in form with few architectural details. The primary residence (Building 1) is a simple example of the ranch style. While Building 1 exhibits common features of the style, it does not feature any architectural details that would distinguish it from the many other ranch style homes built in Southern California at the time.

The 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue property does not qualify for designation under the CRHR. The property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage under CRHR Criterion 1. It is not associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past under CRHR Criterion 2. The property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual or possess high artistic values under CRHR Criterion 3. There does not appear to be potential to yield information important in prehistory or history under CRHR Criterion 4.

The Urbana analysis included a site visit to the property during which the buildings were photographed and examined.

Urbana researched the property using city directory listings, historic aerial imagery, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, newspaper archives, County of Riverside Grantor/Grantee Index, permit records and Urbana’s in-house architecture and construction history library. Urbana documented and evaluated the property on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms. The DPR forms include current photos, a property description, construction history, historical narratives on Eastvale and the Fuller Ranch, ownership history, and include assessment under of the CRHR criteria. The DPR forms are included as Attachment 1.

Project Impacts Assessment
The 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue property does not appear eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. As a result, the property does not qualify as an historical resource under CEQA. Future proposed projects would not cause an impact 485
Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum | 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale Attn: Patrick O. Maxon, VCS Environmental

Page 4 of 4 ends

to historical resources within the Study Area / Area of Potential Impact. Because significant resources have not been identified, additional historical analysis is not recommended.

Refer to the attached DPR forms for additional property history and please contact the office with any questions or comments.

Respectfully Submitted,
Alexandrea Baker, MCP
486
Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum | 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale Attn: Patrick O. Maxon, VCS Environmental
Attachments
Attachment 1. DPR Forms | 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue 487
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial:

CRHR Status Code: 6Z
Other Listings:

Review Code Reviewer Date
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 1 of 61 ends

P1. Other Identifier: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County Riverside and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Corona North Date 2022 T 5S ; R 9W ;  of  of Sec Unsectioned; S.B. B.M. c. Address 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue City Eastvale Zip 92880 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11, 445377.15 mE/ 3755299.89 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) The subject property is sited at the southeast corner of Grapewin Street and Archibald Avenue, originally part of Lot O, Section 2 of the Fuller Rancho subdivision. Identified as Riverside County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 130- 070-021, 130-070-015, and 130-080-004, the property is located immediately west of the Santa Ana River. *P3a. Description: The evaluated property is located on parcels identified as APNs 130-070-021, 130-070-015 & 130-080-004 and consists of fourteen detached buildings and structures, addressed as 8312 Grapewin Street and 8330 Archibald Avenue. The buildings are sited on three irregular parcels, totaling approximately 8.07 acres, located at the southeast corner of Grapewin Street and Archibald Avenue. 8312 Grapewin Street (130- 070-021) consists of twelve buildings, including the two residences, a barn, and stables buildings. The 8330 Archibald Avenue property (APNs 130-070-015 & 130-080-004) consists largely of an open agricultural space, with a driveway and two ancillary structures (Structures 13 &14). The surrounding neighborhood is composed of detached single-family residences, a religious property, and open space. See Continuation Sheet for additional description.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List
attributes and codes) HP2. Single
family property; HP33.

Farm/ranch.
*P4. Resources Present: 
Building  Structure  Object 
Site  District  Element of
District  Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: 8312
Grapewin Street west elevation.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source:  Historic: 1942-1945;
HistoricAerials.com
*P7. Owner and Address:

Group ABG
*P8. Recorded by:

Alexandrea Baker, MCP.

Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
www.urbanapreservation.com
*P9. Date Recorded: Oct. 2024
*P10. Survey Type: Historical
Resource Assessment
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite
survey report and other sources
or enter "none.") Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC, Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum 8312 Grapewin St; 8330 Archibald Ave, Eastvale, CA, Oct. 2024. *Attachments:  NONE  Location Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record  Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record  Artifact Record  Photograph Record  Other (List):
488
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD CRHR Status Code: 6Z Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 2 of 61 ends

B1. Historic Name: 8312 Grapewin Street / Lot 13 and 14, Assessor Map #62 B2. Common Name: 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential/Agricultural *B5. Architectural Style: Ranch Style / Equestrian
*B6. Construction History: Construction history is based on property building permits and historic and current aerial photography. Circa 1945-1948, the property was initially improved with a single-family residence, constructed in the Ranch style of architecture. Around the same time (between 1945 and 1948), the property was developed with the construction of a secondary residence, pool, pool shelter, and ancillary buildings. Between 1948 and 1959, an additional pool shelter and an ancillary structure were constructed. In 1970, three ancillary structures related to equestrian/agriculture uses were constructed. Between 1994 and 1998, a barn and ancillary structure were constructed. In 2003, a barn, ancillary structure, and riding arena were constructed.

Over the years, several permits were submitted for building electrical, plumbing, and sewer. There are several permits listed for the construction of ancillary buildings and structures. See Continuation Sheet for a complete list of property building permits.
*B7. Moved?  No  Yes  Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: No related features.

B9a. Architect: Not Identified b. Builder: Not Identified *B10. Significance: Theme N/A Area N/A Period of Significance N/A Property Type Residential Applicable Criteria CRHR Ineligible
The study area and subject property, 8312 Grapewin Street and 8330 Archibald Avenue is located on Lot O, Section 2 of the Fuller Rancho Subdivision, and is part of the City of Eastvale which was incorporated in 2010.

Constructed by 1948, the property does not qualify for designation under the CRHR. The property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage under CRHR 1. The property is not associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past under CRHR 2. The property and buildings do not exhibit features that would distinguish them architecturally or artistically, nor are they the work of a notable architect, builder, or designer under CRHR 3. The property does not have the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history.

See Continuation Sheet for additional information.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References: See Continuation Sheet for
References
B13. Remarks: None
*B14. Evaluator: Alexandrea Baker, MCP.

Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
*Date of Evaluation: October 2024
(This space reserved for official comments)
489

Page 3 of 61 ends

*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue *Map Name: Corona North USGS Quadrangle Maps *Date: 2022 *Scale: 1:24,000 DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial#
490
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 4 of 61 ends

Site Plan
Building 1: Ranch Style Single-Family Home, ca. 1945-
1948
Building 2: Single-Family Home, ca. 1945-1948
Building 3: Ancillary Structure, ca. 1994-1998
Building 4: Stable, ca. 1994-1998
Building 5: Ancillary Structure, ca. 1994-1998
Building 6: Pool Structure, ca. 1945-1948
Structure 7: Pool Shelter, ca. 1948-1959
Building 8: Ancillary Structure, ca. 1948-1959
Building 9: Ancillary Structure/Tack, ca. 1970
Building 10: Barn, ca. 2003
Structure 11: Riding Arena, ca. 2003
Building 12: Ancillary Structure, ca. 2003
Structure 13: Ancillary Structure, ca. 1970
Structure 14: Ancillary Structure, ca. 1970
Property Boundaries:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 13 14
11 10 12
491
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 5 of 61 ends

P3a. Description (Continued from page 1)
8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue Current Description The property was originally developed circa 1945-1948. It currently (2024) consists of fourteen detached structures: two single family residences, a barn, and eleven ancillary structures. The architect or builder of the property could not be determined. The buildings on the property were constructed gradually in three main periods: during World War Two and the immediate post-war era, in the 1970s, and from 1994 onward. A majority of the buildings are located at the eastern edge of the property overlooking the Santa Ana River.

There is a long driveway leading from the southeast corner of Grapewin Street and Archibald Avenue along the north edge of the property to the residences. A second driveway enters the property from Archibald Avenue along the south edge of the property.

The main single-family residence (Building 1) was constructed in the ranch style of architecture by 1948. The second single family residence (Building 2) has minimal architectural details, most closely resembling a ranch style home. This structure was constructed between 1945 and 1948. Twelve of the buildings are located on the 8312 Grapewin Street property. Two of the structures are located on the 8330 Archibald Avenue property. A majority of the 8330 Archibald Avenue property is used as agricultural land.

Building 1 is a one-story single-family residence constructed by 1948. The building is constructed in the ranch style with minimal architectural details. The building has a T-shaped form with a low, broad mass. The building is clad in stucco with a hipped roof covered in composition shingles. The roof has a moderate overhang with boxed eaves. The front (west) elevation features a narrow front porch, with a concrete foundation, and a simple wood board railing. Set at the front elevation is a large exterior, stone chimney.

There are two single doors set within the front porch area. There are two large, multi-lite windows within the front porch. To the left of the front porch, at the front elevation, there are two large multi-lite windows and two fixed round windows. On the right side of the front elevation, there is one door, and a one sash, multi-lite window. The western wing of the building is a double car garage, with a fixed multi-lite window at the west elevation. The two, rollup metal garage doors are located at the south elevation of the west wing.

The south elevation of Building 1 does not have any openings or features. The north elevation features one multi-lite fixed window. At the rear (east) elevation of the north wing of the building, there are five multi-lite sash windows, and one multi-lite fixed window. At the rear of the center wing of the building there are three multi-lite sash windows, seven multi-lite casement windows, one sliding glass door, and one rear entrance door. At the rear of the southern wing of the building there are three multi-lite sash windows, and one small sash window. Most of the windows are vinyl set within a wood opening. At the rear of the building, there is a small concrete step leading to a stone patio. From the patio, there is a long narrow stone staircase leading east towards the Santa Ana River.

Building 2 is a one-story single-family residence constructed between 1945 and 1948. The building has a simple, rectangular plan with minimal architectural features. The building has a side gable roof, clad in composition shingles. The roof has a moderate overhang with boxed eaves. At the front (west) elevation there is a simple front gable porch covering supported by two simple posts. The front elevation is asymmetrical, with a single front entrance door with a narrow sidelight next to it. There are three multi-lite sash windows at the front elevation. At the north elevation there are two fixed multi-lite windows with sconce lights above.

At the south elevation of Building 2, there is one (1) side entrance door with a small porch gable above. There is one fixed window at the south elevation. At the rear (east) elevation there is one rear door, and one sliding 492
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 6 of 61 ends

glass door with a front gable porch roof above. At the rear elevation there is also one large, fixed window, one small, fixed window, one small sash window, and utility access door. There is a small concrete slab patio at the rear of the building, with several steps leading towards the east side of the property.

Building 3 is a simple ancillary structure. It has a rectangular plan with horizontal wood siding, constructed between 1994 and 1998. The building has a nearly flat shed roof with exposed rafters. The building is an agricultural ancillary building, with three doors at the east elevation, and three open windows with bars across at the west elevation.

Building 4 appears to be a horse stable that is currently used as storage, constructed between 1994 and 1998.

The building has a rectangular plan with four individual stalls. The building has a metal frame and wood and metal siding. The building has a metal cross gable roof with and open gable for ventilation.

Building 5 is a small ancillary structure, constructed between 1994 and 1998. It was constructed of concrete blocks with a low pitched shed roof. The building has one door and one window opening at the west elevation. The building has one window opening at the east elevation. The building has an open gable.

Building 6 is a pool side amenity, constructed between 1945 and 1948. The building is constructed with concrete blocks that connect to the pool privacy wall. The building has an open east elevation, with an attached wooden bar area, and a small shower space. The building has a flat roof and a concrete floor. The west elevation has small openings in the concrete block wall.

Structure 7 is a pool shelter with a shed roof supported by three wood posts, constructed between 1948 and 1959. The structure is set on a concrete platform adjacent to the pool.

Building 8 is an agricultural ancillary building, constructed between 1948 and 1959. The building has a rectangular form with horizontal wood siding. The building has a gable roof with several large doors on each elevation. There is an open walkway through the center of the building.

Building 9 is a small ancillary building, constructed in 1970. It has a square plan, constructed of concrete blocks. The building as a side gable roof with door openings the north and south elevations.

Building 10 is a large barn, constructed in 2003. The building has an L-shaped form with the main opening located at the north elevation. The main opening is a set of large sliding doors. There is a large window, with a rounded transom above, set above the main entrance. The barn has windows and doors at each elevation.

The building has open gables for ventilation.

Structure 11 is a large open-sided riding arena, constructed in 2003. The structure has a metal frame with a corrugated metal roof. There is simple fencing around each elevation with a flat, sawdust covered opening.

Building 12 is a simple ancillary structure, constructed in 2003. The building has a rectangular plan with a side gable roof. The building has vertical wood siding. There is one large door at the north elevation, and several horizontal sliding windows with wide wood trim around them.

Structures 13 and 14 are small ancillary structures, both constructed in 1970. They consist of corrugated metal roof coverings and open sides.
493
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 7 of 61 ends

Additional features on the property include mature palm trees lining the driveway at the north edge of the property. There is a pool at the southeast corner of the property. The property is currently in use as an agricultural property, and there are a series of fences throughout the property. There are also several small temporary features throughout the property related to animal care.

Current views of the property are included below and in the following pages.

Building 1 – Front (West) Elevation.
494
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 8 of 61 ends

Building 1 – Rear (East) Elevation
Building 2 – Front (West) Elevation
495
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 9 of 61 ends

Building 3 – West Elevation
Building 4 – East Elevation
496
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 10 of 61 ends

Building 5 – East Elevation
Building 6 – West Elevation
497
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 11 of 61 ends

Structure 7 – View East
Building 8 – North Elevation
498
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 12 of 61 ends

Building 9 – North Elevation
Building 10 – North Elevation
499
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 13 of 61 ends

Structure 11 – North Elevation
Building 12 – North Elevation
500
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 14 of 61 ends

Structure 13 – View South
Structure 14 – View South
501
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 15 of 61 ends

Driveway – View East
Pool – View Northwest
502
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 16 of 61 ends

Stairs to River – View East
503
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 17 of 61 ends

B6. Construction History (Continued from page 2)
The subject property was originally part of the larger Fuller Rancho. In the 1940s, the Fuller Rancho, located further north from the subject property, began selling off properties alongside the Santa Ana River and the Fuller Ranch that previously existed east of the subject property. These riverside properties were sold to wealthy owners, primarily for use as weekend or vacation homes.

The subject property was originally developed in circa 1945-1948. The primary, ranch style home (Building 1) was constructed by 1948. The secondary single-family home, was likely constructed around the same time.

Both structures first appear on aerial images from 1948. The pool and pool structure at the southeast corner of the property was also constructed between 1942 and 1948.

Between 1948 and 1959, the pool shelter (Structure 7) and ancillary structure (Building 8) were constructed.

Starting in 1970, the tack room (Building 9), feed storage (Structure 13), and hay shed (Structure 14) were constructed (Permit No. 188494 & 188495). Property owner Glenn Gilstrap obtained the permits. Each of these buildings are agricultural/equestrian in use. In 1971, Gilstrap obtained a permit for electrical for a pump for irrigation water (Permit No. 202535).

Based on permit history and the County of Riverside Grantor/Grantee Index, it appear that the property was subdivided into separate parcels (APNs 130-070-021, 130-070-015 & 130-080-004) between 1970 and 1991.

Between 1994 and 1998, the Ancillary Building (#3), the stable (Building 4), and Ancillary Building (#5) were constructed.

In 2003, the barn (Building 10), riding arena (Structure 11), and Building 12 were constructed.

In 2008, Susan Peacock obtained a permit to construct a block wall (Permit No. BWL080422). The contractor for the project was Pacific Shore Masonry.

Further permits were identified through the County of Riverside property report; however, the following permits did not include dates, ownership, or contractor information.

A permit was issued to provide electric to a well (Permit No. 237937). A room addition and patio cover were constructed (Permit No. BAR030420). This permit likely refers to the secondary residence (Building 2); this building originally had a small footprint, and based on aerial images, was expanded between 1980 and 1994, including the addition of the front porch gable roof. Other notable permits issued include construction of a barn (Permit No. BXX024213), which likely refers to the barn and riding arena construction in 2003. A permit to reroof, replacing the shake shingles and installing composition shingles is listed (Permit No. BXX981290).

Available permits are listed below in Table 1:

Table 1. Permit History
Date Permitted Work Owner Address
1/30/1969 New electrical to residence (Permit No.
167440)
Owner: Glenn
Gilstrap
8312 Grapewin (Lot 14,
Assessor Map #62)
504
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 18 of 61 ends

12/29/1970 Tack Room and Feed Storage (Permit
No. 188494)
Owner: Glenn
Gilstrap
8312 Grapewin (Lot 13
and 14, Assessor Map
#62)
12/29/1970 Hay Shed (Permit No. 188495) Owner: Glenn
Gilstrap
8312 Grapewin (Lot 13
and 14, Assessor Map
#62)
12/3/1971 Electrical to Pump for irrigation water
(Permit No. 202535)
Owner: Glenn
Gilstrap
8312 Grapewin Ave (Lot
13 and 14, Assessor Map
#62)
11/31/2008 Block Wall (Permit No. BWL080422) Owner: Susan Peacock
Contractor:

Pacific Shore
Masonry
8312 Grapewin Rd
Not Listed Electric to well (Permit No. 237937) Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd Not Listed Room Addition and Patio Cover
(BAR030420)
Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd
Not Listed 200 AMP Electric meter to horse barn
and AG Reg hay barn (BEL021395)
Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd
Not Listed Relocate 200 AMP Service (BEL031401) Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd Not Listed Temp power for construction trailer
(BEL 040179)
Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd
Not Listed Temp power pole for well pump for
grading purposes (BEL040186)
Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd
Not Listed AG Reg - Cover for private area (open
all sides) (BFE020023)
Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd
Not Listed Rough Grading - TR 30735 - all lots
(BGR030835)
Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd
Not Listed Rough Grade Permit for TR30701
(BGR031171)
Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd
Not Listed New Septic System (BPL020651) Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd Not Listed Barn (No plumbing or electrical
(BXX024213)
Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd
Not Listed 6'x172' Garden Wall (BXX067146) Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd Not Listed Retaining Wall (BXX067787) Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd Not Listed Reroof - shake tear off/install comp
(BXX981290)
Not Listed 8312 Grapewin Rd
505
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 19 of 61 ends

B10. Significance (Continued from page 2)
Historic Overview of Eastvale
The land that would become the city of Eastvale was originally part of the Spanish Empire until 1810 and became Mexico after 1821. The government of Mexico awarded land grants to influential citizens. California became part of the United States in 1848 and became a state in 1850. Riverside County was created in 1893. At one of the first meetings of the Riverside County Board of Commissioners, “East Vale” was listed as one of the 53 school districts in the county. However, the area would not obtain cityhood until more than a century later in 2010.

The Eastvale area slowly developed as a farming and dairy community. The community remained as a lowdensity rural community for many decades. In 1940, the area had a population of only 755 people. By the 1950s, nearby Los Angeles was experiencing a population boom, and development began to expand into the outlying farmlands. In response, dairies began further east, into the Eastvale area. The dairies that operated out of Eastvale, Chino Valley, and Ontario were primarily owned and operated by Dutch and Portuguese families. Approximately half of present-day Eastvale was part of what became known as the Fuller Ranch. The Fuller Ranch totaled approximately 3,000 acres and was owned by the Fuller family from 1889 to 1954. Most of the southern half of the city, between Schleisman Road and the Santa Ana River (including the subject property), were formerly Fuller ranch land. The population in Eastvale grew slowly. By 1970, the population had reached 1,587, and by 2000, had reached 6,011.

In 2007, conversations regarding cityhood. In 2010, the city was officially incorporated as a city in Riverside County. The area had a significant population boom in the decade between 2000 and 2010. By 2010, the population reached 47,637. By 2017, the population reached 64,613. 1 Fuller Ranch
Approximately half of the current city of Eastvale was previously part of the Fuller Ranch. The ranch originally measured approximately six square miles, about 3,000 acres, spanning between Schleisman Road to the Santa Ana River. The property was first called the Pioneer Ranch after a business owned by the Fuller family.

The name was changed to the Fuller Ranch in 1925. The Fuller family owned the property for approximately 65 years, between 1889 and 1954.

Henry Harrison Fuller was born in 1832 in Buckstown, Pennsylvania. In his early life, Fuller worked as a bricklayer and in a dry goods store. In 1854, he married Mary Ann Morewood. Their daughter Anna Losta was born in 1855. In 1854, the family moved to Iowa where they had five more children: Charles Henry, Mary Drusilla, Ortus Benton, Ernest Pearl, and Grace Vivian. From 1873 to 1877, Fuller was working as an Indian Agent for the reservation at Lemhi, Idaho.

Fuller first visited California in 1877. In 1882, Fuller purchased a 200-acre ranch approximately 25 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles, in the upper San Gabriel River Valley. His family joined him in 1883.

Fuller sold the ranch in 1884 to G.D. Whitcomb and G.E. Gard. This land became the town sites of Glendora and Alosa. After selling their property, Harrison and Mary Ann Fuller purchased 20 acres further west, and in 1886, moved into a two-story house on the property. This home was located at what is now the corner of Citrus and Alosta Avenues in the City of Azusa. In Azusa, Fuller established one of the first orange groves in the San Gabriel River Valley. He also served as Los Angeles County Tax Collector for eight years. In 1889, the Fuller family purchased the ranch at what would become Eastvale, taking advantage of the end of the railroad boom and falling land prices. Harrison Fuller passed away in 1903. 506
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 20 of 61 ends

The Fuller family saw commercial success in Los Angeles in the 1880s. The family was involved in merchandising, storage, construction, and local transportation. Charles and Ortus Fuller, and their brother-inlaw Fred Zucker, were involved in several business ventures including the Fuller Department Stores, Los Angeles Warehouse Company, Enterprise Construction Company, and Pioneer Transfer Company.

The Pioneer Transfer Company was established to provide local freight transportation, to and from the railroads in Los Angeles. At the time, the company was using horse drawn vehicles, as motorized trucks would not exist for several more years. A ranch in present day Eastvale was purchased by the Fuller family between 1887 to 1892. It was established to raise draft horses for the Pioneer Transfer Company and named the Pioneer Ranch. It was located approximately 50 miles from downtown Los Angeles and approximately four miles from the Rincon railroad station. Around 1900, motor trucks replaced horses at the Pioneer Transfer Company, which was subsequently renamed to the Pioneer Truck and Transfer. By 1907, operations at the Pioneer Ranch changed their emphasis from draft horses to show horses and other animals.

The Pioneer Ranch was listed as being in South Riverside in 1893, as towns in the surrounding area had yet to be established. In 1893, Ortus Fuller was listed as a farmer at the property and appears to have been the primary operator of the ranch. However, by 1901, Charles and Ortus Fuller began focusing their business interests on Santa Barbara County, leaving the Pioneer Ranch in the hands of a hired manager. By then, the ranch had become known as one of the best cattle and racehorse breeding farms in California. The property had pasture land for horses, swine, and other livestock, several acres of barley and alfalfa crops, and more acres of vegetable crops including corn, melons, and beets. In addition to the 3,000 acres owned by the Fuller family, an additional 2,000 acres were leased and used as ranch property by 1907.

In 1915, approximately 2,000 acres of land were transferred from ownership by individual Fuller family members (Charles, Ortus, and Mary Fuller, and their spouses) to the family-owned Pioneer Ranch Corporation. By 1915, portions of the original 3,000-acre ranch had been sold. The land was sold and developed into the Persimmon, Kingston, and Cedar Rapids subdivision tracts, and by 1915, the Pioneer Ranch totaled approximately 1,885 acres.

The Pioneer Ranch remained in the Fuller family, with ownership passing to Olive Ransome (O.R.) Fuller, son of Charles Fuller, in 1925. O.R grew up in Kansas and moved to California to live with his father in 1900. He operated several successful auto dealerships and a passenger transit company, from 1907 to 1929. Ortus Fuller passed away in 1922; at the time, the Fuller family had minimal involvement in the running of the ranch.

Charles and O.R. Fuller used the property as a weekend retreat, staying at the original ranch house, however, it appears they had a minimal interest in the property until after 1925.

In 1928, O.R. Fuller and his wife Ione designed a new home on the property, Casa Orone, which they used as a weekend retreat while living in Los Angeles. During the Great Depression Fuller lost all of his businesses, with his only remaining asset being the ranch. At this time, he changed the name to the Fuller Rancho, signifying his intent to take greater control of the property. He often spelled the word “RanchO” to emphasize his first initial. In 1931, the family, including O.R., Ione, and their eleven-year-old daughter Marcellie, moved to the ranch. At this time, in 1931, the Fuller ranch totaled 3,000 acres with about 1400 animals, including about 500 dairy cows. Milk and cream were sold in Corona and the surrounding area. There were also about 7,500 chickens, as well as many turkeys and other types of fowl, on the property. Within a few years of moving to the ranch full time, Fuller had become one of the largest turkey ranchers in Southern California. Fuller Rancho delivered milk and eggs across Southern California, and opened the Fuller Rancho Market, a drive-up grocery store, in Pomona.
507
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 21 of 61 ends

In 1937, Fuller converted the main house, Casa Orone, into the Fuller Guest Rancho. The house had overnight accommodations for 25 guests, an Olympic-sized swimming pool, a poolside bar and a 5-star restaurant.

Guests were able to visit the nearby lake and river, and ride horses through the area. The Ranch was also known for its illegal gambling. The ranch drew many visitors from nearby Los Angeles, including celebrities such as Olivia DeHavilland, Groucho Marx, Mary Pickford, Red Skelton, and Elizabeth Taylor.

In the late 1930s, Fuller also began subdividing the ranch into building lots, along the adjacent Santa Ana River. One of the notable early residents was actor Charles Grapewin who owned one of the riverside properties. His residence, a two story Mediterranean style home that has since been demolished, was located at the northern end of the street now known as Grapewin Street.

During World War II, medical staff and patients from the nearby Corona Naval Hospital in Norco visited the Rancho. O.R. Fuller passed away soon after the War, in August 1946. By that time, large portions of the original 3,000 acre Fuller Rancho had been sold or leased to third parties for ranches or housing development.

Ione Fuller closed the guest ranch after her husband’s death. She soon married Harvey Weeks in 1948 and remained at the Fuller Rancho until her death in 1951.

The remaining Fuller Rancho property was sold to Walter Koening, a local dairyman. Koening subsequently resold most of the land for agricultural use. In 1959, the guest house was purchased by the Good Samaritan Center, a retirement facility. In 1967, it was converted to the St. Katherine’s Home for Boys, a youth counseling facility. In 2004, the property was demolished and subdivided into tract housing. In 2010, the 3,000 acres that originally made up the Fuller Rancho and the surrounding area, were incorporated as the City of Eastvale, California.2
Ranch Style Architecture
The Ranch style of architecture originated in the mid-1930s in southern California. Its simple form made it relatively cheap to construct, and it was one of the styles permitted to be built under FHA financing guidelines.

Into the 1950s, Ranch style homes represented sheltered privacy and a sense of security from the happenings of the Cold War, when Civil Defense needs stressed strength of the family and home as strength of the country. Throughout the United States, the Ranch style dominated residential tracts developed in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

After World War II, the style began to gain popularity. It was the most popular style of architecture in the 1950s and 1960s. The style was often found in large, mass constructed subdivisions. Ranch house suburbs were common across the country, especially in areas that saw a housing boom post-war. The style was especially popular in the southern Sunbelt region, where relatively cheap land prices allowed for the sprawling style to be built. The increased use of automobiles after World War II facilitated the widespread construction of the ranch style house. Mass constructed ranch style suburbs were constructed on large swaths of undeveloped land – away from the cities. Cars made it possible for people to travel from the city to their homes in the suburbs.

The style was loosely based on early Spanish Colonial ranch houses in the American Southwest. The ranch style that came about in the mid-century was advertised as part of a casual family-oriented lifestyle for postwar families. It was more accessible to most Americans than other modern styles seen at the time. The style met the demand for housing that reflected the latest architectural aesthetic, stylistic details, and materials, including interior courtyards, aluminum framed windows, sliding glass doors, flat roofs, and masonry screen walls, while remaining affordable. The Ranch style home was typically built with a broad, 508
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 22 of 61 ends

one-story shape, built low to the ground, with a low-pitched roof. The front entry is typically off-center and sheltered under the main roof of the house. The garage is typically attached, elongating the building’s form.

They typically have a large picture window and an asymmetrical façade.3 Identifying-exterior features of Ranch style residential buildings are listed below:
• Broad, one-story horizontal massing
• Built low to the ground
• Asymmetrical façade
• Off-center front door
• Low-pitched roof without dormers
• Moderate to wide roof overhang
• Large picture windows
• Multiple window shapes and sizes
• Integrated “slants”
• Different wall-cladding materials
• Garage attached to main façade
• One of four general subtypes that are based on roof form o Hipped roof
o Cross-hipped roof
o Side-gable roof
o Cross-gable roof
The subject property features one ranch style residence. The building was constructed circa 1942 and is a simple example of the style. The one-story residence features several of the character defining features of the Ranch style. The residence has a broad, one-story horizontal form, built low to the ground. The building has an asymmetrical façade, clad in stucco with a large exterior stone chimney at the front elevation. The roof is low-pitched with a moderate overhang. The building has several large windows, and windows of different sizes and shapes. The garage is attached to the front elevation.

Property Ownership History
8312 Grapewin Street
John Ridgway was the first identified owner of the property. Earlier owners could not be identified after reviewing County of Riverside Grantor/Grantee indexes and genealogical research. It is possible that Ridgway was the original owner of the property, however no further information on Ridgway was available. Marcellie Fuller, daughter of O.R. Fuller, stated that river front properties were sold by her father to “a talent scout from Hollywood, a film director, an oilman from Long Beach, a shipbuilder from Long Beach, and a mortician from Long Beach.” Ridgway sold the property to Cataldo and Mary Burke in 1965.

Cataldo and Mary Burke were married in Michigan in 1913 and moved to Southern California in 1928. The couple had five daughters. Burke was one of the earliest wholesale grape and wine merchants in the Los Angeles area. Burke and his brothers, Jim and Mike Burchierie, operated a winery, Gardena Vintage Co., for thirty years. Burke retired in 1960, and the couple moved to West Palm Springs. They purchased the subject property in 1965, though they only owned it for one year.4 The next owner was part of the Mezori family. Margaret Mezori was born in 1913 in California. Henry and Margaret Mezori had three children, Delores, Henry, and Suzanne Mezori. Delores was born in 1936, Henry in 1946, and Suzanne in 1949. From at least 1950 to 1958, the family was living in Elsinore, California. Delores 509
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 23 of 61 ends

attended the University of California and married Donald Roy Parks in 1958.5In 1961, she was working at Beaumont Realty in 1961. Members of the Mezori family owned the property from 1966 to 1969.6 Glenn and Marjorie Gilstrap owned the property from circa 1969 to 2000. Glenn Eugene Gilstrap was born in Indiana in 1928. Marjorie June Heacock was born in Indiana in 1929. The couple was married in 1946 and welcomed their daughter, Glenda, in 1949. In 1950, the couple was living in Indiana with their daughter. At the time, Glenn Gilstrap was working as a delivery driver for an electrical company. By 1960, the family was living in Westminster, California. The family lived in Westminster until at least 1970. They had purchased the property by 1969, as noted on County of Riverside permits, and owned the property until 2000. Glenn Gilstrap passed away in 2011.7
In 2000, the property passed to Joanne Burt Peacock, although research indicates her grandson, Richard William Peacock Jr. was living at the property by 1994. Richard Peacock was born in 1934 in Oakland. He was a product manager at Ling Electronics for 26 years and was also an amateur radio operator. The couple had three sons: William Frank, Michael Davey, and Bradley Burt, and one grandson, Richard William Peacock Jr. In 1966, the family was living in Orange, California. Richard Peacock passed away in 1988.8 The property remained in the Peacock family until 2022. Research indicated that several members of the Peacock family occupied the property throughout the years, including Richard Peacock Jr. from 1994 to 2020, Michael Peacock from 2000 to 2014, and Bradly Peacock from1999 to 2022. It was most recently owned and used by Susan Hoffman Peacock for a business called “Dressage Peacock.” The property was used as the location of a dressage apprenticeship program, run by Susan Peacock. The program was designed to prepare the participants for a career as a professional dressage trainer. The program participants were able to live at the property and participated in daily work with their own horse, supervised by Peacock and her staff. Susan Peacock is a trainer and national and international clinician. She is one of the few USDF nationality certified instructor/trainers in the United States. Joanne L. and Bradley Burt Peacock sold the property in 2022.

Table 2 showing the known owners of 8312 Grapewin Street is included below:

Table 2: Ownership History for 8312 Grapewin Street
Year Owner Source
1965 John Ridgway County of Riverside Grantor/Grantee Index 1965-1966 Cataldo and Mary Burke County of Riverside Grantor/Grantee Index 1966-1968 Delores L. Mezori County of Riverside Grantor/Grantee Index 1968 Henry and Margret M. Mezori County of Riverside Grantor/Grantee Index 1969 Henry and Etal Mezori County of Riverside Grantor/Grantee Index 1969-2000 Glenn E and Marjorie J Gilstrap Riverside County Permits Ancestry.com. U.S., Phone and Address
Directories
2000-2022 Joanne Peacock
Bradley Burt Peacock
County of Riverside Grantor/Grantee Index
8330 Archibald Avenue
The 8330 Archibald Avenue does not contain any residential buildings, and as such does not have an occupancy history. According to the County of Riverside property report, the property was first established in 1991; the property may have been subdivided from the larger 8312 Grapewin Street property at this time. The 510
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 24 of 61 ends

first identified, and current, owner is the Onesimo and Silvia Coronel Family Trust. Research indicated that several members of the Coronel family were associated with the property including Onesimo, Silvia (Delatorre), Laura, Griselda, Lissette, and Howard Coronel. Onesimo E. Coronel was born in 1953. Silvia B.

Delatorre was born in 1952. The couple married in 1984 in Los Angeles. Onesimo Coronel is associated with the property as early as 1984. Further information about the family was not available. They are listed as the current owners of the property on Parlay ParcelQuest.

Table 3 showing the known owners of 8330 Archibald Avenue is included below:

Table 3: Ownership History for 8330 Archibald Avenue
Year Owner Source
1991-2024 Onesimo and Silvia Coronel Family Trust Parlay ParcelQuest 511
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 25 of 61 ends

B10. Significance (Continued from page 2):

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES (CRHR) ELIGIBILTY REVIEW CRHR Criterion 1: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

Research and analysis indicates the subject property does not qualify for designation under Criterion 1. The subject property is located at the intersection of Grapewin Street and Archibald Avenue, with the Santa Ana River immediately to the east. The property was initially improved with a single family ranch style home, most likely in the immediate post-WWII period. A secondary home, pool, and ancillary structures were constructed soon after. The property was originally part of the Fuller Rancho, a 3,000 acre agricultural ranch owned by the Fuller family.

The subject property was built with the Fuller Rancho subdivision. Located alongside the Santa Ana River, it was presumably built as a rural country home, as the surrounding area had not yet been developed. The residence built was large, but simple. The pool and steps leading towards the river, as well as grounds for equestrian use, indicate the home’s use as a rural property with plenty of opportunities for outdoor recreation.

Research indicates the property has primarily been used as a residential property, with equestrian and agricultural uses in recent years. Its association with the Fuller Ranch via the development of former ranch property is not considered significant. The subsequent rural property use is not unique to the area, and the property does not appear to have an association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. For this reason, Urbana determined the property is not eligible under Criterion 1.

CRHR Criterion 2: Association with the lives of persons important in California’s past.

The two longest owners of the property were Glenn Gilstrap and the Peacock family. Other owners were identified as only owning the property for a few years and are not strongly associated with the property.

Glenn Gilstrap owned the property between 1969 and 2000 and had the longest period of ownership. Gilstrap worked as a delivery driver. Gilstrap and his wife, Ione, had one daughter, Glenda. Research does not indicate that Gilstrap rises to the necessary level of significance for designation under Criterion 2.

The Peacock family owned the property between 1969 to 2022. Joanne Peacock purchased the property in 1969. Research indicates that several members of the Peacock family resided at the home over the years. Most recently, the property was used by Susan Peacock as an equestrian training facility. Research does not indicate that any members of the Peacock family rise to the necessary level of significance for designation under Criterion 2. Research and analysis determined the property is not associated with the lives of persons important to local or California history. Therefore, the subject property does not qualify under Criterion 2.

CRHR Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual or possess high artistic values.

Under Criterion 3, the building is not the work of a master and does not possess high artistic values and does not rise to a level beyond the ordinary. The original architect or builder of the buildings could not be determined. The main building, Building 1, is a one-story Ranch style home. The residence features several characteristics of the Ranch style, including a wide asymmetrical floor plan, exterior stone chimney, large windows and windows of varying sizes, low roof pitch, and attached garage. However, the ranch style was extremely common in Southern California during the period of construction, and the subject property does not possess high artistic value. It is a typical example of the style and does not possess distinctive 512
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 26 of 61 ends

characteristics that would raise it to the necessary level of significance. The other buildings on the property are largely utilitarian and lack distinctive characteristics or high artistic value. For this reason, Urbana determined that the property is not individually eligible under Criterion 3.

CRHR Criterion 4: Potential to yield information important in prehistory or history.

The subject property is not eligible under Criterion 4 as it is unlikely to yield important information in prehistory or history.

Integrity
Integrity is the ability to physically convey significance. Evaluation of integrity must always be grounded in an understanding of a resource’s physical features and how they relate to its significance. To retain historic integrity, a resource will possess several, and usually most of the following seven aspects of integrity:
location, materials, design, setting, workmanship, feeling, and association. If it is determined that a resource is eligible for designation because it meets one or more of the adopted designation criteria, the integrity of the resource must be evaluated. Integrity is the ability to convey its significance. Only after the historic significance of the resource is fully established can the issue of integrity be addressed.

The subject property has not been found by Urbana to be individually eligible for designation under any of the criteria. Further integrity analysis is not merited.
513
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 27 of 61 ends

*B12. References (Continued from page 2):

Ancestry.com. A variety of records were accessed online in October 2024 at: http://home.ancestry.com/. These include city directories, voter registration records, and United States Census Data.

California Office of Historic Preservation. California Register and National Register: A Copmarison. Technical Assistance Series 6. (1999). Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

City of Eastvale, Economic and Community Profile,
https://stories.opengov.com/cityofeastvaleca/published/dM_TcOrn_m. Accessed October 2024; City of Eastvale, History, https://www.eastvaleca.gov/community/about-eastvale/history County of Riverside. Building Permits for 8312 Grapewin Street.

County of Riverside. Grantor/Grantee Index.
“Glenn Eugene Gilstrap,” Dignity Memorial, 2011, https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/riversideca/glenn-gilstrap-4513588. Accessed October 2024.

McAlester, Virginia, et al. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. Alfred A. Knopf, 2021.

Meissner, Loren P. Fuller Ranch At Eastvale. Corona Library Foundation, 2013.

National Register Bulletin 16A. “How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.” Washington DC:

National Register Branch, National Park Services, US Dept. of the Interior, 1991.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research. Historic Aerials. Website, (1999). Accessed July 2022. https://www.historicaerials.com/.

Newspapers.com. Many newspaper articles were accessed online in October 2024 at:
https://www.newspapers.com/. Newspapers articles utilized include:

Courier-Free Press, January 7, 1941.

Daily Record, November 28, 1961.

Lake Elsinore Valley Sun Tribune, March 20, 1958.

Los Angeles Examiner, March 31, 1940.

Los Angeles Herald Examiner, January 10, 1941.

Pres-Enterprise, November 29, 1941.

Riverside Independent Enterprise, October 5, 1963.

Southwest Tropics Wave, September 29, 1963.

The Indianapolis News, November 28, 1946.

The Los Angeles Times, September 8, 1968.

The Los Angeles Times, November 22, 1988.

The Napa Valley Register, February 6, 1936.

The Register, July 21, 1968.

The San Bernardino County Sun, December 9, 1954.
514
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 28 of 61 ends

Office of Historic Preservation. “Instruction for Recording Historical Resources.” Sacramento: March 1995.

Theobald, Mark, “Auburn-Fuller,” CoachBuilt, http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/f/fuller/fuller.htm, Accessed October 2024
University of California Santa Barbara Library. Frame Finder. Website (n.d.). Accessed July 2022. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Earth Explorer. Website (n.d.) Accessed July 2022. https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/.
515
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 29 of 61 ends

Assessor Parcel Map
Source: Assessor’s Map Book 16/94-97, County of Riverside Assessor’s Office. 516
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 30 of 61 ends

Historic Aerials
1938 Aerial Image
Source: HistoricAerials.com
517
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 31 of 61 ends

1938 Aerial Image - Cropped
Source: HistoricAerials.com
518
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 32 of 61 ends

1948 Aerial Image
Source: HistoricAerials.com
519
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 33 of 61 ends

1948 Aerial Image - Cropped
Source: HistoricAerials.com
520
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 34 of 61 ends

1959 Aerial Image - Cropped
Source: HistoricAerials.com
521
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 35 of 61 ends

1966 Aerial Image - Cropped
Source: HistoricAerials.com
522
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 36 of 61 ends

1975 Aerial Image - Cropped
Source: HistoricAerials.com
523
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 37 of 61 ends

1980 Aerial Image - Cropped
Source: HistoricAerials.com
524
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 38 of 61 ends

1985 Aerial Image - Cropped
Source: HistoricAerials.com
525
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 39 of 61 ends

1994 Aerial Image - Cropped
Source: HistoricAerials.com
526
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 40 of 61 ends

2005 Aerial Image - Cropped
Source: HistoricAerials.com
527
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 41 of 61 ends

Historic Photos of the Surrounding Area
Map of the former Fuller Ranch boundaries. The approximate location of the subject property is marked with a red arrow.

Source: Fuller Ranch At Eastvale by Loren P. Meissner.
528
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 42 of 61 ends

Annotated 1948 aerial image of the Fuller RanchO. The subject property is marked with the red arrow.

Source: Fuller Ranch At Eastvale by Loren P. Meissner.
529
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 43 of 61 ends

Photograph of the nearby Charley Grapewin residence.

Source: Fuller Ranch At Eastvale by Loren P. Meissner.
530
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 44 of 61 ends

Photograph of the adjacent Fuller Lake.

Source: Fuller Ranch At Eastvale by Loren P. Meissner.
531
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 45 of 61 ends

Photograph of the adjacent Fuller Lake.

Source: Fuller Ranch At Eastvale by Loren P. Meissner.
532
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 46 of 61 ends

Historic photograph of the Fuller RanchO hacienda.

Source: Fuller Ranch At Eastvale by Loren P. Meissner.
533
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 47 of 61 ends

Photograph of the hacienda at the Fuller RanchO.

Source: Fuller Ranch At Eastvale by Loren P. Meissner.
534
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 48 of 61 ends

Photograph of O.R. Fuller.

Source: Fuller Ranch At Eastvale by Loren P. Meissner.
535
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 49 of 61 ends

Newspaper and Genealogical Database Search Results for Owners and Occupant Article mentioning former owner, Cataldo Burke.

Source: The Napa Valley Register, February 6, 1936.
536
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 50 of 61 ends

Newspaper article describing the nearby home of Charley Grapewin. At the time, the Grapewin home was one of the few in the area. It was located down the street north of the subject property.

Source: Los Angeles Examiner, March 31, 1940
537
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 51 of 61 ends

Newspaper article describing the nearby home of Charley Grapewin. At the time, the Grapewin home was one of the few in the area. It was located down the street north of the subject property.

Source: Los Angeles Herald Examiner, January 10, 1941.
538
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 52 of 61 ends

Newspaper article describing the nearby home of Charley Grapewin. At the time, the Grapewin home was one of the few in the area. It was located down the street north of the subject property.

Source: Courier-Free Press, January 7, 1941.
539
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 53 of 61 ends

Engagement announcement for Marjorie Heacock and Glenn Gilstrap, former owners of the subject property.

Source: The Indianapolis News, November 28, 1946.
540
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 54 of 61 ends

Article referencing to nearby Fuller RanchO guest house.

Source: The San Bernardine County Sun, December 9, 1954. 541
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 55 of 61 ends

Mr. and Mrs. Henry Mezori, previous owners of the subject property, announced their daughter’s engagement in 1958.

Source: Lake Elsinore Valley Sun Tribune, March 20, 1958. 542
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 56 of 61 ends

Dolores Mezori was one of the owners of the subject property in the 1960s. She was employed at Beaumont Realty in 1961.

Source: Daily Record, November 28, 1961.
543
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 57 of 61 ends

Mr. and Mrs. Cataldo Burke, former owners of the property, celebrated their golden anniversary in 1963.

Source: Southwest Tropics Wave, September 29, 1963.
544
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 58 of 61 ends

Wedding announcement of Suzanne Mezori and Ronald Neals. Suzanne is the daughter of the former owner, Margaret Mezori.

Source: The Register, July 21, 1968.
545
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 59 of 61 ends

Article referencing Margorie Gilstrap while she was living at the subject property.

Source: Press-Enterprise, November 29, 1983.
546
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 60 of 61 ends

Obituary for former owner, Richard Peacock.

Source: The Los Angeles Times, November 22, 1988.
547
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California -The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#
Resource Name or #: 8312 Grapewin Street; 8330 Archibald Avenue

Page 61 of 61 ends

Endnotes
1 City of Eastvale, Economic and Community Profile,
https://stories.opengov.com/cityofeastvaleca/published/dM_TcOrn_m. Accessed October 2024; City of Eastvale, History, https://www.eastvaleca.gov/community/about-eastvale/history; Meissner, Loren P. Fuller Ranch At Eastvale. Corona Library Foundation, 2013.
2Theobald, Mark, “Auburn-Fuller,” CoachBuilt, http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/f/fuller/fuller.htm, Accessed October 2024; Meissner, Loren P. Fuller Ranch At Eastvale. Corona Library Foundation, 2013. 3 McAlester, Virginia, et al. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. Alfred A. Knopf, 2021. 4 Southwest Topics-Wave, September 29, 1963, Page 1.
5 Lake Elsinore Valley Sun-Tribune, March 20, 1958, Page 13. 6 Daily Record, November 28, 1961, Page 14.
7 “Glenn Eugene Gilstrap,” Dignity Memorial, 2011, https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/riversideca/glenn-gilstrap-4513588. Accessed October 2024. 8 Riverside County Grantor/Grantee Index, 2000; The Los Angeles Times, November 22, 1988. 548
Historical Resource Assessment Memorandum | 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale Attn: Patrick O. Maxon, VCS Environmental
Attachments
Attachment 2. Preparer Qualifications
549
Douglas E. Kupel, Ph.D., RPA
Senior Historian & Archaeologist
[email protected]
Senior Historian and Archaeologist, Douglas Kupel, holds a Ph.D. in History from Arizona State University, a graduate certificate in Archaeology from the University of South Carolina, master’s degrees from the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University, and a Bachelor of Arts in History from the University of Oregon. Doug is a cultural resources expert with a diverse background in sustainable water resources, environmental planning, and historic preservation. He meets The Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards in the disciplines of History, Architectural History, and Historical Archaeology. He brings extensive experience in preparing National Register Nominations and completing cultural resource surveys and inventories for properties in California, Nevada, and Arizona. He maintains exceptional leadership and project management skills having served as the Deputy Water Services Director and Environmental Program Manager for the City of Glendale, Arizona. In these positions Doug supervised several divisions and managed nine divisional budgets. He additionally worked for the City of Phoenix as a Water Advisor and Natural Resources Historian.

Doug began his career working as an archaeological and historic sites consultant in California and Arizona, and later served as a Historian for the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Cities of Phoenix and Glendale, Arizona. As the former National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Coordinator for the Arizona SHPO, Doug processed many large and complex historic district nominations early in his career. He has continued his association with the NRHP program by serving on Arizona’s Historic Sites Review Committee. Doug has authored 37 NRHP nominations including the Multiple Property Format NRHP Nomination for the Period of Conflict Between Native Americans and the U.S. Military in Arizona, 1846-1886, and the NRHP Nomination of the Fort Tuthill Historic District, Flagstaff, Arizona. Dr. Kupel is a court-recognized expert on water rights and has conducted substantive research and analysis on statewide water management and policy. For the City of Phoenix Law Department, he organized and directed research for litigation and water resources planning in the Arizona General Stream adjudication. He has served as expert witness for Native American and municipal water history topics. Dr. Kupel has worked on a number of significant Native American water rights settlements during his career at Phoenix and Glendale. These include the White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) Water Rights Settlement, Verde River Yavapai – Apache Settlement, Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement, Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement.

He has more than 30 years of experience in water civil engineering projects, including authoring historical narratives, manuscripts, and eligibility evaluations for the Bureau of Reclamation Salt River Project, and the Central Arizona Project. His experience provides understanding not only to historic properties and cultural resources, but also to larger management concerns and the federal regulatory process. His management of large publicly owned utilities speaks directly to his ability to supervise and organize large-scale projects in a complex regulatory environment. Dr. Kupel led a research and planning group as Deputy Director of a water utility and has wide experience with a variety of water resources, planning, safety, and emergency management programs. Dr. Kupel has served as a liaison on water planning and policy issues between municipal utilities and a wide range of local, state, and Federal agencies. His knowledge of imported water contracts, water supply planning efforts, and financial and economic analysis related to natural resources highlights his ability to integrate cultural resources planning within larger planning efforts.

EDUCATION
Ph.D. – History School of
Historical, Philosophical and
Religious Studies
Arizona State University
Dissertation Title: Urban Water in
the Arid West: Municipal Water and
Sewer Utilities in Phoenix, Arizona.
—
Master of Arts – History
University of Arizona
—
Master of Education – Educational
Leadership
Northern Arizona University
—
Graduate Certificate –
Archaeology
University of South Carolina
—
Bachelor of Arts – History
University of Oregon, Eugene

REGISTRATIONS
Society of Professional
Archaeologists – Registered
Professional Archaeologist,
No. 10353
—
Organization of American
Historians
No. 48527
—

PUBLICATIONS
Fuel for Growth: Water and
Arizona's Urban Environment
University of Arizona Press, 2003
550
Douglas E. Kupel, Ph.D., RPA
Senior Historian & Archaeologist
[email protected]

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
2023-2024 National Park Service and National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers National Historic Landmark Theme Study Update for US Underground Railroad Resources (Nationwide)
2023 City of La Quinta Historical Resource Survey and Context Statement (La Quinta, CA)
2023 Mira Loma Quartermaster Depot HABS Package (Jurupa Valley, CA) 2023 Villa Del Lido Historic Resources Research Report (La Jolla, CA) 2022 4190 Utah Street Historic Designation and Mills Act Project (San Diego, CA)
2022 National Park Service Preliminary NHL Historic Context for Properties Associated with Barney L. Ford (Colorado, Wyoming, Virginia, South Carolina, California)
2022 Post Rock Resources of Kansas National Register Nominations (Gernon House, Berhorst Bros. Hardware Building, Lucas School Gymnasium). 2022 Preliminary Study for Caltrans Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project Environmental Clearance (Pomona, CA).
2021 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Ivanpah- Control Transmission Corridor, Tribal Consultation (Southern CA).
2021 Coast Highway Bridge Replacement Project – Caltrans Environmental Clearance (Oceanside, CA)
2021 Post Rock Resources of Kansas Survey and MPDF (Lincoln, Mitchell, Rush, and Russell Counties, KS).
2021 4055 Lytle Creek Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II Documentation (Fontana, CA).
2021 Eisen Egg Ranch Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II Documentation (Norco, CA).
2019-2021 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Ivanpah- Control Transmission Corridor, HistoricEra Built Environment Survey Report (Southern CA). 2020-21 US Patent Litigation Expert Witness Consulting; Hunton, Andrews, Kurth, LLP (Napa, CA).
2020-21 Avo Theater Rehabilitation Tax Credit Consulting, JCG Development (Vista, CA).
2020 Miraloma Quartermaster Depot Historical Resource Analysis Report, Link Logistics Real Estate (Jurupa Valley, CA).
2020 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Kern River to Los Angeles Transmission Corridor, Historic-Era Built Environment Survey Report (Southern CA). 2020 Rancho Miramonte Section 106 Historic Property Survey Report, TH Miramonte Investors, LLC (Rancho Miramonte, CA).
2020 Historic Designation Report Peer Review: 1135 Devonshire Drive (San Diego, CA).
2020 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Eldorado-Lugo-Pisgah Transmission Corridor, Historic-Era Built Environment Survey Report (Southern CA + Clark County, Nevada).
2020-21 Determination of Historic Significance Report Peer Reviews, City of Coronado (Coronado, CA).
2020 East Gilman Channel Mitigation – Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Documentation, Envicom (Banning, CA).
2019 Southern California Edison Catalina Island Historic-Era Water System Management Program (Catalina Island, CA).

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Senior Historian / Archaeologist:

Urbana Preservation & Planning,
LLC (San Diego, CA) 2019-present
—
Adjunct Faculty:

Grand Canyon University
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University
Arizona State University (Main,
Downtown, and West Campus)
Gateway Community College
Phoenix College
1996 - present
—
Deputy Water Services Director
City of Glendale (Glendale, AZ)
2014-2018
—
Environmental Program Manager
City of Glendale (Glendale, AZ)
2012-2014
—
Water Advisor
City of Phoenix (Phoenix, AZ)
2011-2012
—
Assistant Water Advisor
City of Phoenix (Phoenix, AZ)
2007-2010
—
Historian
City of Phoenix (Phoenix, AZ)
1988-2007
—
Historian: Arizona State Historic
Preservation Office, Phoenix,
Arizona
1986-1988
—
Consulting Historian /
Archaeologist: Independent
Consultant (California, Arizona,
Nevada, and South Carolina)
1979-1986
551
Douglas E. Kupel, Ph.D., RPA
Senior Historian & Archaeologist
[email protected]
2012 Thompson Draw Historic District National Register Nomination, Payson, Arizona, Metropolis Design Group. (Phoenix, AZ)
2012 De Soto Dealership National Register Nomination, Phoenix, Arizona.

Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2011 Sage Acres Historic District National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2011 Historic American Building Survey Documentation of the Fort Defiance Hospital and Associated Buildings, Fort Defiance, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2010 Sands Estates Historic District National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2007 Historic Building Analysis of Morcomb Service Station and House, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2007 Myrtle Avenue Historic District National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2007 Bunch / Perez House National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona.

Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2007 61st Avenue Historic District National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2007 Hoghe Bunk House National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona.

Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2007 George Dowdy Rental Cottage National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2006 Catlin Court Historic District Expansion, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2005 C. H. Tinker House National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona.

Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2005 First United Methodist Church National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2005 Glendale High School Auditorium National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2005 Glendale Elementary One-Room School Building National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix. 2005 Jonas McNair House National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona.

Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2005 Floralcroft Historic District National Register Nomination, Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2004 Ethnic History Survey of Glendale, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2003 National Register Nomination of the Fort Tuthill Historic District, Flagstaff, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
2003 Historic Building Analysis of the Big Horn Ranch Service Station, Maricopa County, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix. 2002 Historic Building Analysis of the Palmerita Ranch, La Paz and Yuma Counties, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2002 Historic Building Analysis of the Gold King Mansion, Mohave County, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2002 National Register Nomination of the San Clemente Historic District, Tucson, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
2002 Historic Building Analysis of the Wahweap Trailer Village, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix. 2002 Historic Resources Survey of the Evergreen Neighborhood, Casa Grande, Arizona. Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
552
Douglas E. Kupel, Ph.D., RPA
Senior Historian & Archaeologist
[email protected]
2001 Historic Resources Survey of Fifty Properties in Clifton, Arizona.

Metropolis Design Group, Phoenix.
2001 National Register Nomination of the Catalina Vista Historic District, Tucson, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
2001 Historic Building Analysis of the Tucson Southern Pacific Depot. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
2000 Historic Resources Survey of the Blenman – Elm Neighborhood, Tucson, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
2000 Historic Structures Report, Lee’s Ferry, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Alliance Architects, Phoenix.
2000 Historic Resources Survey of the Robson Historic District, Mesa, Arizona.

Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1999 National Register Nomination of the Temple Historic District, Mesa, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1999 National Register Nomination of the Irving School, Mesa, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1999 Historic Resources Survey of Gila Bend, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1999 Historic Building Analysis of the Eisendrath House, Tempe, Arizona.

Alliance Architects, Phoenix.
1998 Reconnaissance Survey of Historic Resources in Mesa, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1998 National Register Nomination of the Jokake Inn Bell Towers, Phoenix, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1998 National Register Nomination of the Evergreen Historic District, Mesa, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1998 National Register Nomination of the West Second Street Historic District, Mesa, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1998 National Register Nomination of the Wilbur Street Historic District, Mesa, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1998 Historic Building Documentation of the Bagley/Wallace House, Mesa, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1998 Historic Resources Survey of BHP Superior West Plant Site, Superior, Arizona. Alliance Architects, Phoenix.
1997 Historic Resources Survey of Chandler, Arizona. Alliance Architects, Phoenix.
1997 National Register Nomination of the John and Isabella Greenway House, Ajo, Arizona. Prepared for the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.
1997 National Register Nomination of the N. Clyde Pierce House, Phoenix, Arizona. Prepared for Greg and Judy Pierce (owners), Phoenix. 1997 Historic Resources Survey of Glendale, Arizona. Alliance Architects, Phoenix.
1997 Historic Resources Survey of Ash Fork, Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1997 National Register Nomination for the Manistee Ranch, Glendale, Arizona. Alliance Architects, Phoenix.
1997 Historic Resources Survey of Tempe, Arizona, and Update of Tempe Multiple Resource Area National Register Nomination. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1996 National Register Nomination of the Queen Creek School, Arizona.

Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1996 Historic Building Analysis of the Irving School, Mesa. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
553
Douglas E. Kupel, Ph.D., RPA
Senior Historian & Archaeologist
[email protected]
1996 Historic Building Analysis of the Sun Valley Court Motel, Mesa. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1996 Multiple Property Format National Register Nomination for the Period of Conflict Between Native Americans and the U.S. Military in Arizona, 1846-1886. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1995 Historic Resources Survey of Historic Route 66 in Arizona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1995 National Register Nomination of the Laveen School Auditorium, Laveen, Arizona. Laveen Elementary School District No. 59. Laveen. 1995 Historic Building Analysis of the Flagstaff Freight Depot, Flagstaff. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1994 National Register Nomination of the Henning Block, Holbrook. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1994 Historic Building Analysis of the John A. Freeman House, Snowflake.

Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1994 Historic American Buildings Survey Documentation of the Clifton Historic District, Clifton. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1994 Historic Building Analysis of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic Church, Tombstone. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1994 National Register Nomination of the Swindall House, Phoenix. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1994 National Register Determination of Eligibility Peach Springs Tourist Court and the Standard Oil Warehouse. Ryden Architects, Phoenix. 1994 Historic Building Analysis of the Yuma Quartermaster Depot Corral House, Yuma. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1993 Historic Building Analysis of the Thomas House and the Baird Machine Shop, Phoenix. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1993 National Register Nomination of the Kitchel House, Phoenix. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1993 Historic American Buildings Survey Documentation of the Thunderbird Tavern, Holbrook. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1993 Historic American Buildings Survey Documentation of the Ortega Homestead, Holbrook. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1993 Historic Building Analysis of the Western Drug Warehouse, Phoenix.

Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1993 Historic Resources Survey of the Town of Patagonia. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1992 Historic Building Analysis of the Elias/Rodriguez House, Tempe. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1992 Historic Building Analysis of the Constable Ice and Fuel Co. Warehouse, Phoenix. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1992 Historic Resources Survey of Sedona. Ryden Architects, Phoenix. 1991 Historic Resources Survey of the Town of Holbrook. Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1990 Historic Building Analysis of the Central Wholesale Terminal, Phoenix.

Ryden Architects, Phoenix.
1988 National Register Nomination for City-County Building, Phoenix, Maricopa County. Gerald A. Doyle and Associates, Phoenix. 1985 Historical and Archaeological Character, Fort Lowell Park Master Plan.

Acuna-Coffeen Landscape Architects, Tucson.
1985 University of Arizona National Register District Nomination Form (with Robert C. Giebner, David Blackburn, and Adelaide Elm).
1985 San Xavier Historic Artifact Analysis. Cultural and Environmental Systems, Tucson.
554
Douglas E. Kupel, Ph.D., RPA
Senior Historian & Archaeologist
[email protected]
1984 Diversity Through Adversity: Water Control at San Xavier. TerraMar International Services, San Diego.
1984 A Proposal to Construct a Plank Road Exhibit at the Proposed Imperial Safety Roadside Rest. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation.
1984 Historic Property Survey Report, Proposed Sand Hills Interchange.

Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. 1984 Request for Determination of Effect, Plank Road. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation.
1984 First Addendum Archaeological Survey Report, Proposed Sand Hills Interchange. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. 1983 Historic Property Survey Report, Proposed MTDB East Urban Transit Corridor. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. 1983 Architectural Survey Report, Proposed MTDB East Urban Transit Corridor. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. 1983 Request for Determination of Eligibility, La Mesa Depot (with John W.

Snyder). Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. 1983 Plank Road Discontiguous District Nomination form (with Pat Welch and Lisa Capper).
1983 Plank Road Research. Wirth Environmental Services, San Diego, Califonia.
1983 Picacho Basin Historic Research. Wirth Environmental Services, San Diego.
1983 Miguel Substation Historic Research. Wirth Associates, San Diego. 1982 The Calhoun Street Parking Lot: A Historical and Archaeological Investigation of Block 408, Old Town San Diego. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation.
1982 Archaeological Survey of the Old Town Maintenance Station, Old Town San Diego. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. 1982 Archaeological Survey Report of the Old Town Excess Parcel Sale, Blocks 379, 380 and 395, Old Town San Diego. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation.
1982 Archaeological Survey Report of the Calhoun Street Parking Lot, Old Town San Diego. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation.
1981 Proposed Archaeological Phase II Excavation at SDi 8873H (with Joan M.

DeCosta). Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. 1981 Historical and Archaeological Investigation of a Proposed Old Town Excess Parcel Sale, Blocks 379, 380, and 395. Old San Diego. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation.
1981 A Modern Material Culture Study: South Carolina's Migrant Farmworkers. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, USC, Columbia.
1981 Historical Evaluation of the Sunset Street Property, Lot 1, Block 394, Old San Diego. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. 1980 Conservation Management Strategies: State Departments of Transportation. Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1980 Final Report of the Rincon, et al., Cultural Resource Survey; Jamul.

Regional Environmental Consultants, San Diego (with Paige Talley). 1980 Final Report of the Rincon, et al., Cultural Resource Survey: La Jolla.

Regional Environmental Consultants, San Diego (with Paige Talley). 1980 Final Report of the Rincon; et al., Cultural Resource Survey: Pala.

Regional Environmental Consultants, San Diego (with Paige Talley). 555
Douglas E. Kupel, Ph.D., RPA
Senior Historian & Archaeologist
[email protected]
1979 Cultural Resource Study of a Proposed Electrical Transmission Line from Jade to the Sand Hills, Imperial County, California. Regional Environmental Consultants, San Diego (with Carol Walker). 556
Alexandrea Baker, MCP
Associate Urban / Preservation Planner + GIS Lead
[email protected]
Alexandrea Baker holds a Bachelor of Arts in Geography, with a minor in Community and Regional Planning, from the University of Nebraska and a Master of City Planning degree from San Diego State University. She meets The Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards in the discipline of History and Architectural History. At Urbana, Alex surveys historic-era built environment sites, conducts property specific and contextual research, identifies cultural landscapes consistent with NRHP Bulletin No. 36, authors technical reports, prepares GIS maps and manages all aspects of our GIS program. Recent project experience includes the City of La Quinta historical resource survey; the Post Rock Resources MPDF and NRHP nominations, Historic Designation and Mills Act Applications for private property owners throughout Southern California, on-call historic research services for multiple jurisdictions, and all historic sites database and GIS management for SCE projects. As the lead GIS planner and database manager on the Urbana team, she has prepared map packages for thousands of sites for projects throughout the West. Her cartography work products are regularly used for in-depth analyses and strategic decision making by client and agency partners. In addition to her preservation planning experience, Alex is adept ArcGIS StoryMaps.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
2024 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 767 B Avenue | Coronado, California.
2024 Tucson Bus Rapid Transit Project Historic Property Survey | Tucson, Arizona. 2024 Edison and Walker Specific Plan – Historical Resource Survey | Ontario, California.
2024 GIS Mapping for Historical and Archaeological Resource Management Report Chollas Creek & Euclid-54th Project | San Diego, California. 2024 GIS Mapping for Historical and Archaeological Resource Management Report Famosa Slough Alley Slope Restoration Project | San Diego, California. 2024 Historical Resource Analysis Report for Harvest Landing Retail Center & Business Park Project | Perris, California.
2023 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 811 Tolita Avenue | Coronado, California.
2023 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 841 H Avenue | Coronado, California.
2023 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 325 9th Street | Coronado, California.
2023 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 437 J Avenue | Coronado, California.
2023 Historical Resource Analysis Report for 33521 Zeiders Road | Menifee, California
2023 Historical Resources Analysis Report Proposed El Camino Specific Plan Project | San Juan Capistrano, California.
2023 Historical Resource Analysis Report for 5900 Cherry Avenue | Long Beach, California.
2023 Historical Resource Analysis Report for 800 Meadow Pass Road | Walnut, California.
2023 University Hills Historical Resource Analysis Report | San Bernardino, California.

EDUCATION
Master of City Planning
San Diego State University
—
Bachelor of Arts– Geography,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Urban / Preservation Planner + GIS
Technician: Urbana Preservation &
Planning, LLC (San Diego, CA)
2018 – present
—
Planning Intern: Alta Planning
(San Diego, CA), 2019
—
Planning Intern: City of Richmond
(Richmond, CA), 2019
—
Planning Intern: Maxable
(San Diego, CA), 2018-2019
—
Para Educator: Mid Valley Special
Education Cooperative (St.

Charles, IL), 2017-2018
—
Teacher Assistant: Lincoln Family
Services (Lincoln, NE), 2016-2017

MEMBERSHIPS
American Planning Association

RELATED CERTIFICATIONS
SAP Environment, Health, and
Safety for Operational
Sustainability (2021 Edition)
557
Alexandrea Baker, MCP
Urban / Preservation Planner + GIS Technician
[email protected]
2023 Historical Resource Research Report for 2954 Chatsworth Boulevard | San Diego, California.
2023 Historic Resource Research Report for 637 Arenas Street | La Jolla, California. 2022 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 741-745 Orange Avenue | Coronado, California.
2022 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 737 Orange Avenue | Coronado, California.
2022 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 440 Pomona Avenue | Coronado, California.
2022 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 210 E Avenue | Coronado, California.
2022 City of La Quinta Historic Resource Survey and Context Statement | La Quinta, California.
2022 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 440 Pomona Avenue | Coronado, California.
2022 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 210 E Avenue | Coronado, California.
2022 3112 Curtis Street Mills Act Application | San Diego, California. 2022 The Muse Mills Act Application | La Jolla, California. 2022 Post Rock Resources of Kansas National Register Nominations. 2021 Olson Townhomes Historic Architectural Evaluation | Huntington Beach, CA. 2019-2021 GIS Mapping of Historic-Era Built Environment Cultural Resources within the SCE Service Territory | Mono, Tulare, Inyo, Kern, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties, California. 2021 Post Rock Resources of Kansas Survey and Multiple Property Documentation Form; Lincoln, Mitchell, Rush, and Russell Counties, KS. 2021 GIS Mapping for the To Kalon Vineyard Patent Litigation Project | Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP; Napa Valley, California.
2021 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 135 I Avenue | Coronado, California.
2021 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 777 B Avenue | Coronado, California.
2021 Determination of Historic Significance Report for 1425 7th Street | Coronado, California.
2021 Historical Resource Designation and Mills Act Application for 2275 Evergreen Street | San Diego, California.
2019-2021 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Ivanpah - Control Transmission Corridor, Historic-Era Built Environment Survey Report | Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino, Counties, California. and Clark County, Nevada.
2019-2021 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Kern River to Los Angeles Transmission Corridor, Historic-Era Built Environment Survey Report | Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California.
2020-2021 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Eldorado-Pisgah-Lugo Transmission Corridor, HistoricEra Built Environment Survey Report | San Bernardino County, California. 2020-2021 Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Rating and Remediation Program Control-Silver Peak Transmission Corridor, HistoricEra Built Environment Survey Report | Inyo and Mono Counties, California 2020 Historic Property Survey Report, Rancho Miramonte Project | Chino, California.
2020 Historic Site Designation Report for 4350 Nabal Drive | La Mesa, California. 558
Alexandrea Baker, MCP
Urban / Preservation Planner + GIS Technician
[email protected]
2020 Historic Resource Research Report for 4630 Date Avenue | La Mesa, California.
2020 Historic Resource Research Report for 2956 Roosevelt Street | Carlsbad, California.
2020 Historic Resource Research Report for 5930 Division Street | San Diego, California.
2020 Middle Ranch Pipeline Historic Resource Analysis Report | Santa Catalina Island, California.
2019 California’s Mojave Desert Region Cultural Landscape Survey, Eligibility, Documentation and Mapping Project | Mojave Desert, California. 2018 Owens Valley, California Historic Cultural Landscape Survey, Eligibility Documentation and Mapping Project | Owens Valley, California. 2018 Kern County Region Historic Agricultural Landscape Survey, Eligibility, Documentation, and Mapping Project | Kern County, California. 559
PLN24-20053 – Warmington Residential
City of Eastvale

APPENDIX D

GEOTECHNICAL AND

INFILTRATION EVALUATION
560

GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION EVALUATION

PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS (APNS) 130-070-015 AND -021; AND 130-080-004 8312 GRAPEWIN STREET

EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR

WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL
3090 PULLMAN STREET
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626

PREPARED BY
GEOTEK, INC.
1548 NORTH MAPLE STREET
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92878
PROJECT NO. 3836-CR APRIL 8, 2024
561
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
April 8, 2024
Project No. 3836-CR
Warmington Residential
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Attention: Mr. Bret Ilich
Subject: Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 130-070-015 and -021; and 130-080-004 8312 Grapewin Street
Eastvale, Riverside County, California
Dear Mr. Ilich:

GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) is pleased to provide the results of this Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for the proposed single-family residential project to be located at 8312 Grapewin Street in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California. This report presents the results of GeoTek’s evaluation, discussion of findings, and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and earthwork construction.

Based upon review and evaluation, site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project.
562
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page i
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact GeoTek.

Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.

Bruce A. Hick
GE 2284, Exp. 12/31/24
Geotechnical Engineer
Anna M. Scott
Project Geologist
Edward H. LaMont
CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/24
Principal Geologist
Kase I. Gebbie, EIT
Staff Engineer
Distribution: (1) Addressee via email (one PDF file)
\\geotekfs1\Riverside\Projects\3801 to 3850\3836CR Warmington Residential APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004 Eastvale\Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation\3836CR Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Eastvale.doc 563
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................. 1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................... 1

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................ 3

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 5

4.1 REGIONAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 5

4.2.1 Undocumented Fill .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

4.2.2 Disturbed Soils ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

4.2.3 Alluvium .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................ 6

4.3.1 Surface Water ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

4.3.2 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY .................................................................................................................................................... 7

4.4.1 Faulting ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters.......................................................................................................................................................... 7

4.5 LIQUEFACTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 9

5.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 9

5.2.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

5.2.2 Site Clearing ................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

5.2.3 Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10

5.2.4 Engineered Fill ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11

5.2.5 Transition Lot Condition ............................................................................................................................................................. 11

5.2.6 Oversized Rock Disposal ........................................................................................................................................................... 11

5.2.7 Excavation Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

5.2.8 Trench Excavations and Backfill ............................................................................................................................................. 12

5.2.9 Shrinkage and Bulking ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

5.2.10 Grading Plan Review............................................................................................................................................................. 13

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 13

5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................................... 19

5.5 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 21

5.6 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 22

5.6.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 22

5.6.2 Concrete Mix Design .................................................................................................................................................................. 22 564
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.6.3 Concrete Flatwork ........................................................................................................................................................................ 23

5.6.4 Concrete Performance ................................................................................................................................................................ 23

5.7 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 23

6. INTENT ............................................................................................................................................... 24

7. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 24

8. SELECTED REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 25

ENCLOSURES
Figure 1 – Site Location and Topography Map
Figure 2 – Exploration Location Map

Appendix A – Log of Exploratory Borings
Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Results
Appendix C – Infiltration Test Data & Porchet Calculations Appendix D – Seismic-Settlement Assessment
Appendix E – General Earthwork Grading Guidelines
565
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 1

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical engineering and geologic conditions at the project site, as outlined in GeoTek’s proposal P-0301324-CR, dated February 28, 2024.

Services provided for this study included the following:
 Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site,
 Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of six (6) exploratory test borings extending to depths ranging from 16.5 to 47 feet below grade,  Excavation of two (2) additional borings to a depth of about five (5) feet below grade and performing an infiltration test in each boring,
 Laboratory testing of soil samples collected during the field investigation,  Review and evaluation of site seismicity, and
 Preparation of this geotechnical report which presents GeoTek’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations for this site.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The approximate 8.24-acre irregular-shaped project site is located at 8312 Grapewin Street in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California (See Figure 1). Access to the site is available by either Archibald Avenue or Grapewin Street, both paved, improved streets located adjacent to the western and northern site boundaries, respectively.

The site is currently occupied by several residential structures, outbuildings, a large barn, animal pens, fences, and storage areas. The Santa Ana River watershed is located adjacent to the eastern site boundary with a water surface elevation of approximately 540 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Site elevations range from approximately 578 feet amsl to about 591 feet amsl in western and eastern portions, respectively. Topographically, the site can be considered as 566
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 2
having a relatively flat to gently sloping terrain, with surface drainage generally directed to the west.

Review of historic aerial photographs of the site indicated the site consisted of vacant, tilled agricultural land in 1938. Site conditions prior to 1938 are unknown. Between 1938 to 1949, a residential structure appears to have been constructed within the eastern portion of the site, with the western portion of the site possibly still used for agricultural purposes. Between 1949 to 2002, the site appears to mostly consist of vacant, undeveloped land, with the exception of the residence structure within the eastern portion. Between 2002 to 2005, various outbuildings, barns, and animal pens appear to have been constructed. Site conditions from 2005 to the present time appear to be relatively unchanged.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based upon review of a Conceptual Density Study prepared by KTGY Architecture and Planning, dated March 1, 2024, GeoTek understands the subject property is to be developed with seventy-nine (79) one- to two-story single-family residences. Associated utilities, access and drive lanes, pavement, hardscape, and landscape improvements are also anticipated as part of the site development. Storm water disposal by means of on-site storm water disposal systems are anticipated for this project. The Best Management Practice (BMPs) system(s) to be selected for stormwater disposal are currently unknown.

The proposed residential structures are anticipated to be of wood-frame construction, two- to three-stories in height, and incorporate conventional shallow foundations and post-tensioned (PT) slab-on-grade floors. Sewage disposal will be by a public sewer. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed maximum column and wall loads will be about 75 kips and 3.5 kips per foot, respectively. Specific site development plans were not provided as of the date of this report. Once actual loads are known that information should be provided to GeoTek to determine if modifications to the recommendations presented in this report are warranted.

If site development differs from the assumptions made herein, the recommendations included in this report should be subject to further review and evaluation. Site development plans should be reviewed by GeoTek when they become available. 567
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 3

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for this report was conducted on March 26, 2024, and consisted of excavating six (6) geotechnical exploratory borings with a hollow-stem drill rig to depths ranging from about 16.5 to 47 feet below grade at the boring locations. The approximate locations of the GeoTek excavations are shown on the Exploration Location Map (Figure 2). A geologist from GeoTek logged the excavations and collected soil samples for use in subsequent laboratory testing. The logs of the exploratory borings are included in Appendix A.

Relatively undisturbed soil samples were recovered at various intervals in the geotechnical borings with a California sampler. The California sampler is a 3-inch outside diameter, 2.5-inch inside diameter, split barrel sampler lined with brass rings. The sampler was 18 inches long.

The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 3550. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was utilized, dropping 30 inches for each blow. The relatively undisturbed samples, together with bulk samples of representative soil types, were returned to the laboratory for testing and evaluation. The California sampler test data are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

In Boring B-2 standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed with a 2.0-inch outside diameter, 1.5-inch inside diameter, split-barrel sampler. The sampler was 18 inches long. The inside diameter of the sampler shoe was 1.4 inches. The sampler was unlined. The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 1586. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was utilized, dropping 30 inches for each blow. The sampler penetration test data are presented on the Logs of Borings for Boring B-2.

Infiltration Testing
In addition to the geotechnical exploratory borings, two infiltration test borings (I-1 and I-2) were excavated in the areas of the proposed storm water management facilities, to depths of about five (5) feet each. The locations and depths of the infiltration test borings were provided by Warmington Residential. Infiltration/percolation testing was conducted in these borings in general accordance with the requirements of the County of Riverside.

The infiltration tests consisted of drilling an eight-inch diameter test hole to the desired depth and installing approximately two inches of gravel in the bottom of the hole. A three-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe, wrapped in a filter sock, was placed in the excavations and the 568
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 4
annular space was filled with gravel to prevent caving within the boring. Water was then placed in the borings to presoak the holes and percolation testing was performed the following the pre-soak period. The infiltration tests were then performed which consisted of adding water to each test hole and measuring the water drop over a 30-minute period. The water drop was recorded for twelve test intervals. Water was added to the test holes after each test interval. The field percolation rates were then converted to an infiltration rate using the Porchet Method. The results of the infiltration testing are summarized in the table below:

PRELIMINARY INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Infiltration Boring No. Depth of Boring (ft.) Infiltration Rate* (inches per hour) I-1 5 0.60
I-2 5 0.61
*Porchet Method converted infiltration rate from measured rate The results of the conversions indicate infiltration rates at the test locations ranged from approximately 0.60 inches per hour (Boring I-1) to approximately 0.61 inches per hour (Boring I-2), indicating relatively poor infiltration rates. Copies of the infiltration test data sheets and the Porchet infiltration rate conversion calculations are presented in Appendix C. No factors of safety were applied to the rates provided. Over the lifetime of the infiltration areas, the infiltration rates may be affected by sediment build up and biological activities, as well as local variations in near surface soil conditions. A suitable factor of safety should be applied to the field rate in designing the infiltration system.

It should be noted that the infiltration rates provided above were performed in relatively undisturbed on-site soils. Infiltration rates will vary and are mostly dependent on the underlying consistency of the site soils and relative density. Infiltration rates may be impacted by weight of equipment travelling over the soils, placement of engineered fill and other various factors. GeoTek assumes no responsibility or liability for the ultimate design or performance of the storm water facility.

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on selected relatively undisturbed ring and bulk samples collected during the field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the materials encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in the engineering design and analysis. Results of the laboratory testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included on the exploratory borings logs included in Appendix A and in Appendix B. 569
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 5

4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS

4.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The subject property is situated in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends approximately 975 miles south of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province.

The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks.

Several major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zone trend northwest-southeast and are found near the middle of the province.

The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province.

The site is located in an area geologically mapped by others to be underlain by older alluvium (Morton, D.M., Miller, F.K., 2006). No active faults are shown in the immediate site vicinity on the maps reviewed for the area. The nearest known active fault is the Elsinore Fault zone (Chino section) located approximately 3.8 miles southwest of the site.

4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS
A brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in the following section.

Based on the site reconnaissance, the exploratory excavations and review of published geologic maps, the area investigated is locally underlain by some surficial undocumented fill and disturbed soils atop older alluvium.

4.2.1 Undocumented Fill
Undocumented fill soil was encountered within Borings B-2, B-3, and B-5 from the existing ground surface to depths of about 1 to 1.5 feet below existing grades. The placement of the undocumented fill was likely associated with the existing structural improvements at the site or past agricultural use of the property. The fill soil generally consisted of silty sands and clayey sands (SM and SC soil type based on the Unified Soil Classification System) and were encountered in a medium dense condition based on penetration samples obtained.

Documentation of the placement of the fill soils encountered is understood to not be available or obtainable.
570
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 6

4.2.2 Disturbed Soils
Disturbed soils were encountered at the surface of five (5) of the borings. The disturbance of the upper site soils likely resulted from previous land uses at the site, including possible agricultural uses. The disturbed near surface soils encountered generally consisted of silty to clayey sands and sandy clays (SM, SC, and CL soil types) and were encountered at depths ranging from about 0.5 to 1 feet below existing grades at the boring locations.

4.2.3 Older Alluvium
Older alluvial soils were encountered in all of the borings performed, beneath either the undocumented fill or disturbed soil and extended to the maximum depth explored (47 feet).

As encountered in the borings, the older alluvium consisted of interbedded layers of silty sands, relatively clean sands, clayey sands, and sandy clays (SM, SP, SC, and CL soil types based upon the Unified Soil Classification System). The coarse-grained alluvial soils (SM, SP, and SC soil types) were found to range between medium dense to very dense, while the fine-grained grained alluvial soils (CL soil type) were found to generally be soft to hard. The upper older alluvial soils encountered within some of the borings were observed to be in a loose or relatively soft condition.

Based on the laboratory test results, the near surface soils have a “Very Low” (0≤EI≤20) to “Low” (21≤EI≤50) Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829). Based on the laboratory test results, the near surface soils have a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent (ASTM D 4327).

Additionally, selected samples of the upper site soils were found to exhibit a “very low” to “low” potential for hydroconsolidation (settlement upon wetting with or without additional loading). The test results are provided in Appendix B.

4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER

4.3.1 Surface Water
If encountered during earthwork operations, surface water on this site will likely be the result of precipitation or possibly some minor surface run-off from the surrounding areas. Natural drainage at the site is interpreted to be to the west following the existing site topography in the area. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer.

4.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered within any of the exploratory borings drilled at the site to the maximum depth drilled of about 47 feet (Boring B-4) below the existing ground surface.

Based on a review of groundwater depths noted on the California Department of Water 571
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 7
Resources Water Data Library website and review of site elevations, it is estimated the historic high groundwater depth is approximately 38 feet below existing grades at the site.

Based on the results of the field exploration, review of site area geomorphology and geology, groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect the proposed improvements.

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

4.4.1 Faulting
The geologic structure of the entire California area is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region.

However, the site is not situated within a State of California designated “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest known active fault to the site is the Elsinore Fault zone (Chino section) located approximately 3.8 miles to the southwest of the site.

4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 33.9369 degrees West Latitude and -117.5922 degrees North Longitude. Due to the relatively dense nature of the site soil (average blow counts greater than 15) a Site Class “D” is considered appropriate for this site. Site spectral accelerations (Sa and S1) for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class “D” site, was determined from the SEAOC/OSHPD web interface that utilizes the USGS web services and retrieves the seismic design data and presents that information in a report format. Using the ASCE 7-16 option on the SEAOC/OSHPD website results in the values for SM1 and SD1 reported as “nullSee Section 11.4.8” (of ASCE 7-16). As noted in ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, a site-specific ground motion procedure is recommended for Site Class D when the value S1 exceeds 0.2.

The value S1 for the subject site exceeds 0.2.

For a site Class D, an exception to performing a site-specific ground motion analysis is allowed in ASCE 7-16 where S1 exceeds 0.2 provided the value of the seismic response coefficient, Cs, is conservatively calculated by Eq 12.8-2 of ASCE 7-16 for values of T≤1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL≥T>1.5Ts or Eq.

12.8-4 for T>TL.

The results, based on the 2015 NEHRP and the 2022 CBC, are presented in the following table assuming that the exception as allowed in ASCE 7-16 is applicable. If the exception is deemed not appropriate, a site-specific ground motion analysis will be required. 572
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 8

SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.59g
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.60g
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fv 1.7
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMS

1.59g
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM1

1.02g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, SDS

1.06 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1 second, SD1

0.68 Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) 0.72g
Seismic Design Category D
Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the project structural engineer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected building response and desired level of conservatism.

4.5 LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquakeinduced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction has developed, the effects can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates.

The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures.

The project site is located within an area mapped by the County of Riverside as having a “High” to “Very High” liquefaction potential hazard. Based on the current mapping by Riverside County, a liquefaction analysis was performed for the subject site to estimate seismic-induced settlement potential. The seismic-settlement assessment (liquefaction and “dry sand”) was performed utilizing the subsurface soil profile encountered within Boring B-2, with a PGAm of

0.72g, and a USGS Unified Hazard Tool mean disaggregated moment magnitude event of 6.71 corresponding to a 2,475-year return period (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years). Based 573
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 9
on the analysis, relatively nominal seismic-induced settlements (“dry sand” and liquefaction) are estimated for the subject site – on the order of about ¼ inch total with estimated seismicinduced differential settlements of about ½ the total settlement over a 40-foot span.

4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS
Due to the general flat terrain, the potential for seismic induced landslides is considered nil.

Additionally, due to the estimated relatively low liquefaction hazard potential, the estimated lateral spread horizontal displacements are estimated to be negligible. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as a seiche and tsunami is considered negligible due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL
Development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the design and construction phases of development.

The upper site soils encountered consisted of undocumented fill soils, disturbed soils, and some relatively loose/soft older alluvium. These upper site soils are not considered suitable for foundation support in their present state. Remedial grading, consisting of removal and recompaction of the upper site soils is recommended to provide a uniform bearing for the proposed improvements.

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS

5.2.1 General
Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Eastvale and the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), and recommendations contained in this report. The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix E outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site-specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix E.
574
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 10

5.2.2 Site Clearing
Initial site preparation should commence with removal of debris, existing structures, pavements, underground utilities, foundations, slabs-on-grade, deleterious materials and vegetation within the limits of the planned improvements. Demolition of existing buildings/structures should include removal of all shallow foundations, floor slabs and any of below-grade construction. If any existing building/structure is supported by deep foundations, it is recommended that those foundation units be cut-off at least 3 feet below all new building foundations and floor slabs and one foot beneath all future utility lines. Existing utilities, not planned for re-use, should be capped off at the property boundaries and removed. All materials generated by demolition and site clearing operations should be properly disposed of off-site. Voids resulting from removing any materials should be replaced with engineered fill materials with expansion characteristics similar to the onsite materials.

5.2.3 Site Preparation
Due to the anticipated presence of undocumented fill, disturbed soil, and non-uniform nature of the near-surface upper site soils, it is recommended that the soils be removed beneath the planned building footprint to a depth of at least five (5) feet below existing natural grade, or three (3) feet below the base of the proposed foundations, whichever is greater. The lateral extent of this recommended over-excavation should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building limits, where obtainable. Removal bottoms should be relatively uniform in native soil type which is not visibly porous and having an in-place density of at least 85 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. The actual depths of removals required should be determined and approved of by a GeoTek representative during site grading. Removals should include all undocumented fill, disturbed soil, and any relatively loose/soft and/or compressible, porous alluvium.

The subgrade soils below the limits of the proposed pavement and hardscape areas, and where surface improvements or new fill is planned, should be over-excavated to a depth of at least two (2) feet below existing natural grades.

Based on the known land use history, concentrated organics may be present at the project site.

Additional earthwork recommendations related to the encountering of any concentrated areas of organic matter may be provided during site grading.

Following site clearing operations, over-excavation and lowering of site grades, where necessary, it is recommended that the exposed subgrade soils beneath all surface improvements be proof rolled with a heavy rubber-tired piece of construction equipment approved by and in the presence of the geotechnical engineering representative. All soil that ruts or excessively deflects during proof rolling should be removed as recommended by the GeoTek 575
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 11
representative. Following proof rolling and removal of any unsuitable bearing soil, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, be moisture conditioned to slightly above the soil’s optimum moisture content and then be compacted to at least 90 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 test procedures.

5.2.4 Engineered Fill
The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they are free from vegetation, debris, oversized materials (6 inch diameter or greater) and other deleterious material. All areas should be brought to final subgrade elevations with fill materials that are placed and compacted in general accordance with minimum project standards.

Engineered fill should be placed in 6-to-8-inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM D1557 test procedures.

If wet soils are encountered during remedial grading, methods for drying soils such as stockpiling or mixing with dry soils may be required to bring the soils to the required moisture content for placement as engineered fill. Placement of engineered fill should be observed and tested on a full-time basis by a GeoTek representative during grading activities.

5.2.5 Transition Lot Condition
Building pads graded with a cut/fill transition should be undercut to reduce the potential for differential settlement. The cut portion of the cut/fill transition should be undercut to a depth of at least five (5) feet from natural grade or three (3) feet below the deepest proposed footing, whichever is deeper, and be backfilled with a properly compacted engineered fill. The bottom of the undercut should be sloped at a minimum of 1 percent toward the adjacent street/parking lot area.

5.2.6 Oversized Rock Disposal
Although unlikely, oversized cobbles, boulders and rock fragments may be encountered during rough grading and utility trench operations. If encountered, on-site disposal of oversized materials is possible, provided the oversized materials are placed as recommended on Plate 4 within Appendix E. Alternatively, oversized materials can be exported from the site.

5.2.7 Excavation Characteristics
Excavations in the on-site older alluvium should be readily accomplished with heavy-duty earthmoving or excavating equipment in good operating condition. All excavations should be formed in accordance with current Cal-OSHA requirements. 576
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 12

5.2.8 Trench Excavations and Backfill
Temporary trench excavations within the on-site materials should be stable at a 1.5:1 inclination for short durations during construction and where cuts do not exceed 15 feet in height. Deeper temporary excavations should be reviewed by GeoTek prior to their planned excavation to determine if supplemental recommendations or analysis are warranted. It is anticipated that temporary cuts to a maximum height of 4 feet can be excavated vertically.

Trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA regulations. The contractor should have a competent person, per OSHA requirements, on site during construction to observe conditions and to make the appropriate recommendations.

Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (as determined by ASTM D-1557 test procedures). Under-slab trenches should also be compacted to project specifications. Where applicable, based on jurisdictional requirements, the top 12 inches of backfill below subgrade for road pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. On-site materials may not be suitable for use as bedding material but should be suitable as backfill provided particles larger than 6 inches are removed.

Relatively abundant amounts of oversize materials may be encountered during excavations.

Compaction should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. Ponding or jetting of trench backfill is not recommended. If backfill soils have dried out, they should be properly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches.

5.2.9 Shrinkage and Bulking
For planning purposes, a shrinkage loss of about 10 to 15 percent is anticipated for excavations within the undocumented fill, disturbed soils, and upper alluvium at the site. Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage, trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, as well as the accuracy of topography. Shrinkage and bulking are primarily dependent upon the degree of compactive effort achieved during construction, depth of fill and underlying site conditions.

A subsidence loss of up to about 0.10 feet is estimated for the site.

Site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of earthwork construction. 577
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 13

5.2.10 Grading Plan Review
Upon completion of the site grading plans, it is recommended that those plans be provided to GeoTek for review. Based on that review, some modifications to the recommendations provided in this report may be necessary.

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria
Post-Tensioned Slab Foundation Systems:

The soils are classified as having a “Very Low” (0≤EI≤20) and “Low” (21≤EI≤50) Expansion Index (EI) in accordance with ASTM D 4829. Since the California Building Code (CBC) indicates Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) design methodology is intended for expansive soils conditions, no em or ym parameters as used in the PTI methodology are provided for structures to be constructed on soils having a “Very Low” EI. Preliminary em and ym values were generated for structures to be constructed on soils having a “Low” (21≤EI≤50) Expansion Index (EI) based upon the following assumed parameters: Liquid Limit (LL) = 33, Plastic Limit (PL) = 19, and Plasticity Index (PI) = 14, Thornthwaite Moisture Index = -25; constant suction value =

3.6pF; post-equilibrium case assumed with wet (swelling) cycle going from 4.0pF to 3.0pF and drying (shrinking) cycle going from 4.0pF to 4.5pF. Structures to be constructed on soils having a “Very Low” EI can be constructed using “Low” EI design parameters.

The foundation elements for the proposed structures should bear entirely in engineered fill soils and should be designed in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC). The following design recommendations for post-tensioned (PT) foundations for this project are provided:
578
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 14

MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATIONS Foundation Design Parameter
“Very Low” (0-20) Expansion
Index “Low” (21-50) Expansion Index
Foundation Depth or Minimum
Perimeter Beam Depth/Turned
Down Edge (inches below
lowest adjacent grade)
One & Two-Stories – 12 inches
Three-stories – 18 inches
One & Two-Stories – 12 inches
Three-stories – 18 inches
Minimum Beam/Wall
Foundation Width*
One & Two-Stories – 12 inches
Three-stories – 15 inches
One & Two-Stories – 12 inches
Three-stories – 18 inches
Minimum Slab Thickness
(actual)
5 inches 5 inches
Edge Moisture Variation
Distance, em
N/A

3.3 ft (Edge Lift – Swelling)

5.6 ft (Center Lift – Shrinkage)
Soil Differential Movement, ym N/A
 0.55 inches (Edge Lift – Swelling)
 -0.15 inches (Center Lift – Shrinkage)
Effective Plasticity Index** N/A 15 – Design Value
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil
(Percent of Optimum)
Minimum 100% to
a depth of 12 inches
Minimum 110% to
a depth of 12 inches
*Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of CBC 2022
**Effective Plasticity Index should be verified at the completion of rough grading.

Conventional Reinforced Concrete Foundation Elements:

Alternatively, the site structures may be designed utilizing conventional reinforced concrete foundation systems. The conventional foundation elements for the proposed structures should bear entirely in compacted, engineered fill soils. Foundations should be designed in accordance with current Riverside County and 2022 CBC requirements.

Foundation design criteria for a conventional foundation system, in general conformance with the 2022 CBC are presented in this report. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. It should be noted that the criteria provided are based on soil support characteristics only. The structural engineer should design the slab and beam reinforcement based on actual loading conditions. As previously discussed, the structural engineer needs to consider the estimated static and seismic settlements into their design.

Based on the expansion index testing performed for this report, site soils possess a “Very Low” (0≤EI≤20) to “Low” (21≤EI≤50) Expansion Index (EI) when tested in general accordance with ASTM D4829. Expansion index and soluble sulfate evaluation of the soils beneath conventional foundation elements should be performed during construction to evaluate the as-graded 579
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 15
conditions. Final recommendations should be based upon the as-graded soils conditions. A summary of the foundation design recommendations is presented in the following table:
*Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of CBC 2022.

Based upon review, a modulus of subgrade reaction (E1) of 175 pci may be used in the design of the post-tensioned slab foundation system or the conventional foundation system. It should be noted that this value is based upon standard one foot plate load tests. Depending upon the design methodology and foundation geometry this value may need to be modified by the following:

Es = E1 ((B+1)/2B)2
where: Es = design modulus
B = footing width
Post-tensioned slabs and conventional foundation systems should be designed in accordance with the 2022 CBC and also the post-tensioned slabs should be designed according to PTI design methodology.

The following criteria for design of foundations are preliminary and should be re-evaluated based on the results of additional laboratory testing of samples obtained at/near finish pad grade.

DESIGN PARAMETER
“VERY LOW” (0≤EI≤20)

EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM
D 4829)
“LOW” (21≤EI≤50)

EXPANSION INDEX
(ASTM D 4829)
Building Foundation Depth or
Minimum Perimeter Beam Depth
(inches below lowest adjacent
grade)
One & Two-Stories – 12 inches
Three-stories – 18 inches
One & Two-Stories – 12 inches
Three-stories – 18 inches
Minimum Foundation Width*
(Inches)
One & Two-Stories – 12 inches
Three-stories – 15 inches
One & Two-Stories – 12 inches
Three-stories – 15 inches
Minimum Slab Thickness (actual) 4 inches 4 inches
Minimum Slab Reinforcing
6” x 6” – W1.4 x W1.4 welded
wire fabric or No. 3 bars at 18
inch centers
placed in middle of slab
6” x 6” – W2.9 x W2.9 welded
wire fabric or No. 3 bars at 18
inch centers
placed in middle of slab
Minimum Footing Reinforcement
Two No. 4 reinforcing bars,
one placed near the top and one
near the bottom of the footing
Two No. 4 reinforcing bars,
one placed near the top and one
near the bottom of the footing
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil
(Percent of Optimum)
Minimum of 100 percent of the
optimum moisture content to a
depth of at least 12 inches prior
to placing concrete
Minimum of 110 percent of the
optimum moisture content to a
depth of at least 12 inches prior
to placing concrete
580
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 16

5.3.1.1 An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of continuous and perimeter footings 12 inches deep and 12 inches wide, and pad footings 24 inches square and 12 inches deep. This allowable soil bearing capacity may be increased by 400 psf for each additional foot of footing depth and 250 psf for each additional foot of footing width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g., seismic and wind loads). These bearing values contain a minimum factor of safety of three (3).

5.3.1.2 Structural foundations should be designed in accordance with the 2022 CBC, and to withstand a total static settlement of 1 inch and maximum differential static settlement of one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 40 feet.

5.3.1.3 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 325 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,250 psf for footings founded on engineered fill or competent native soil. The allowable passive earth pressure contains a factor of safety of 1.5. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used with dead load forces. The coefficient of friction contains a reduction value of one-third (1/3). Passive pressure and frictional resistance may be combined without reduction. The upper one foot of soil should be ignored in the passive pressure calculations unless the surface is covered with pavements.

5.3.1.4 A grade beam, a minimum of 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep, should be utilized across large entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings.

5.3.1.5 A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these are provided in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2, the 2022 CBC Section 1907.1 and ACI 360R-10. The vapor retarder design and construction should also meet the requirements of ASTM E 1643. A portion of the vapor retarder design should be the implementation of a moisture vapor retardant membrane.

It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g., stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the vapor retarder placed atop the underlying aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant. Although the CBC 581
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 17
specifies a 6-mil vapor retarder membrane, it is GeoTek’s opinion that a minimum 10 mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise specified by the slab design professional. The membrane should consist of Stego wrap or the equivalent.

Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and environmental conditions.

Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (i.e., thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance level.

Moisture retarders can reduce, but not eliminate, moisture vapor rise from the underlying soils up through the slab. Moisture retarder systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, Post-Tensioning Concrete Institute, ASTM and California Building Code requirements and guidelines.

GeoTek recommends that a qualified person, such as the flooring contractor, structural engineer, architect, and/or other experts specializing in moisture control within the building be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture and vapor transmission paths and associated potential impact on the proposed construction. That person (or persons) should provide recommendations relative to the slab moisture and vapor retarder systems and for migration of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures, as deemed appropriate.

In addition, the recommendations in this report and GeoTek’s services in general are not intended to address mold prevention; since GeoTek, along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice in the area of mold prevention. If specific recommendations addressing potential mold issues are desired, then a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted.

It is recommended that control joints be placed in two directions spaced approximately 24 to 36 times the thickness of the slab in inches. These joints are a 582
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 18
widely accepted means to control cracks and should be reviewed by the project structural engineer.

5.3.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations

5.3.2.1 To reduce moisture penetration beneath the slab on grade areas, utility trench excavations should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge.

5.3.2.2 Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement.

5.3.3 Foundation Setbacks
Minimum setbacks for all foundations should comply with the 2022 CBC or City of Eastvale requirements, whichever is more stringent. Improvements not conforming to these setbacks are subject to the increased likelihood of excessive lateral movements and/or differential settlements. If large enough, these movements can compromise the integrity of the improvements. The top outside edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least five feet and need not exceed 40 feet.

5.3.4 Soil Corrosivity
The soil resistivity at this site was tested in the laboratory on a sample collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing indicate that the on-site soils are considered “moderately corrosive” (3,819 ohm-cm) (Roberge, 2000) to buried ferrous metal in accordance with current standards used by corrosion engineers. Recommendations for protection of buried ferrous metal should be provided by a corrosion engineer. Additional corrosion testing should be performed at the time of site grading to assess the corrosion potential of the asgraded soils.

5.3.5 Soil Sulfate Content
The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory on a sample collected during the field investigation. The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate result is less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered “negligible” (S0 exposure category) as per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-19. Based on the test results and Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-19, no special recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure. 583
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 19

5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.4.1.1 General Design Criteria
Recommendations presented in this report apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer.

Retaining wall foundations should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into engineered fill.

Retaining wall foundations should be designed in accordance with Section 5.3 of this report.

Structural needs may govern and should be evaluated by the project structural engineer.

All earth retention structure plans, as applicable, should be reviewed by this office prior to finalization.

Earthwork considerations, site clearing and remedial earthwork for all earth retention structures should meet the requirements of this report, unless specifically provided otherwise, or more stringent requirements or recommendations are made by the designer. The backfill material placement for all earth retention structures should meet the requirement of Section

5.2.4 in this report.

In general, cantilever earth retention structures, which are designed to yield at least 0.001H, where H is equal to the height of the earth retention structure, may be designed using the “active” condition. Rigid earth retention structures (including but not limited to rigid walls, and walls braced at top, such as typical basement walls) should be designed using the “at-rest” condition.

In addition to the design lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharges due to improvements, such as an adjacent building or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the earth retention structures. Loads applied within a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) projection from the surcharge on the stem of the earth retention structure should be considered in the design.

Final selection of the appropriate design parameters should be made by the designer of the earth retention structures.

5.4.1.2 Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained 584
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 20
from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, or adverse geologic conditions.

ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES
Surface Slope of Retained
Materials
(horizontal:vertical)
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(pcf)
Select Backfill* and Native Soils
Level 45
2:1 81
*The design pressures assume the backfill material has an expansion index less than or equal to 20. Backfill zone includes area between back of the wall to a plane (1:1 horizontal: vertical) up from bottom of the wall foundation (on the backside of the wall) to the ground surface.

For walls with a retained height greater than six (6) feet, an incremental seismic pressure should be included into the wall design. Where needed, it is recommended that a dynamic load increment of 14H2 [units: pounds per lineal feet of wall length] where H is the retained wall height, should be included into the wall design to account for seismic loading conditions. This dynamic load increment value may be considered to be applied to one-third of the wall height, H, above the base of the wall.

5.4.1.3 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
The wall backfill should also include a minimum one (1) foot wide section of ¾- to 1-inch clean crushed rock (or an approved equivalent). The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of the wall and extend up from a back drain to within approximately 24 inches of the finish grade. The upper 24 inches should consist of compacted on-site materials. The rock should be separated from the earth with filter fabric. The presence of other materials might necessitate revision of the parameters provided and modification of the wall designs. The backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than eight (8) inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained.

As an alternative to the drain, rock and fabric, a pre-manufactured wall drainage product (example: Mira Drain 6000 or approved equivalent) may be used behind the retaining wall. The wall drainage product should extend from the base of the wall to within two (2) feet of the ground surface. The subdrain should be placed in direct contact with the wall drainage product. 585
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 21
Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to help prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a four (4)-inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35, or approved equivalent) embedded in a minimum of one (1) cubic foot per linear foot of ¾- to 1-inch clean crushed rock or an approved equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or an approved equivalent). The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet. Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the walls is undesirable.

5.4.1.4 Restrained Retaining Walls
Retaining walls that will be restrained at the top that support level backfill or that have reentrant or male corners, should be designed for an equivalent at-rest fluid pressure of 66 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner, or a distance otherwise determined by the project structural engineer.

5.4.1.5 Other Design Considerations
 Wall design should consider the additional surcharge loads from superjacent slopes and/or footings, where appropriate.
 No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are evident by compression tests of cylinders.
 The retaining wall footing excavations, backcuts, and backfill materials should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative.  Positive separations should be provided in garden walls at horizontal distances not exceeding 20 feet.

5.5 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Although planned final grades beneath the street improvements within the site are not yet known, the following preliminary pavement design recommendations are based on section minimums designated by the County of Riverside (Standard Plan No. 105). Preliminary pavement thickness design is based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2018).

An R-value of 30 has been assumed for the preliminary design of the project pavement sections.

Once the traffic loading information becomes more defined, revision to the pavement design recommendations may be warranted. It is recommended that the final pavement design be based on R-value testing of the as-graded subgrade soils within the pavement areas. 586
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 22
Based on the assumptions noted above the following preliminary pavement recommendations are provided for the site:

PRELIMINARY MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTION
Street Type Traffic Index (TI)* Thickness of Asphalt
Concrete (inches)
Thickness of Aggregate
Base
(inches)
Local Street 5.5 3.0** 7.0
Collector Street 7.0 4.2** 9.0
Major Arterial
(Archibald Avenue)

8.0 5.0** 10.5
*County of Riverside standards (Standard Plan No. 105). **Minimum asphalt concrete thickness required by the County of Riverside.

Traffic Indices (TIs) used in the pavement design are designated by the County of Riverside and should provide a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. Irrigation adjacent to pavements, without a deep curb or other cutoff to separate landscaping from the paving may result in premature pavement failure. Traffic parameters used for design were selected based upon engineering judgment and not upon information furnished to us such as an equivalent wheel load analysis or a traffic study.

All base material and the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 test procedures.

All materials and methods of construction should conform to the requirements of the City of Eastvale and/or County of Riverside.

5.6 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

5.6.1 General
Concrete construction should follow the 2022 CBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, GeoTek could provide quality control testing of the concrete during construction.

5.6.2 Concrete Mix Design
As discussed in Section 5.3.5, no special recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure. Additional testing should be performed during grading so that specific recommendations can be formulated based on the as-graded conditions. 587
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 23

5.6.3 Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork is often one of the most visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control, being considered “non-structural” components. Cracking of these features is common due to various factors. While cracking usually does not affect the structural performance of the concrete, it is unsightly. It is recommended that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structure itself.

Flatwork should consist of a minimum four-inch (actual) thick concrete and the use of temperature and shrinkage control reinforcement is suggested. The project structural engineer should provide final design recommendations.

5.6.4 Concrete Performance
Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are hairline to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time.

One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened control joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are. GeoTek suggests that control joints be placed in two orthogonal directions and located at a distance approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness.

5.7 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
It is recommended that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. It is also recommended that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to observe and document for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should have GeoTek perform at least the following duties:
 Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials.
588
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 24
 Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement.  Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary.
 Observe the fill for uniformity during placement, including utility trench excavation backfill. Also, test the fill for density, relative compaction and moisture content.  Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials with respect to density.

If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. It is recommended that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained.

6. INTENT
It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed development. Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction.

The scope of GeoTek’s evaluation is limited to the area explored that is shown on the Exploration Location Map (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to GeoTek by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on GeoTek’s understanding of the project and the client’s needs, GeoTek’s proposal (Proposal No. P-0301324-CR) dated February 28, 2024, and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region.

7. LIMITATIONS
GeoTek’s findings are based on site conditions observed and the stated sources. Thus, GeoTek’s comments are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data.
589
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 25
GeoTek has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering at this time and location and science professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report.

Since GeoTek’s recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered at the stated times and laboratory testing. Thus, GeoTek’s conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty of any kind is expressed or implied. Standards of care/practice are subject to change with time.

8. SELECTED REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2006, Publication 302.2R-06, Guide for Concrete Slabs That Receive Moisture Sensitive Flooring Materials.
_____, 2008, Publication 330R-08, Guide For The Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots.
_____, 2010, Publications 360R-10, Guide to Design of Slabs-On-Ground. _____, 2019, Publications 318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.

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

Bowles, J. E., 1977, “Foundation Analysis and Design”, Second Edition.

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

California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 2, 2022 “California Building Code,” 2 volumes.

California Department of Transportation, 2018, “Highway Design Manual”, 6th Edition.

County of Riverside, 2023, “Standard No. 105 (Sheets 1 and 2)”, dated November 30. _____, Map My County web service, v11.5 (MapMyCounty).

Department of the Navy, 1982, “Foundations and Earth Structures”, Design Manual 7.2.

GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
590
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page 26
Morton, D.M., Miller, F.K., 2006, “Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, California,” U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF2006-1217, Map Scale 1:100,000.

Peck R. B., Hanson W. H. & Thornburn T. H., 1974, “Foundation Engineering”, Second edition.

Roberge, P. R., 2000, “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering”.

SEA/OSHPD web service, “Seismic Design Maps” (https://seismicmaps.org).

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

State of California, California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A.

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, Second Edition. 591
Warmington Residential
8312 Grapewin Street
APNs 130-080-004, 130-070-015 and -021
Eastvale, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3836-CR
Figure 1
Site Location
and Topography
Map
Approximate
Site Location
Modified from USGS Guasti

7.5-minute Topographic
Map Sheet
592
Figure 2
Exploration
Location
Map
Warmington Residential
8312 Grapewin Street
APNs 130-080-004, 130-070-015 and -021
Eastvale, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3836-CR
LEGEND
(Locations are Approximate)
Site Boundary B-6 Geotechnical
Boring
I-2 Infiltration
Test
B-6 B-5
B-4
B-3
B-2
B-1
I-2
I-1
593

APPENDIX A

LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development
8312 Grapewin Street
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 130-070-015 and -021; and 130-080-004 Eastvale, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3836-CR
594
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page A-1

A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring)
The ring sampler is driven into the ground at various depths in accordance with ASTM D 3550 test procedures. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler
Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed with a 2.0-inch outside diameter, 1.5-inch inside diameter, split-barrel sampler. The sampler was 18 inches long. The inside diameter of the sampler shoe was 1.4 inches. The sampler was unlined. The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 1586. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was utilized, dropping 30 inches for each blow. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. Disturbed samples are removed from the sample barrel, sealed in a plastic bag, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Bulk Samples (Large)
These samples are normally large bags of earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.

Bulk Samples (Small)
These are plastic bag samples which are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices.

B - BORING LOG LEGEND
The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the log of borings:

SOILS
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
f-c Fine to coarse
f-m Fine to medium

GEOLOGIC
B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip
J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip
C: Contact line
……….. Dashed line denotes USCS material change
Solid Line denotes unit / formational change
Thick solid line denotes end of boring
(Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the boring logs) 595
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
0 SM
9 15
16 R1 SM 13.1 111.2
13 21
32 R2 16.4 109.7
13 26
31 R3 SC/CL 24.7 102.9
13 40
50/6" R4 SC/SM 3.5 120.8
17 28
32 R5 SM
21 17
9 R6 1.9 114.2
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
Victor
CLIENT: Warmington Residential DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JS PROJECT NAME: 8312 Grapewin St. Eastvale DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
3/26/2024
PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: Track
LOCATION: See Exploration Location Map DATE:

Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others
Disturbed Soil:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-1

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
10 15
5 20
25 BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Silty f-c SAND, yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, some gravels 30LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:

AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Silty f SAND, light brown, slightly moist
Older Alluvium:

Silty/Clayey f SAND, brown, moist, very dense
Silty f-c SAND, yellowish brown, moist, dense, trace gravel Silty f SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense
Silty f SAND, light brown, moist, dense
Clayey f SAND to f sandy CLAY, light brown, moist to very moist, dense to hard
596
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
0 EI, SA, SR

39.9% passing No. 200
8 Expansion Index = 0
15 25 R1 SC 7.1 125.8
18 27
50/6" R2 SM 11.1 127.7
26 50/6" R3 10.0 123.6
28 50/2" R4 7.5 119.4
16 50/6" R5
24 50/6" R6 12.2 122.4
36 50/6" R7 SM
16 24
40 S1
19 23
28 S2 SC/SM 11.9
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
Victor
CLIENT: Warmington Residential DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JS PROJECT NAME: 8312 Grapewin St. Eastvale DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
3/26/2024
PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: Track
LOCATION: See Exploration Location Map DATE:

Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others
Undocumented Fill:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-2

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
10 15
5 20
25 Silty f-c SAND, grey-brown, very dense, trace gravel 30LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring
Lab testing:

AL = Atterberg Limits
Silty/clayey f-c SAND, light brown, moist, very dense, trace gravel Silty f-c SAND, brown, moist, very dense, trace gravel
RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Silty f-c SAND, brown, moist, very dense, trace clay, trace gravel Older Alluvium:

EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
---SPT ---Large Bulk
Silty f-c SAND, reddish brown, moist, very dense, trace clay, trace gravel Silty f-c SAND, reddish brown, moist, very dense, trace clay Silty f-c SAND, reddish brown, moist, very dense, trace clay, trace gravel Silty f-c SAND, reddish grey-brown, moist, very dense, trace clay, trace gravel Clayey f-m SAND, reddish-brown, moist, medium dense
597
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
19 28
50/6" S3 SM
26 31
50/4" S4 4.7
23 32
50/2" S5 6.4
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
Victor
CLIENT: Warmington Residential DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JS PROJECT NAME: 8312 Grapewin St. Eastvale DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
3/26/2024
PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: Track
LOCATION: See Exploration Location Map DATE:

Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-2 (continued)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
35 40
Silty f-m SAND, light brown, moist, very dense, few gravels 45 50LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring
RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:

AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis ---SPT
PRACTICAL DRILLING REFUSAL ENCOUNTERED AT 47 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Silty f-c SAND, grey-brown, moist, very dense, trace gravels Silty f-m SAND, grey-brown, moist, very dense, trace gravel 598
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
0 SC
7 5
2 R1 SC 13.3 118.3
3 5
6 R2 SM 2.5 103.2 Collapse
6 10
13 R3 3.3 107.5
7 11
15 R4 4.7 108.4 Collapse
9 16
29 R5 SC
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
Clayey f SAND, reddish brown, moist
Clayey f SAND, reddish-brown, moist, loose, trace rootlets Silty f SAND, light brown, moist, loose
Silty f SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense
Silty f SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense
Victor
CLIENT: Warmington ResidentiL DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JS PROJECT NAME: 8312 Grapewin St. Eastvale DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
3/26/2024
PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: Track
LOCATION: See Exploration Location Map DATE:

Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others
Undocumented Fill:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-3

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
5 Older Alluvium:
20 25
10 15
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 30LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:

AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Clayey f-c SAND, reddish brown, moist, medium dense, trace gravel 599
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
0 MD, EI, SH
CL/SC Expansion Index = 24
2 2
3 R1 CL/SC 14.2 95.6
5 10
13 R2 CL 25.5 98.2
7 12
16 R3 27.1 94.5
5 10
12 R4 31.3 91.8
6 11
11 R5
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
F-m sandy CLAY to clayey f-m SAND, brown, slightly moist Victor
CLIENT: Warmington ResidentiL DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JS PROJECT NAME: 8312 Grapewin St. Eastvale DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
3/26/2024
PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: Track
LOCATION: See Exploration Location Map DATE:

Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others
Disturbed Soil:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-4

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
10 15
5 20
25 Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
30LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring
Lab testing:

AL = Atterberg Limits
Older Alluvium:

EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
Silty CLAY, brown, moist, stiff, some oxidation staining BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Silty CLAY, brown, moist to very moist, stiff to very stiff, some oxidation Silty CLAY, light brown, moist to very moist, very stiff Silty CLAY, light brown, moist to very moist, very stiff F sandy CLAY to clayey f SAND, brown, moist, soft to loose ---SPT ---Large Bulk
RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 600
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
0 6
8 10 R1 SM 7.8 118.2
13 50/6" R2 SM 14.4 117.9
27 50/3" R3 SC/SM 12.5 118.0
31 50/6" R4 11.2 120.8
13 26
36 R5 CL
19 21
24 R6 SM 8.8 113.8
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
Victor
CLIENT: Warmington Residential DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JS PROJECT NAME: 8312 Grapewin St. Eastvale DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
3/26/2024
PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: Track
LOCATION: See Exploration Location Map DATE:

Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others
Undocumented Fill:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-5

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
10 15
5 20
25 Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Silty f-m SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense to dense BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
30LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:

AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test F-m sandy CLAY, light brown, moist, hard
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Silty f SAND, brown, moist, very dense, trace clay
Silty/clayey f-m SAND, reddish brown, moist, very dense Silty/clayey f-c SAND, reddish brown, moist, very dense Silty f SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, trace clay
Older Alluvium:
601
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
0 5
4 3 R1 SC 3.7 106.1
3 4
6 R2 SM/SC 15.8 101.4
7 18
24 R3 19.4 106.3
10 22
30 R4 SM 7.9 126.0
16 27
29 R5
12 27
43 R6 SC 14.5 120.3
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
Victor
CLIENT: Warmington Residential DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JS PROJECT NAME: 8312 Grapewin St. Eastvale DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
3/26/2024
PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: Track
LOCATION: See Exploration Location Map DATE:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: B-6
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Dry Density
(pcf)
Disturbed Soil: Silty f-m SAND, brown, slightly moist
5 Older Alluvium:

Clayey f-m SAND, brown, slightly moist, loose
Silty/clayey f SAND, light brown, moist, loose
Silty/clayey f SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense
10 15
Silty f-m SAND, brown, moist, dense
Silty f-m SAND, brown, moist, dense
20 25
BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Clayey f-m SAND, reddish brown, moist, dense
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
30LEGEND
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:

AL = Atterberg Limits RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
602
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
0 SM
SM
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
Older Alluvium:

Silty f SAND, light brown, moist
Victor
3/26/2024
Track
Silty f SAND, light brown, slightly moist
Disturbed Soil:

JS
PROJECT NAME: 8312 Grapewin St. Eastvale DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:

CLIENT: Warmington Residential DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY:

PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE:

LOCATION: See Exploration Location Map DATE:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: I-1
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
5 BORING TERMINATED AT 5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring set with pipe, sock, and gravel
10 15
20 25
30LEGEND
---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:

AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis Sample type:

RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 603
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
0 CL/SC
SC
SM
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
Victor
CLIENT: Warmington Residential DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: JS PROJECT NAME: 8312 Grapewin St. Eastvale DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR:
3/26/2024
PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: Track
LOCATION: See Exploration Location Map DATE:

Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others
Disturbed Soil:

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
Boring No.: I-2

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
5 BORING TERMINATED AT 5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring set with pipe, sock, and gravel
Silty f-m SAND, light brown, slightly moist
10 15
20 25
30LEGEND
F-m sandy CLAY to clayey f-m SAND, brown, slightly moist ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:

AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis Sample type:

Older Alluvium:

Clayey f-m SAND, light brown, moist
RV = R-Value Test
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 604

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development
8312 Grapewin Street
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 130-070-015 and -021; and 130-080-004 Eastvale, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3836-CR
605
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL Project No. 3836-CR
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation April 8, 2024
Eastvale, Riverside County, California Page B-1

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were classified visually in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D 2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of borings in Appendix A.

Collapse Test
Collapse tests were performed on selected samples of the site soils in general accordance with ASTM D 5333 test procedures. The results of this test are presented graphically in Appendix B.

Direct Shear
Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 test procedures. The rate of deformation was approximately 0.035 inch per minute.

The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The tests were performed on soil samples remolded to approximately 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. The shear test results are presented graphically in Appendix B.

Expansion Index
Expansion Index testing was performed on two (2) soil samples obtained from the field exploration.

Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4829 test procedures. The results of the testing are provided below.

Boring # Depth (ft.) Description Expansion Index Classification B-2 0-5 Clayey/Silty Sand (SM) 0 Low
B-4 0-5 Clayey Sand (SC) to Sandy Clay (CL) 24 Very Low In-Situ Moisture and Density
The natural water content of sampled soils was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 test procedures on samples of the materials recovered from the subsurface exploration. In addition, inplace dry density of the sampled soils was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2937 test procedures on relatively undisturbed samples to measure the unit weight of the subsurface soils.

Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths in Appendix A.

Moisture-Density Relationship
Laboratory testing was performed on one (1) sample collected during the subsurface exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the soil was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 test procedures. The results are presented graphically in Appendix B.

Sulfate Content, Resistivity and Chloride Content
Testing to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4327 test procedures. Resistivity testing was completed in general accordance with ASTM G187 test procedures. Testing to determine the chloride content was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4327 test procedures. The results of the testing are provided below and in Appendix B.

Boring # Depth
(ft.)
pH
ASTM D4972
Chloride
ASTM D4327
(mg/kg)
Sulfate
ASTM D4327 (% by
weight)
Resistivity
ASTM G187
(ohm-cm)
B-2 0-5 7.2 7.0 0.0124 3,819
606
Plate B-1
Sample: B-3 @ 5 Feet
Seating Cycle
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546
PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR Date: 4/1/2024 8312 Grapewin Street Eastvale

COLLAPSE REPORT
CHECKED BY: EC Lab: Corona Warmington Residential
Loading Prior to Inundation
Loading After Inundation
Rebound Cycle

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
CONSOLIDATION-PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%)

STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
607
Loading Prior to Inundation
Loading After Inundation
Rebound Cycle
PROJECT NO.: 3836-CR Date: 4/1/2024 8312 Grapewin Street Eastvale

COLLAPSE REPORT
CHECKED BY: EC Lab: Corona Warmington Residential
Plate B-2
Sample: B-3 @ 10 Feet
Seating Cycle
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
CONSOLIDATION-PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%)

STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
608
Sample Location:

Date Tested:

Shear Strength: F = 28 O
, C = 244 psf
Notes:
4/3/2024

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions. 1 - The soil specimen used in the shear box was a ring sample remolded to approximately 90% relative compaction from a bulk sample collected during the field investigation.

Project Name: APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004
Project Number:
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.01 in/min.
3836-CR
B-4 @ 0-5 Feet

0.0 500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0

0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 SHEAR STRESS (psf)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
609
Sample Details
Sample ID: 24-00062-S01 Date Sampled: 3/26/2024
Sampled By:

Material: Silty CLAY
Location: B-4 @ 0-5 Feet
Test Results
ASTM D 1557
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (lbf/ft³): 124.3
Optimum Water Content (%): 11.2
Method: A
Preparation Method: Moist
Retained Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%): 1
Passing Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%): 99
Tested By: Mycheal Phillips
Date Tested: 3/29/2024
Dry Unit Weight - Water Content Relationship
Proctor Report
Report No: PTR:24-00062-S01
Client:

Project: 3836-CR
APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004
Phone: (951) 710-1160
GeoTek - Corona
Corona, CA 92880
Fax: (951) 710-1167
1548 N. Maple St.

Warmington Residential
Costa Mesa CA 92626
3090 Pullman Street

THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL
CC:

Form No: 110031, Report No: PTR:24-00062-S01 © 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com Page 1 of 1 Comments
610
Ring #: Ring Dia. : Ring Ht.:1"
Weight of compacted sample & ring (gm)Weight of ring (gm)Net weight of sample (gm)Moisture Content, %Specific Gravity, assumedUnit Wt. of Water @ 20 °C, (pcf)% Saturation

EXPANSION INDEX TEST
(ASTM D4829)
Client: Warmington Residential Tested/ Checked By: RB Lab No Corona Project Number: 3836-CR Date Tested: 3/29/2024
Project Location: APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004 Sample Source: B-2 @ 0-5 Feet Sample Description:

4.01"
369.2 DATE TIME READING
3/29/2024 0.2790 Initial

DENSITY DETERMINATION
763.6 READINGS
Wet Density, lb / ft3 (C*0.3016) 119.0 3/29/2024 0.2770 10 min/Dry 394.4
Dry Density, lb / ft3 (D/1.F) 108.1

SATURATION DETERMINATION

2.70 3/30/2024 0.2770 Final10.062.448.4 FINAL MOISTURE
Final Weight of wet
sample & tare % Moisture
799.0 19.0
EXPANSION INDEX = 0
611
Ring #: Ring Dia. : Ring Ht.:1"
Weight of compacted sample & ring (gm)Weight of ring (gm)Net weight of sample (gm)Moisture Content, %Specific Gravity, assumedUnit Wt. of Water @ 20 °C, (pcf)% Saturation

4.01"
364.3 DATE TIME READING
3/29/2024 0.5900 Initial

DENSITY DETERMINATION
781.2 READINGS
Wet Density, lb / ft3 (C*0.3016) 125.7 3/29/2024 0.5890 10 min/Dry 416.9
Dry Density, lb / ft3 (D/1.F) 116.4

SATURATION DETERMINATION

2.70 3/30/2024 0.6130 Final

8.0 62.448.3 FINAL MOISTURE
Final Weight of wet
sample & tare % Moisture
805.8 13.9
EXPANSION INDEX = 24
612
Project X REPORT S240329B
Corrosion Engineering Page 1
Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com
Results Only Soil Testing
for
X
April 1, 2024
Prepared for:

Eddy Cuevas
GeoTek USA
1548 N. Maple Avenue
Corona, CA 92878
[email protected]/[email protected]
Project X Job#: S240329B
Client Job or PO#: 3836-CR
Prepared by:

N.Rabatin
Respectfully Submitted,
Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E.

Sr. Corrosion Consultant
NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592
Professional Engineer
California No. M37102
[email protected]
613
Project X REPORT S240329B
Corrosion Engineering Page 2
Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com
Soil Analysis Lab Results
Client: GeoTek USA
Job Name: X
Client Job Number: 3836-CR
Project X Job Number: S240329B
April 1, 2024
Method ASTM
G51
ASTM
G200
SM
4500-D
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D4327
Bore# /
Description
Depth pH Redox Sulfide
S2-
Nitrate
NO3
-
Ammonium
NH4
+
Lithium
Li+
Sodium
Na+
Potassium
K+
Magnesium
Mg2+
Calcium
Ca2+
Fluoride
F2
--
Phosphate
PO4
3-
(ft) (mg/kg) (wt%) (mg/kg) (wt%) (Ω-cm) (Ω-cm) (mV) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) B-2 0-5 124.3 0.0124 7.0 0.0007 59,630 3,819 7.2 158 1.1 45.7 14.2 ND 54.5 11.6 26.5 122.2 2.5 16.0 ASTM
G187
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D4327
Resistivity
As Rec'd | Minimum
Sulfates
SO4
2-
Chlorides
ClCations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bicarbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND = 0 = Not Detected | NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract PPM = mg/kg (soil) = mg/L (Liquid)
Note: Sometimes a bad sulfate hit is a contaminated spot. Typical fertilizers are Potassium chloride, ammonium sulfate or ammonium sulfate nitrate (ASN). So this is another reason why testing full corrosion series is good because we then have the data to see if those other ingredients are present meaning the soil sample is just fertilizer-contaminated soil. This can happen often when the soil samples collected are simply surface scoops which is why it's best to dig in a foot, throw away the top and test the deeper stuff. Dairy farms are also notorious for these items.

If one lot pops up much more corrosive than all others, we would recommend collecting more samples from the lots surrounding the problem lot to determine if the peak is isolated to it.
614

APPENDIX C

INFILTRATION TEST DATA & PORCHET CALCULATIONS
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development
8312 Grapewin Street
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 130-070-015 and -021; and 130-080-004 Eastvale, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3836-CR
615
Project: Job No.: 3836-CR
Test Hole No.: Tested By: Date: 3/27/24
Depth of Hole As Drilled: Before Test: After Test: 60"
Reading
No. Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total Depth
of Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water Level
(Inches)
Final
Water Level
(Inches)
Δ in Water
Level
(Inches)
Rate
(Minutes per
Inch)
7:47 AM 25 60 36 39 3
8:12 AM
8:14 AM 25 60 35.4 39 3.6
8:39 AM
8:40 AM 30 60 36 40.2 4.2
9:10 AM
9:11 AM 30 60 36 40.4 4.4
9:41 AM
9:42 AM 30 60 36 39.6 3.6
10:12 AM
10:13 AM 30 60 36 39.7 3.7
10:43 AM
10:44 AM 30 60 34.8 39.2 4.4
11:14 AM
11:15 AM 30 60 36 39.4 3.4
11:45 AM
11:46 AM 30 60 35.4 38.8 3.4
12:16 PM
12:18 PM 30 60 36 39.6 3.6
12:48 PM
12:50 PM 30 60 36 39.4 3.4
1:20 PM
1:22 PM 30 60 35.8 39.2 3.4
1:52 PM
1:54 PM 30 60 35.4 39 3.6
2:24 PM
2:25 PM 30 60 36 39.6 3.6
2:55 PM
60" 60"

PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
9312 Grapewin Street (APN's 130-070-015 & -021 ; 130-080-004 ) I-1 JS
Comments
Trial 1 Presoaked prior to Trials
Trial 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 12
10 11
616
Project: Job No.: 3836-CR
Test Hole No.: Tested By: Date: 3/27/24
Depth of Hole As Drilled: Before Test: After Test: 60"
Reading
No. Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total Depth
of Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water Level
(Inches)
Final
Water Level
(Inches)
Δ in Water
Level
(Inches)
Rate
(Minutes per
Inch)
7:52 AM 25 60 34.8 39 4.2
8:17 AM
8:18 AM 25 60 36 39.6 3.6
8:43 AM
8:44 AM 30 60 36 39.6 3.6
9:14 AM
9:15 AM 30 60 36 40.6 4.6
9:45 AM
9:46 AM 30 60 36 40.3 4.3
10:16 AM
10:17 AM 30 60 36 39.5 3.5
10:47 AM
10:48 AM 30 60 34.8 38.4 3.6
11:18 AM
11:19 AM 30 60 35.5 39.2 3.7
11:49 AM
11:50 AM 30 60 35.6 38.9 3.3
12:20 PM
12:22 PM 30 60 35.6 39.4 3.8
12:52 PM
12:54 PM 30 60 35.4 39 3.6
1:24 AM
1:25 AM 30 60 36 39.8 3.8
1:55 AM
1:56 AM 30 60 35.5 39.6 4.1
2:26 AM
2:27 AM 30 60 36 39.7 3.7
2:57 AM
60" 60"

PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
9312 Grapewin Street (APN's 130-070-015 & -021 ; 130-080-004 ) I-2 JS
Comments
Trial 1 Presoaked prior to Trials
Trial 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 12
10 11
617
Equation - It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = 0.60 Inches per Hour
Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 60
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 24
HF = DT - DF = 20.4
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 3.6

22.2 Final Depth to Water, DF = 39.6
Test Hole Radius, r = 4
Initial Depth to Water, DO = 36
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Client: Warmington Residential
Project: 8312 Grapewin St, Eastvale
Project No: 3836-CR
Date: 3/27/24
Boring No. I-1
Percolation to Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
618
Equation - It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Client: Warmington Residential
Project: 8312 Grapewin St, Eastvale
Project No: 3836-CR
Date: 3/27/24
Boring No. I-2
Percolation to Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Final Depth to Water, DF = 39.7
Test Hole Radius, r = 4
Initial Depth to Water, DO = 36

0.61 Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 60
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 24
HF = DT - DF = 20.3
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 3.7

22.15 619

APPENDIX D

SEISMIC-SETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development
8312 Grapewin Street
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 130-070-015 and -021; and 130-080-004 Eastvale, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3836-CR
620
LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civiltech.com
CivilTech Corporation

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
3836-CR 8312 Grapewin Street Eastvale, CA
Warmington Residential Plate A-1
Hole No.=B-2 Water Depth=38 ft Magnitude=6.71
Acceleration=0.72g
(ft)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
26 135 35
40 142 15
40 136 15
40 128 15
40 128 15
40 137 15
40 137 15
64 125 15
51 125 35
50 125 15
50 125 15
50 125 15
Raw Unit Fines
SPT Weight %
Shear Stress Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 1
Factor of Safety Soil Description
0 5 1
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.

S = 0.24 in.
0 (in.) 1
fs1=1.00
621

************************************************************************************ *******************

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY

************************************************************************************ *******************
Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.

Licensed to , 4/5/2024 7:14:12 AM
Input File Name: D:\Projects\3836-CR Boring B-2.liq
Title: 3836-CR 8312 Grapewin Street Eastvale, CA
Subtitle: Warmington Residential
Surface Elev.=
Hole No.=B-2
Depth of Hole= 47.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 38.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 50.00 ft
Max. Acceleration= 0.72 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 6.71
Input Data:

Surface Elev.=
Hole No.=B-2
Depth of Hole=47.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 38.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 50.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.72 g
Earthquake Magnitude=6.71
No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil

1. SPT or BPT Calculation.

2. Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu/Seed

3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.*

4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction*

5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones*

6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.35

7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1

8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1

9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1 Plot one CSR curve (fs1=User)

10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes*
* Recommended Options
In-Situ Test Data:

Depth SPT gamma Fines
622
ft pcf %
____________________________________

0.00 26.00 135.00 35.00

2.00 40.00 142.00 15.00

5.00 40.00 136.00 15.00

7.00 40.00 128.00 15.00

10.00 40.00 128.00 15.00

15.00 40.00 137.00 15.00

20.00 40.00 137.00 15.00

25.00 64.00 125.00 15.00

30.00 51.00 125.00 35.00

35.00 50.00 125.00 15.00

40.00 50.00 125.00 15.00

45.00 50.00 125.00 15.00
____________________________________
Output Results:

Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.00 in.

Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.24 in.

Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=0.24 in.

Differential Settlement=0.120 to 0.158 in.

Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. S_dry S_all
ft in. in. in.
_______________________________________________________

0.00 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.05 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.10 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.15 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.20 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.25 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.30 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.35 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.40 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.45 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.50 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.55 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.60 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.65 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.70 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.75 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.80 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.85 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.90 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

0.95 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.00 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.05 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.10 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.15 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.20 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24
623

1.25 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.30 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.35 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.40 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.45 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.50 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.55 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.60 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.65 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.70 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.75 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.80 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.85 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.90 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

1.95 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.00 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.05 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.10 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.15 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.20 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.25 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.30 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.35 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.40 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.45 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.50 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.55 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.60 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.65 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.70 0.66 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.75 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.80 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.85 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.90 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

2.95 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.00 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.05 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.10 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.15 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.20 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.25 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.30 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.35 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.40 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.45 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.50 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.55 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.60 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24

3.65 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

3.70 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23
624

3.75 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

3.80 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

3.85 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

3.90 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

3.95 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.00 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.05 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.10 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.15 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.20 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.25 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.30 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.35 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.40 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.45 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.50 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.55 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.60 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.65 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.70 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.75 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.80 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.85 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.90 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

4.95 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.00 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.05 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.10 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.15 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.20 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.25 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.30 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.35 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.40 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.45 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.50 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.55 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.60 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.65 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.70 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.75 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.80 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.85 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.90 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

5.95 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.00 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.05 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.10 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.15 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.20 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23
625

6.25 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.30 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.35 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.40 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.45 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.50 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.55 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.60 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.65 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.70 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.75 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.80 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.85 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.90 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

6.95 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.00 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.05 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.10 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.15 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.20 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.25 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.30 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.35 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.40 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.45 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.50 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.55 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.60 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.65 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.70 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.75 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23

7.80 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

7.85 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

7.90 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

7.95 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.00 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.05 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.10 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.15 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.20 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.25 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.30 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.35 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.40 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.45 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.50 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.55 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.60 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.65 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.70 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22
626

8.75 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.80 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.85 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.90 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

8.95 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.00 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.05 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.10 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.15 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.20 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.25 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.30 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.35 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.40 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.45 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.50 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.55 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.60 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.65 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.70 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.75 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.80 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.85 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.90 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

9.95 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.00 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.05 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.10 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.15 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.20 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.25 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.30 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.35 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.40 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.45 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.50 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.55 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.60 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.65 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22

10.70 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

10.75 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

10.80 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

10.85 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

10.90 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

10.95 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.00 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.05 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.10 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.15 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.20 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21
627

11.25 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.30 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.35 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.40 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.45 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.50 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.55 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.60 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.65 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.70 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.75 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.80 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.85 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.90 0.66 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

11.95 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.00 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.05 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.10 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.15 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.20 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.25 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.30 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.35 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.40 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.45 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.50 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.55 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.60 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.65 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.70 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.75 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21

12.80 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

12.85 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

12.90 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

12.95 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.00 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.05 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.10 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.15 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.20 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.25 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.30 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.35 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.40 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.45 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.50 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.55 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.60 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.65 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.70 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20
628

13.75 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.80 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.85 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.90 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

13.95 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

14.00 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

14.05 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

14.10 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

14.15 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

14.20 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

14.25 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

14.30 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

14.35 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

14.40 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.45 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.50 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.55 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.60 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.65 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.70 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.75 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.80 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.85 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.90 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

14.95 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.00 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.05 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.10 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.15 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.20 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.25 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.30 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.35 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.40 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.45 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.50 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.55 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.60 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.65 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.70 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19

15.75 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

15.80 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

15.85 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

15.90 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

15.95 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.00 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.05 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.10 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.15 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.20 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18
629

16.25 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.30 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.35 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.40 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.45 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.50 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.55 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.60 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.65 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.70 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.75 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.80 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.85 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18

16.90 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

16.95 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.00 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.05 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.10 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.15 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.20 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.25 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.30 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.35 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.40 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.45 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.50 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.55 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.60 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.65 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.70 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.75 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.80 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.85 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

17.90 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

17.95 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.00 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.05 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.10 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.15 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.20 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.25 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.30 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.35 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.40 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.45 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.50 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.55 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.60 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.65 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.70 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16
630

18.75 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.80 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.85 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.90 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

18.95 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

19.00 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

19.05 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

19.10 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

19.15 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

19.20 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

19.25 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16

19.30 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.35 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.40 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.45 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.50 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.55 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.60 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.65 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.70 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.75 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.80 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.85 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.90 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

19.95 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.00 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.05 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.10 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.15 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.20 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.25 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.30 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.35 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.40 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.45 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.50 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.55 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.60 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.65 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.70 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.75 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.80 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.85 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15

20.90 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

20.95 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.00 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.05 0.66 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.10 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.15 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.20 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14
631

21.25 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.30 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.35 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.40 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.45 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.50 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.55 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.60 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.65 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.70 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.75 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.80 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.85 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.90 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

21.95 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

22.00 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

22.05 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

22.10 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

22.15 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

22.20 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

22.25 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

22.30 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

22.35 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

22.40 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14

22.45 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

22.50 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

22.55 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

22.60 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

22.65 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

22.70 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

22.75 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

22.80 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

22.85 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

22.90 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

22.95 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.00 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.05 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.10 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.15 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.20 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.25 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.30 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.35 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.40 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.45 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.50 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.55 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.60 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.65 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.70 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13
632

23.75 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.80 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.85 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.90 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

23.95 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

24.00 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13

24.05 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.10 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.15 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.20 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.25 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.30 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.35 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.40 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.45 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.50 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.55 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.60 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.65 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.70 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.75 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.80 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.85 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.90 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

24.95 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.00 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.05 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.10 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.15 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.20 0.67 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.25 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.30 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.35 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.40 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.45 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.50 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.55 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.60 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12

25.65 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

25.70 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

25.75 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

25.80 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

25.85 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

25.90 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

25.95 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.00 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.05 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.10 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.15 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.20 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11
633

26.25 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.30 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.35 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.40 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.45 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.50 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.55 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.60 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.65 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.70 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.75 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.80 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.85 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.90 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

26.95 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

27.00 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

27.05 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

27.10 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.15 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.20 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.25 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.30 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.35 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.40 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.45 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.50 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.55 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.60 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.65 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.70 0.66 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.75 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.80 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.85 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.90 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27.95 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

28.00 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

28.05 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

28.10 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

28.15 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

28.20 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

28.25 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

28.30 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

28.35 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

28.40 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

28.45 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

28.50 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

28.55 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

28.60 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

28.65 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

28.70 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09
634

28.75 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

28.80 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

28.85 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

28.90 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

28.95 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.00 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.05 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.10 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.15 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.20 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.25 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.30 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.35 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.40 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.45 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.50 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.55 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.60 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.65 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

29.70 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

29.75 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

29.80 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

29.85 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

29.90 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

29.95 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.00 0.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.05 0.65 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.10 0.65 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.15 0.65 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.20 0.65 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.25 0.65 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.30 0.65 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.35 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.40 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.45 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.50 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.55 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.60 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.65 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.70 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.75 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08

30.80 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

30.85 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

30.90 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

30.95 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.00 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.05 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.10 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.15 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.20 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07
635

31.25 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.30 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.35 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.40 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.45 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.50 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.55 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.60 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.65 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.70 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.75 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.80 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.85 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

31.90 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

31.95 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.00 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.05 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.10 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.15 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.20 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.25 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.30 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.35 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.40 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.45 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.50 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.55 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.60 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.65 0.64 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.70 0.64 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.75 0.64 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.80 0.64 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.85 0.64 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

32.90 0.64 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

32.95 0.64 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.00 0.64 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.05 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.10 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.15 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.20 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.25 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.30 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.35 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.40 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.45 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.50 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.55 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.60 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.65 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.70 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05
636

33.75 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.80 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.85 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05

33.90 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

33.95 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.00 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.05 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.10 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.15 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.20 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.25 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.30 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.35 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.40 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.45 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.50 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.55 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.60 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.65 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.70 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.75 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

34.80 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

34.85 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

34.90 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

34.95 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.00 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.05 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.10 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.15 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.20 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.25 0.63 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.30 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.35 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.40 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.45 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.50 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.55 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.60 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.65 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

35.70 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

35.75 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

35.80 0.63 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

35.85 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

35.90 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

35.95 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.00 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.05 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.10 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.15 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.20 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02
637

36.25 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.30 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.35 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.40 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.45 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.50 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

36.55 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

36.60 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

36.65 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

36.70 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

36.75 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

36.80 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

36.85 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

36.90 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

36.95 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

37.00 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

37.05 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

37.10 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

37.15 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

37.20 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

37.25 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

37.30 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

37.35 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

37.40 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.45 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.50 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.55 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.60 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.65 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.70 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.75 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.80 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.85 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.90 0.62 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37.95 0.62 0.40 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.00 0.62 0.40 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.05 0.62 0.40 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.10 0.62 0.40 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.15 0.62 0.40 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.20 0.62 0.40 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.25 0.62 0.40 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.30 0.62 0.40 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.35 0.62 0.40 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.40 0.62 0.40 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.45 0.62 0.41 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.50 0.62 0.41 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.55 0.62 0.41 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.60 0.62 0.41 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.65 0.62 0.41 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.70 0.62 0.41 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00
638

38.75 0.62 0.41 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.80 0.61 0.41 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.85 0.61 0.41 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.90 0.61 0.41 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

38.95 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.00 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.05 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.10 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.15 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.20 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.25 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.30 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.35 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.40 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.45 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.50 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.55 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.60 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.65 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.70 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.75 0.61 0.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.80 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.85 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.90 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

39.95 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.00 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.05 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.10 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.15 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.20 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.25 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.30 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.35 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.40 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.45 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.50 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.55 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.60 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.65 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.70 0.61 0.41 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.75 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.80 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.85 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.90 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

40.95 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.00 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.05 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.10 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.15 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.20 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
639

41.25 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.30 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.35 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.40 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.45 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.50 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.55 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.60 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.65 0.61 0.41 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.70 0.61 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.75 0.61 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.80 0.61 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.85 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.90 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

41.95 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.00 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.05 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.10 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.15 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.20 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.25 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.30 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.35 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.40 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.45 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.50 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.55 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.60 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.65 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.70 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.75 0.60 0.41 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.80 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.85 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.90 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

42.95 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.00 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.05 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.10 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.15 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.20 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.25 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.30 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.35 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.40 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.45 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.50 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.55 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.60 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.65 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.70 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00
640

43.75 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.80 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.85 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.90 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

43.95 0.60 0.41 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.00 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.05 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.10 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.15 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.20 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.25 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.30 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.35 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.40 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.45 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.50 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.55 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.60 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.65 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.70 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.75 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.80 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.85 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.90 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.95 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.00 0.60 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.05 0.59 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.10 0.59 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.15 0.59 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.20 0.59 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.25 0.59 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.30 0.59 0.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.35 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.40 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.45 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.50 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.55 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.60 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.65 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.70 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.75 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.80 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.85 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.90 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

45.95 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.00 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.05 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.10 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.15 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.20 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
641

46.25 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.30 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.35 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.40 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.45 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.50 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.55 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.60 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.65 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.70 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.75 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.80 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.85 0.59 0.41 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.90 0.59 0.41 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00

46.95 0.59 0.41 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00

47.00 0.59 0.41 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
_______________________________________________________ * F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone
(F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Units: Unit: qc, fs, Stress or Pressure = atm (1.0581tsf); Unit Weight = pcf; Depth = ft; Settlement = in.
____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 atm (atmosphere) = 1 tsf (ton/ft2)
CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils
CSRsf Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user request factor of safety)
F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf S_sat Settlement from saturated sands
S_dry Settlement from Unsaturated Sands
S_all Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils
642

APPENDIX E

GENERAL EARTHWORK GRADING GUIDELINES
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development
8312 Grapewin Street
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 130-070-015 and -021; and 130-080-004 Eastvale, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3836-CR
643

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004 Page E-1 Eastvale, Riverside County, California Project No. 3836-CR

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES
Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and observation used to evaluate those procedures.

General
Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18 and 33 of the Uniform Building Code, CBC and the guidelines presented below.

Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative) should review our report and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting.

Grading Observation and Testing

1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading.

Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified.

2. Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are intended to evaluate the contractor’s overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor’s personnel are the only individuals participating in all aspects of site work. Compaction testing and observation should not be considered as relieving the contractor’s responsibility to properly compact the fill.

3. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation. 644

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004 Page E-2 Eastvale, Riverside County, California Project No. 3836-CR

4. Density tests may be done on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm.

5. In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height, or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill.

More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained.

6. Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures. Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials.

7. Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows:
a) Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. b) If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved.

8. Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete.

Site Clearing

1. All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area.

2. Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials.

This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers.

3. Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative. 645

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004 Page E-3 Eastvale, Riverside County, California Project No. 3836-CR Treatment of Existing Ground

1. Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or creep effected bedrock, should be removed unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report.

2. In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative.

3. Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months.

4. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards.

5. Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.

Fill Placement

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report).

2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative.

3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following:
a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rates.
b) Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557.

4. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative. 646

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004 Page E-4 Eastvale, Riverside County, California Project No. 3836-CR

5. Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated suitable for rock disposal. On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be requested.

6. In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill.

Slope Construction

1. The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment.

2. Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming may be necessary.

3. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades.

Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built.

4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction.

5. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization.

UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL
Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractor’s responsibility. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors’ methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures. 647

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004 Page E-5 Eastvale, Riverside County, California Project No. 3836-CR Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that “worked” on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience.

1. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench.

2. Flooding and jetting are not typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is typically limited to the following uses:
a) shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and, b) as bedding in pipe zone.

The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction.

3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation.

Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade.

4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil.

5. Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractor’s procedures. A probing rod would be used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. If zones are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to the contractor’s attention.

JOB SAFETY
General
Personnel safety is a primary concern on all job sites. The following summaries are safety considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at the highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the contractor's responsibility.

However, it is imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury. 648

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004 Page E-6 Eastvale, Riverside County, California Project No. 3836-CR In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects.

1. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings.

2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site.

3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits.

In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.

Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Again, safety is the paramount concern.

Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access.

A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow.

This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results.
649

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004 Page E-7 Eastvale, Riverside County, California Project No. 3836-CR Slope Tests
When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing.

The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location.

Trench Safety
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench backfill.

All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment.

Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which;

1. is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back,

2. exit points or ladders are not provided,

3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or
50 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
50 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
Traffic Direction
Vehicle
parked here Test Pit Spoil
pile
Spoil
pile
Test Pit

SIDE VIEW

PLAN VIEW

TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN
10 0 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
650

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – APNs 130-070-015 & -021; 130-080-004 Page E-8 Eastvale, Riverside County, California Project No. 3836-CR

4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth.

If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractors representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal.

Procedures
In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor’s representative will then be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal.

In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician’s attention and notify our project manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general.

The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures, particularly the zone of non-encroachment.

ALTERNATES
Original Ground
3’
Loose Surface Materials
Finish Grade
3’
Suitable
Material
Suitable
Material
6” Perforated Pipe in 9 cubic feet per Lineal
Foot Clean Gravel Wrapped in Filter Fabric
Construct Benches
where slope exceeds 5:1
Bottom of Cleanout to Be At
Least 1.5 Times the Width of
Compaction Equipment
4 feet typical
Slope to Drain
Original Ground
Loose Surface Materials
Finish Grade
Suitable
Construct Benches Material
where slope exceeds 5:1
Bottom of Cleanout to Be At
Least 1.5 Times the Width of
Compaction Equipment
4 feet typical
Slope to Drain
6” Perforated Pipe in 9 cubic feet
per Lineal Foot Clean Gravel
Wrapped in Filter Fabric
652

TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER

NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE
Topsoil
Bedrock
Finish Grade
Fill Slope
Daylight Cut
Line per Plan
Project Removal
at 1 to 1
Min. 3 Feet
Compacted Fill
Colluvium
Creep Zone
Minimum 15 Feet Wide
or 1.5 Equipment
Widths for Compaction
Toe of Fill Slope
per Plan

DAYLIGHT CUT AREA OVER

NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE
Topsoil
Structural Setback
Without Corrective Work
Project Removal
at 1 to 1
Colluvium
Creep Zone
Min.
2 Feet
Minimum 15 Feet Wide
or 1.5 Equipment
Widths for Compaction
Finish Grade
Bedrock
Min. 3 Feet
Compacted Fill
Min. 2% Fall
Min.
2 Feet
Min. 2% Fall
Compacted Fill
Compacted Fill
Topsoil
Colluvium
Creep Zone
653

TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER

CUT SLOPE
Topsoil
Bedrock
Finish Grade
2: 1 Fill Slope
4’ Typical
Colluvium
Creep Zone
Minimum 15 Feet Wide
or 1.5 Equipment
Widths for Compaction
Toe of Fill Slope
per Plan

TYPICAL FILL SLOPE
Bedrock or
Suitable Dense Material
Minimum compacted fill required
to provide lateral support.

Excavate key if width or depth
less than indicated in table above
Cut Slope
Min. 2% Fall
SLOPE
HEIGHT
MIN. KEY
WIDTH
MIN. KEY
DEPTH
5 10
15 20
25 >25
7 10
15 15
15 SEE TEXT
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY

WITH SOIL ENGINEER

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
654
NOTES:
2) MAXIMUM ROCK SIZE IN WINDROWS IS 4 FEET
3) SOIL AROUND WINDROWS TO BE SANDY MATERIAL SUBJECT TO SOIL ENGINEER ACCEPTANCE 4) SPACING AND CLEARANCES MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPACTION 5) INDIVDUAL LARGE ROCKS MAY BE BURIED IN PITS.

SEE NOTE 1
15’
MIN. 3’ MIN.
3’ MIN.

MINIMUM 15’ CLEAR OR

1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS

FOR COMPACTION

STAGGER ROWS

HORIZONTALLY

NO ROCKS IN

THIS ZONE

CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW

FINISH GRADE

FILL SLOPE

PLAN VIEW

FILL SLOPE
MINIMUM 15’ CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT

WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION
MINIMUM 15’ CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT

WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION

PLACE ROCKS END TO END

DO NOT PILE OR STACK ROCKS

SOIL TO BE PLACE AROUND AND OVER ROCKS THEN FLOODED INTO VOIDS. MUST COMPACT AROUND AND OVER EACH ROCK WINDROW
1) SOIL FILL OVER WINDROW SHOULD BE 7 FEET OR PER JURISDUICTIONAL STANDARDS AND SUFFICIENT

FOR FUTURE EXCAVATIONS TO AVOID ROCKS
655

SEE DETAILS FOR BACKDRAIN

AND HEEL DRAIN

BACKDRAIN

DETAILS

HEEL DRAIN

DETAILS
6” diameter perforated drain pipe in 6 cubic
feet per lineal foot clean gravel wrapped
in filter fabric, outlet pipe to gravity flow
with 2% minimum fall
4” diameter perforated drain pipe
(Schedule 40 PVC or equivalent) in
6 cubic feet per lineal foot clean gravel
wrapped in filter fabric
4” diameter solid outlet pipe (Schedule 40
PVC or equivalent) laterals to slope face or
storm drain system at maximum 100 foot
maximum intervals
Note: Additional backdrains may be recommended
2% Minimum Fall
656
PLN24-20053 – Warmington Residential
City of Eastvale

APPENDIX E

PHASE I AND II

ENVIRONMENTAL SITE

ASSESSMENT
657
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 130-
070-015, 130-080-004, and 130-
070-021
Eastvale, California 92880
Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment
April 9, 2024
Prepared for:

Warmington Residential
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
735 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 280
San Bernardino, California 92408
Project No.: 185806478
658
Sign-off Sheet and Signatures of Environmental Professionals Project No.: 185806478
This document entitled Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Report) was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Warmington Residential (the “Client”). The conclusions in the Report are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes.

The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk.

Stantec has assumed all information received from the “Client” and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein.

This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client.

While the Report may be provided to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and others for whom the Client is responsible, Stantec does not warrant the services to any third party. The report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written consent of Stantec, which may be withheld at Stantec’s discretion.

I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in § 312.10 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 312, (40 CFR 312). I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the property. I have developed and performed all the appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

Author:

Jennifer Alvarado
Associate Scientist
Quality Reviewer:

Alicia Jansen
Senior Scientist
Independent Reviewer:

Kyle D. Emerson, C.E.G.

Managing Principal
659

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Project No.: 185806478 i
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................................III

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................1.1

2.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................2.1

2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION .......................................................................2.2

2.2 SPECIAL TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS ......................2.2

2.3 EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ..............................................................2.3

2.4 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS.................................................................................2.4

3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION..............................................................................3.1

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ....................................................................................................4.1

4.1 PHYSICAL SETTING ...................................................................................................4.1

4.1.1 Subject Property Topography and Surface Water Flow...............................4.2

4.1.2 Regional and Subject Property Geology......................................................4.2

4.1.3 Regional and Subject Property Hydrogeology .............................................4.2

4.2 FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS................................4.2

4.2.1 Listings for Subject Property........................................................................4.3

4.2.2 Listings for Adjoining and Nearby Sites with Potential to Impact Subject Property..........................................................................................4.3

4.3 LOCAL/REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS ....................................................4.4

4.3.1 Environmental Health Department...............................................................4.5

4.3.2 Fire Department ..........................................................................................4.5

4.3.3 City and County Department Records.........................................................4.5

4.3.4 State Department Records..........................................................................4.6

4.4 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW ..............................................................................4.7

4.4.1 Land Title Records/Deeds...........................................................................4.7

4.4.2 Aerial Photographs......................................................................................4.7

4.4.3 City Directories............................................................................................4.8

4.4.4 Historical Fire Insurance Maps....................................................................4.8

4.4.5 Historical Topographic Maps.......................................................................4.8

4.4.6 Other Historical Sources .............................................................................4.9

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE...........................................................................................5.1

5.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY ..............................................................5.1

5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................5.1

5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS..................................5.2

5.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................................5.2

5.5 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS......................................................................................5.3

5.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS/STRUCTURES.................................................5.3

5.7 ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS..........................................................................5.4

5.8 ADJOINING PROPERTIES..........................................................................................5.4

5.8.1 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties ..........................................................5.4

5.8.2 Observed Evidence of Past Uses of Adjoining Properties ...........................5.4

5.8.3 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons on Adjoining Properties.........................................5.4

5.9 OBSERVED PHYSICAL SETTING...............................................................................5.5

6.0 PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.............................................................6.1 660

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Project No.: 185806478 ii

6.1 PRE-DRILLING ACTIVITIES........................................................................................6.1

6.2 INVESTIGATION..........................................................................................................6.1

6.3 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING ............................................................................................6.2

6.4 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM .........................................................................6.2

6.5 INVESTIGATION RESULTS ........................................................................................6.3

6.5.1 FIELD OBSERVATIONS.............................................................................6.3

6.5.2 Soil Analytical Results.................................................................................6.3

6.5.3 Soil Vapor Analytical Results.......................................................................6.3

6.1 PHASE II ESA CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDTAIONS.....................................6.4

7.0 EVALUATION..............................................................................................................7.1

7.1 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS .........................................................................................7.1

7.2 DATA GAPS.................................................................................................................7.2

7.3 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................7.3

8.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS...............................................................................8.1

8.1 LEAD-BASED PAINT ...................................................................................................8.1

8.2 ASBESTOS..................................................................................................................8.1

8.3 RADON ........................................................................................................................8.2

8.4 FLOOD ZONES............................................................................................................8.2

9.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................9.1

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Subject Property and Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2 Subject Property Map

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Soil Sample Analytical Detections
TABLE 2 Soil Vapor Sample Analytical Detections

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AND VICINITY..................................... A APPENDIX B STANTEC RESUMES......................................................................................... B APPENDIX C USER PROVIDED RECORDS............................................................................ C APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY DATABASE SEARCH REPORT ......................... E APPENDIX E HISTORICAL RECORDS.................................................................................... F APPENDIX F AGENCY RECORDS........................................................................................... F APPENDIX G LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT............................................................ G 661

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Project No.: 185806478 iii
Abbreviations
AAI All Appropriate Inquiries
AP Alquist-Priolo
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
ASTM ASTM International
AUL Activity Use Limitation
BER Business Environmental Risk
Bgs Below Ground Surface
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
EP Environmental Professional
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
ft amsl Feet above mean sea level
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
USDA-NRCS United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VEC Vapor Encroachment Condition
VES Vapor Encroachment Screen
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
662

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
ExecutIve Summary
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 1.1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report of the property associated with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 130-070-015, 130-080- 004, and 130-070-021, located southeast of the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Grapewin Street, Eastvale, Riverside County, California (the “Subject Property”), on behalf of Warmington Residential (the “Client”). The work was performed according to Stantec’s proposal and terms and conditions dated February 21, 2024. Warmington Residential (the “User”) has been designated as the User of this report.

The intended use of this Phase I ESA is for due diligence in support of potential redevelopment.

The Phase I ESA was conducted in conformance with the requirements of ASTM International (ASTM) Designation E1527-21, and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 312 (40 CFR 312), except as may have been modified by the scope of work, and terms and conditions, requested by the Client. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, the ASTM or AAI practice are described in Section 2.3.

The Subject Property consists of approximately 8.3 acres of land associated with APNs 130-070-015 (2.27 acres), 130-080-004 (0.99 acres), and 130-070-021 (5.04 acres), associated with 8312 Grapewin Street and 330 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale, California 92880. The Subject Property is currently developed with a residential structure and livestock farm. Historical records indicate the Subject Property was utilized for agricultural purposes between the 1930s to 1960s, and partially residentially developed by the 1970s. Adjoining properties, as well as the nearby area, include the Santa Ana River, residential and commercial development. A Subject Property Location Map is provided as Figure 1. A Subject Property Vicinity Map illustrating the main features of the Subject Property and vicinity is provided as Figure 2.

Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance visit are provided in Appendix A.

During the early stages of the Phase I ESA, Stantec identified the following recognized environmental conditions (RECs):
• Historical records indicate that the Subject Property and vicinity were historically utilized for agricultural purposes. Based on the historical agricultural use, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and or herbicides (that could contain lead and arsenic) may have been utilized on the Subject Property and near-surface soils may have potentially contained these compounds. • Two nearby former dairy farm operations are located upgradient from the Subject Property.

These sites reportedly had multiple underground storage tanks (USTs); the status of the USTs was not reported. Additionally, no records of methane surveys were reported for the historical dairy farm operations at the sites.

To evaluate the aforementioned RECs and data gap above, Stantec performed a Phase II ESA, between March 25 and 27, 2024, that consisted of a soil and soil vapor assessment on the Subject Property. The scope of work performed included the advancement of 12 soil borings (HA-1 through HA-12) to a maximum depth of approximately 3 feet below ground surface (bgs)to assess the Property for OCPs and lead and arsenic in the shallow soils. In addition, three soil borings (SVB-1 through SVB-3) were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 5.5 feet bgs to collect soil vapor samples. Soil vapor probes were set in three soil borings (SVB-1 through SVB-3) at 5-feet bgs. The locations of the soil vapor borings were along the 663

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
ExecutIve Summary
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 1.2
western perimeter to evaluate the potential off-site release from the upgradient former dairy farms with former USTs.

The results of the completed assessment reported one minor detections of the OCP 4,4’-DDE at 0.0173 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). This detection of 4,4’-DDE is below the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Level (RSL) of 2.0 mg/kg and below the hazardous waste level of 1.0 mg/kg used for waste disposal. There were no other detections of OCPs above their corresponding laboratory reporting limits.

There were two detections of arsenic reported at concentrations of 5.5 and 5.0 mg/kg which exceeded regulatory thresholds for residential soil set at 0.11 mg/kg. However, arsenic occurs naturally in California at levels up to 12 mg/kg, therefore exceeding the regulatory threshold. The State of California uses the background level of 12 mg/kg as the cleanup standard for arsenic. Therefore, the arsenic concentrations were detected below the regulatory cleanup levels. Lead was detected in all 15 soil samples at concentrations ranging from 2.0 to 8.6 mg/kg and concentrations were below regulatory thresholds for residential soil set at 80 mg/kg. Therefore, the historical agricultural use of the Subject Property is not considered a REC and no further assessment is recommended concerning is issue.

Soil vapor results showed minor detections of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) below their respective residential screening levels when applying the most conservative attenuation factor (AF) of 0.03 with the exception of benzene and chloroform. Benzene was reported at 5.0 ug/m3 and chloroform was reported at 9 ug/m3 in soil vapor sample SVB-1 which is above their respective residential screening levels of 3.23 and 4.0 ug/m3 when applying the most conservation attenuation factor of 0.03. However, the concentrations are below their respective residential screening levels of 97 and 120 ug/m3 when applying the attenuation factor of 0.001 which is used to evaluate risk. There were no other detections above the laboratory reporting limits (i.e., the results were “non-detect”) for any other VOCs in any of the soil vapor samples. Additionally, no methane was detected in any of the soil vapor samples collected.

Based on the results of Stantec subsurface assessment, historical agricultural use of the Subject Property is not considered a REC. Additionally, the minor impacts to the subsurface of the Subject Property from the former auto service operations and off-site dry-cleaning/fuel stations appear to be de minimis and no further assessment or remedial action appears to be warranted at this time. .

We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 of the Subject Property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described Section 2.3 of this report. This assessment has revealed no recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs (CRECs), or significant data gaps in connection with the Subject Property. No further investigation appears to be warranted at this time.

This assessment has revealed the following items of note in connection with the Subject Property:
• Subject Property structures were constructed circa at least 1970s, and the presence of asbestoscontaining materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) is possible. It is recommended that an ACM and LBP survey be conducted prior to redevelopment in accordance with applicable federal and local regulations.
664

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 2.1

2.0 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this Phase I ESA was to perform AAI into the past ownership and uses of the Subject Property consistent with good commercial or customary practice as outlined by ASTM International (ASTM) in “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process,” Designation E1527-21. “All Appropriate Inquiries” is the process for evaluating a property’s environmental conditions for the purpose of qualifying for landowner liability protections under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) following final rule of Part 312 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 312). The purpose of this Phase I ESA was to identify, to the extent feasible, adverse environmental conditions including recognized environmental conditions (“RECs”) of the Subject Property.

The ASTM E1527-21 standard indicates that the goal of the Phase I ESA is to identify RECs, as well as historical recognized environmental conditions (“HRECs”) and controlled recognized environmental conditions (“CRECs”) that may exist at a property. The term “recognized environmental conditions” is defined as:
1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property due to a release to the environment;
2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or 3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

ASTM defines a “HREC” as a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the Subject Property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority and meets current unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (e.g., activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). A HREC is not considered a REC.

ASTM defines a “CREC” as a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (e.g., as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), but with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (e.g., activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).

As defined by ASTM, RECs can include hazardous substances or petroleum products present under conditions in compliance with laws if that presence represents a material threat of future release. The release of hazardous substances or petroleum products is, however, not a REC if that presence is a de minimis condition. De minimis conditions are minor releases that generally do not present a material risk 665

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 2.2
to human health and would not likely be subject to enforcement action if brought to the attention of governmental agencies. ASTM also considers the potential for a business environmental risk (BER), defined as a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of the Subject Property, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated by the ASTM standard. Consideration of BERs may involve addressing one or more ASTM non-scope considerations.

This Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with our proposal to Warmington Residential dated February 21, 2024, and Client’s authorization on March 8, 2024. The scope of work conducted during this Phase I ESA consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the Subject Property, interviews with key individuals, and review of reasonably ascertainable documents. The scope of work did not include an assessment for environmental regulatory compliance of any facility ever operated at the Subject Property (past or present), or sampling and analyzing of environmental media. Stantec was not contracted to perform an independent evaluation of the purchase or lease price of the Subject Property and its relationship to current fair market value. The conclusions presented in this Phase I ESA report are professional opinions based on data described herein. The opinions are subject to the limitations described in Section 2.3.

ASTM E1527-21 notes that the availability of record information varies from source to source. The User or Environmental Professional (EP) is not obligated to identify, obtain, or review every possible source that might exist with respect to a property. Instead, ASTM identifies record information that is reasonably ascertainable from standard sources. “Reasonably ascertainable” means:

1. Information that is publicly available;

2. Information that is obtainable from its source within reasonable time and cost constraints; and

3. Information that is practicably reviewable.

2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property consists of approximately 8.3 acres of land associated with APNs 130-070-015 (2.27 acres), 130-080-004 (0.99 acres), and 130-070-021 (5.04 acres), associated with 8312 Grapewin Street and 330 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale, California 92880. The Subject Property is currently developed with a residential structure and livestock farm. Historical records indicate the Subject Property was utilized for agricultural purposes between the 1930s to 1960s, and partially residentially developed by the 1970s. Adjoining properties, as well as the nearby area, include the Santa Ana River, residential and commercial development. A Subject Property Location Map is provided as Figure 1. A Subject Property Vicinity Map illustrating the main features of the Subject Property and vicinity is provided as Figure 2.

Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance visit are provided in Appendix A. 666

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 2.3

2.2 SPECIAL TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ADDITIONAL

ASSUMPTIONS
There were no special terms, conditions, or additional assumptions associated with this Phase I ESA.

2.3 EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
This report documents work that was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards at the time and location in which the services were provided and given the schedule and budget constraints established by the client. No other representations, warranties, or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report, including no assurance that this work has uncovered all potential and actual liabilities and conditions associated with the Subject Property.

This report provides an evaluation of selected environmental conditions associated with the Subject Property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted and is based on information obtained by and/or provided to Stantec at that time. There are no assurances regarding the accuracy and completeness of this information received from others.

Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec’s professional opinion as of the time of the writing of this report and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available, and the results of the work. They are not a certification of the Subject Property’s environmental condition.

Stantec did not obtain historical records that document the property history in 5-year intervals, and this resulted in data gaps. Although this represents data gaps, these data gaps are not considered to impact the EPs ability to identify RECs unless stated as such. Based on the information obtained during the course of this ESA and general knowledge of development at and near the Subject Property, the absence of this information did not affect the ability of the EPs to identify RECs, HRECs, CRECs, or de minimis conditions.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client identified herein and any use of or reliance on this report by any third party is prohibited, except as may be consented to in writing by Stantec or as required by law. The provision of any such consent is at Stantec’s sole and unfettered discretion and will only be authorized pursuant to the conditions of Stantec’s standard form reliance letter.

Stantec assumes no responsibility for losses, damages, liabilities, or claims, howsoever arising, from third party use of this report.

Project Specific limiting conditions are provided in Section 2.2.

The locations of any utilities, buildings and structures, and property boundaries illustrated in or described within this report, if any, including pole lines, conduits, water mains, sewers and other surface or subsurface utilities and structures, are not guaranteed. Before starting site work, the exact location of all such 667

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 2.4
utilities and structures must be confirmed by the client and the party performing the work, and Stantec assumes no liability resulting from damage to such utilities and structures.

The conclusions are based on the conditions encountered at the Subject Property by Stantec at the time the work was conducted. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required.

As the purpose of this report is to identify Subject Property conditions which may pose an environmental risk; the identification of non-environmental risks to structures or people on the Subject Property is beyond the scope of this assessment.

The findings, observations, and conclusions expressed by Stantec in this report are not an opinion concerning the compliance of any past or present owner or operator of the Subject Property which is the subject of this report with any Federal, state, provincial or local law or regulation.

This report presents professional opinions and findings of a scientific and technical nature. It does not and shall not be construed to offer a legal opinion or representations as to the requirements of, nor compliance with, environmental laws, rules, regulations, or policies of Federal, state, provincial or local governmental agencies.

Stantec specifically disclaims any responsibility to update the conclusions in this report if new or different information later becomes available or if the conditions or activities on the property subsequently change.

2.4 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
This Phase I ESA was conducted by, or under the supervision of, an individual that meets the ASTM definition of an EP. The credentials of the EP and other key Stantec personnel involved in conducting this Phase I ESA are provided in Appendix B.
668

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
User-Provided Information
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 3.1

3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
ASTM E1527-21 describe responsibilities of the User to complete certain tasks in connection with the performance of “All Appropriate Inquiries” into the Subject Property. The ASTM standard requires that the EP request information from the User on the results of those tasks because that information can assist in the identification of RECs, CRECs, HRECs, or de minimis conditions in connection with the Subject Property. Towards that end, Stantec requested that the User provide the following documents and information:

Description of Information
Provided
(Yes / No) Description and/or Key Findings
User Questionnaire and/or Interview Yes The User Questionnaire was completed by Bret Ilich, Project Manager with Warmington
Residential, on March 7, 2024. Mr. Ilich was
not aware of any environmental concerns
associated with the Subject Property.

Environmental Liens or Activity and Use
Limitations (AUL)
N/A No environmental liens and/or activity and
use limitations were identified in the
Preliminary Title Reports provided by First
American Title Company dated January 16,
2024 and January 30, 2024.

Previous Environmental Permits or
Reports Provided by User
No None provided.

Purpose of the Phase I ESA Yes The intended use of the Phase I is for redevelopment.

User-provided documents are provided in Appendix C.
669

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 4.1

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW
The objective of consulting historical sources of information is to develop the history of the Subject Property and surrounding area and evaluate if past uses may have resulted in RECs. Physical setting records are evaluated to determine if the physical setting may have contributed to adverse environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. During the review of historical records, Stantec attempted to identify uses of the Subject Property from the present to the first developed use of the Subject Property. Stantec’s research included the reasonably ascertainable and useful records described in this section.

4.1 PHYSICAL SETTING
A summary of the physical setting of the Subject Property is provided in the table below with additional details in the following subsections:

Topography: According to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Corona North topographic map provided in the
Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) Physical Setting Source Addendum (Appendix D), the topographic gradient in the vicinity of the Subject Property is to the southeast and the Subject Property is located at approximately 590 feet above mean sea level (ft. amsl).

Soil/Bedrock Data: The United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), Web Soil
Survey identifies the soils beneath the Subject Property as:
• Ramona very fine sandy loam, with well-drained soil
with moderately coarse textures. A typical soil profile is comprised of very fine sandy loam (0-14 inches),
fine sandy loam (14-22 inches), sandy clay loam (22-
69 inches), and gravelly sandy loam (68-74 inches).

Estimated Depth to Groundwater/
Estimated Direction of Gradient:

Site specific groundwater investigations were not conducted during this ESA; however, according to a 2012 groundwater monitoring report for a site located approximately two miles southeast of the Subject Property, groundwater in the vicinity is approximately 23-28 feet below ground surface (bgs) with a flow direction to the south southeast.

NOTE:

Site-specific groundwater flow direction and depth can only be determined by conducting site-specific testing, which Stantec has not conducted.
670

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 4.2

4.1.1 Subject Property Topography and Surface Water Flow The Subject Property is located at an elevation of approximately 590 ft amsl. Based on the topography and existing surface conditions, general surface water flow is to the south-southeast.

4.1.2 Regional and Subject Property Geology
The Subject Property is located with the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Chino Subbasin (8- 002.01). The Chino Subbasin is bound by the Rialto-Colton Fault to the east; the Jurupa Mountains to the southeast; the Puente Hills and Chino Fault to the south; the San Jose Fault to the northwest; and the San Gabriel Mountains and Cucamonga Fault to the north. Surface water drains south via San Antonio Creek and Cucamonga Creek towards Santa Ana River. Several of the faults create groundwater barriers which in turn generate changes in ground water elevations throughout the subbasin. Water-bearing formations within the subbasin are Holocene and Upper Pleistocene alluvium. The total groundwater storage capacity in the subbasin is approximately 18,300,000 acre-feet (DWR, 2003).

According to California DOC Earthquake Zone Map (Department of Conservation Map Server (ca.gov)), the Subject Property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. The nearest fault is located approximately five miles to the west of the Subject Property.

4.1.3 Regional and Subject Property Hydrogeology
The Subject Property is located with the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Chino Subbasin (8- 002.01). Several faults that lie within the subbasin create groundwater barriers which in turn generate changes in ground water elevations throughout the subbasin. Water-bearing formations within the subbasin are Holocene and Upper Pleistocene alluvium. The total groundwater storage capacity in the subbasin is approximately 18,300,000 acre-feet (DWR, 2003).

4.2 FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
A regulatory agency database search report was obtained from EDR, a third-party environmental database search firm. A complete copy of the database search report, including the date the report was prepared, the date the information was last updated, and the definition of databases searched, is provided in Appendix D.

Stantec evaluated the information listed within the database relative to potential impact to the Subject Property, assessing the potential for impacts based in part on the physical setting. As part of this process, inferences have been made regarding the likely groundwater flow direction at or near the Subject 671

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 4.3
Property. As described in 4.1.3, the inferred shallow groundwater flow direction is likely to be to the southeast. Observations about the Subject Property and adjoining properties made during the Subject Property reconnaissance are provided in more detail in Section 5.

4.2.1 Listings for Subject Property
The Subject Property is not listed in the EDR databases.

4.2.2 Listings for Adjoining and Nearby Sites with Potential to Impact Subject Property
Stantec assessed data presented in the environmental agency database search report to evaluate the potential for conditions on adjoining and nearby sites to pose a REC, CREC, or HREC for the Subject Property. The evaluation included an opinion of the potential for contamination by hazardous substances or petroleum products to migrate to the Subject Property from an adjoining or nearby site, including by vapor migration or encroachment (i.e., potential for a vapor encroachment condition [VEC]. ASTM E2600- 22 Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions (ASTM, 2022) was used as the basis for a Tier I Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) for the Subject Property. This included evaluation of release sites within 1/10 mile for Petroleum Hydrocarbon releases, and 1/3 mile for volatile and semi-volatile organic compound (VOC, SVOC), plus other potential vapor phase contaminants (such as mercury).

Listed Facility Name/Address Database Listing Distance/Direction from Property
REC?
(YES / NO)
Osterkamp Dairy
8301 Archibald Ave.

Corona, CA

HIST UST, ENF, CIWQS,

CERS, HWTS

0.024 mile/125 feet
west southwest at
lower elevation
Yes
This historic dairy farm operation is listed as having two historic 1,000-gallon USTs containing diesel and unleaded fuel. The status of the USTs is not reported. The site also is listed as having an animal waste discharge permit from at least 1979 to 2002. Given this site is upgradient and there is no information regarding UST status, this represents a VEC and is considered a REC for the Subject Property.

True Cast Concrete Fertilizer
/Oosten Dairy/Tofco
Composting Facility/Corona
Composting Plant
8247 Archibald Ave.

Corona, CA

SWEEPS UST, HIST

UST, CA FID UST,

CIWQS, SWF/LF, ENF,

HIST CORTESE

0.042 mile/224 feet
northwest at lower
elevation
Yes
This historic dairy farm/fertilizer operation is listed as having two historic 3,000-gallon USTs containing diesel and unleaded fuel. The status of the USTs is listed as active. The site also is listed as a historical composting facility of agricultural sludge waste. A cleanup/abatement order was issued at the site in 1987; no details are provided regarding the incident. Given this site is upgradient and there is no 672

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 4.4
Listed Facility Name/Address Database Listing Distance/Direction from Property
REC?
(YES / NO)
information regarding UST status, this represents a VEC and is considered a REC for the Subject Property.

Corona Composting Plant
8186 Archibald Ave.

Corona, CA
WMUDS/SWAT 0.152 mile/802 feet
north northwest at
lower elevation
No
This site is listed as a historic composting plant. No additional details are provided. Given there are no reports of violations or releases, this site is not considered a REC for the Subject Property.

Proposed Yorba Elementary
School
NE Corner of Fieldmaster
Street and Cherry Creek Circle
Eastvale, CA
ENVIROSTOR, SCH 0.225 mile/1,190 feet
west northwest at
lower elevation
No
This school site is listed in the DTSC’s Envirostor database with case closure/no further action received on 6/1/2012. The site was under investigation due to former agricultural/livestock use and a historic LUST onsite. The LUST was removed in 2006, as well as excavation/treatment of contaminated soil, and treatment of groundwater. Additionally, an investigation was conducted to evaluate for residual PAHs, TPH, SVOCs, and OCPs due to former dairy operations and the LUST case. Findings concluded that OCPs, PAHs, VOCs, and SVOCs did not pose a risk to the site; however, a workplan was prepared for remediation of methane contamination. Methane monitoring occurred for nine quarters, and concentrations were shown to be decreasing at the site and stabilizing. Methane exceeding the DTSC action level of 5,000 ppmv were largely confined to a narrow strip in the northeastern and eastern parts of the site and not within proposed building footprint locations. The site received No Further Action status in 2012. Given the status of this site and distance from the Subject Property, this site does not appear to represent a REC.

The remaining listings in the database search report, including listings of Orphan Sites provided in Appendix D do not constitute a potential REC for the Subject Property.

4.3 LOCAL/REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Stantec checked the following sources to obtain information pertaining to Subject Property use and/or indications of RECs in connection with the Subject Property:
673

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 4.5

4.3.1 Environmental Health Department
Agency Name
Contact Information Finding
Custodian of Records
Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health
Via online:
rivcoeh.org
Submitted on March 5, 2024
A written request subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was submitted to the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health to review their files regarding the Subject Property. The information requested included file information regarding permits, hazardous materials, waste, complaints, violations, underground or aboveground storage tanks, remedial action, and case closure documentation, or any records that indicate environmental concern at the
Subject Property.

On March 12, 2024, the agency responded that they have no records for the Subject Property.

4.3.2 Fire Department
Agency Name
Contact Information Findings
Custodian of Records
Riverside County Fire Department
Via online:
rvcfire.org
Date Submitted: March 5, 2024
A written request subject to the FOIA was submitted to the County Fire Department to review their files regarding the Subject Property. The information requested included file information regarding permits, hazardous materials, waste, complaints, violations, underground or aboveground storage tanks, remedial action, and case closure documentation, or any records that indicate environmental concern at the
Subject Property.

On March 14, 2024, the agency responded that they have no records for the Subject Property .

4.3.3 City and County Department Records
Agency Name
Contact Information Findings
Custodian of Records
City of Eastvale
Date Submitted: March 5, 2024
A written request subject to the FOIA was submitted to the City to review their files regarding the Subject Property. The information requested included file information regarding permits, hazardous materials, waste, complaints, violations, underground or aboveground storage tanks, remedial action, 674

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 4.6
Agency Name
Contact Information Findings
and case closure documentation, or any records that indicate environmental concern at the Subject Property.

As of the writing of this report, a complete response has not been received from the agency.

4.3.4 State Department Records
Agency Name
Contact Information Finding
Custodian of Records
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SARWQCB)
Via email: [email protected]
Submitted and accessed on March 1, 2024
Stantec researched Geotracker, the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board public
database, to evaluate if there are any reported
releases at the Subject Property or on adjoining
properties. There were no release sites listed for
the Subject Property or adjoining properties.

Additionally, the SARWQCB responded on March
5, 2024, that they do not have current or historical
records for the Subject Property.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
Envirostor database
Cypress Regional Office
Online database:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
Via email:
[email protected]
Submitted and accessed on March 5, 2024
Stantec researched Envirostor, the DTSC public
database, to evaluate if there are any reported
releases at the Subject Property or on adjoining
properties. There were no release sites listed for
the Subject Property.

Additionally, the DTSC responded on March 7,
2024, that they have no current or historical
records for the Subject Property.

California Geologic Energy Management
(CalGEM)
Online database:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder
Accessed: March 6, 2024
The California Department of Conservation
Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM)
database was searched to identify the potential
existence of oil and gas production wells within the
vicinity of the Subject Property. No oil or gas wells
were located within the Subject Property
boundaries. The closest well is located
approximately 1.3 miles to the southwest and is
listed as idle (API 0407100105). No releases are
reported for this well. This well is not expected to
represent an environmental concern for the
Subject Property.
675

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 4.7

4.4 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW

4.4.1 Land Title Records/Deeds
Land title records, deeds, environmental liens, and activity and use limitation documentation were not provided by the User, and public records were not searched by Stantec.

4.4.2 Aerial Photographs
Stantec reviewed historical aerial photographs provided by EDR. The general type of activity on a property and land use changes can often be discerned from the type and layout of structures visible in the photographs. However, specific elements of a facility's operation usually cannot be discerned from aerial photographs alone. The following table summarizes Stantec’s observations of the reviewed historical aerial photographs. Copies of the historical aerial photographs are provided in Appendix E.

Year Scale Observations of Subject Property and Adjoining/Nearby Properties 1931 1”=500’ The Subject Property appears undeveloped and partially lying within a river area on the eastern boundary. Adjoining properties appear to be vacant and agriculturally developed.
1938
1948
1953
1959
1”=500’ The Subject Property appears to be agriculturally developed and bound to the east by a river. Adjoining properties appear to be agriculturally developed.

Structures are depicted on the Subject Property by 1948 along the east boundary. By 1959, residences are depicted adjoining to the north. 1967 1”=500’ The Subject Property appears vacant in the western half and partially developed with structures in the eastern half, and bound by a river to the east. Adjoining to the west and north appear to be agriculturally developed.

Residences are also depicted adjoining north. Adjoining south and east are undeveloped/river.
1985
1989
1994
2002
1”=500’ A structure appears in the southwestern portion of the Subject Property.

Adjoining to the west appears to be farmland. Adjoining north, south, and east appear similar to the 1967 photograph. An AST is depicted on the Subject Property by 1989, but is no longer depicted by 1994. An AST/site construction are depicted adjoining south in 1994.
2006
2009
2012
2016
2020
1”=500’ The Subject Property appears developed with additional structures in the northern portion. Adjoining north appears to be under construction/residential.

Adjoining west appears to be farmland. Adjoining south appears to be under construction. The Subject Property borders the river adjoining east. By 2009, farmland to the west appears to be residentially developed.

Commercial/industrial buildings are depicted adjoining south by 2020.

Aerial photographs source: The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package The historical agricultural use of the Subject Property constitutes a REC. 676

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 4.8

4.4.3 City Directories
Stantec retained a third party to research available city directories for the Subject Property and adjoining and nearby properties, in approximately five-year intervals. Copies of the city directory listings are provided in Appendix E.

Stantec retained a third party to research available city directories for the Subject Property and adjoining and nearby properties, in approximately five-year intervals. The Subject Property is listed in the city directory between 2020 and 1970 under various residential listings. Adjoining properties and properties within the vicinity include residential and farm/agricultural business listings.

4.4.4 Historical Fire Insurance Maps
Fire insurance maps were developed for use by insurance companies to depict facilities, properties, and their uses for many locations throughout the United States. These maps provide information on the history of prior land use and are useful in assessing whether there may be potential environmental contamination on or near the Subject Property. These maps, which have been periodically updated since the late 19th century, often provide valuable insight into historical Subject Property and adjoining and nearby property uses.

Stantec requested fire insurance maps from EDR; however, no coverage exists for the Subject Property.

The Sanborn® Map Search Report indicating “No Coverage” is presented in Appendix E.

4.4.5 Historical Topographic Maps
Stantec reviewed historical USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Maps of the Corona North and Corona and Vicinity, California Quadrangles (scales 1:24,000 and 1:31,680), the historical USGS 15-minute Topographic Maps of the Corona, California Quadrangles (scale 1:50,000), and the historical USGS 30- minute Topographic Maps of the Corona, California (scale 1:125,000) to help identify past Subject Property and adjoining and nearby property usage and areas of potential environmental concern. Copies of the historical maps are provided in Appendix E.

The following table summarizes the maps reviewed and our observations.

Year Scale
Observations of Subject Property and Adjoining/Nearby
Properties
1902 1:125,000 The Subject Property and adjoining properties appear undeveloped. A river is depicted adjoining to the east. Several roads are shown adjoining west.
1942 1:31,680 The Subject Property and adjoining properties are undeveloped. 1947
1954
1967
1:50,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
The Subject Property appears developed with a structure in the east portion. Adjoining properties appear undeveloped to the west and south, with several structures observed adjoining to the north, and a 677

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 4.9
Year Scale
Observations of Subject Property and Adjoining/Nearby
Properties
river adjoining to the east. By 1967, two structures are present on the Subject Property.
1973
1975
1981
1:24,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
The Subject Property is depicted with two structures. Multiple structures are depicted adjoining west and north. Adjoining south appears to be undeveloped. A river is depicted adjoining east. 2012
2015
2018
2022
1:24,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
The Subject Property and adjoining properties are depicted as vacant.

Historical topographic maps source: The EDR Historical Topographic Map Report No RECs were identified in the EDR Historical Topographic Map Report.

4.4.6 Other Historical Sources
No other historical sources were searched as a part of this assessment. 678

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 5.1

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
A visit to the Subject Property and its vicinity was conducted by Alex Sobolew, Geologic Staff with Stantec, on March 27, 2024. Stantec was unaccompanied during the Subject Property visit. Figure 2 provides information about the Subject Property and adjoining sites and the location of potential areas of environmental concern. Detailed Subject Property features are shown on Figure 2. Photographs collected during the site reconnaissance are included in Appendix A.

5.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY
The site reconnaissance focused on observation of current conditions and observable indications of past uses and conditions of the Subject Property that may indicate the presence of RECs. The reconnaissance of the Property was conducted on foot and Stantec utilized the following methodology to observe the Property:
• Traverse the outer Subject Property boundary
• Traverse transects across the Subject Property
• Traverse the periphery of all structures on the Subject Property • Visually observe accessible interior areas expected to be used by occupants or the public maintenance and repair areas, utility areas, and a representative sample of occupied spaces Weather conditions during the visit to the Subject Property were clear and sunny. There were no weatherrelated Subject Property access restrictions encountered during the reconnaissance visit. The interior of the residential structure was not accessible during the site reconnaissance.

5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Subject Property and Area
Description:

The Subject Property is located south of Grapewin Road and east of Archibald Avenue, in the City of Eastvale, in the County of Riverside, California. The surrounding area is a mix of residential properties and vacant land.

Subject Property
Operations:

Subject Property is residential housing, and a livestock farm.

Structures, Roads, Other
Improvements:

An asphalt driveway, residential housing, a barn, storage shed and stalls for livestock.

Subject Property Size
(acres):

8.3 acres
679

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 5.2
Estimated % of Subject
Property Covered by
Buildings and/or Pavement:
20%
Observed Current Subject
Property Use/Operations:

Subject Property is currently used as a livestock farm and residential housing
Observed Evidence of Past
Subject Property Use(s):

None observed.

Sewage Disposal Method
(and age):

Jurupa Community Services District
Potable Water Source: Jurupa Community Services District Electric and Natural Gas
Utilities:

Southern California Edison and SoCal Gas.

5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
The following table summarizes Stantec’s observations during the Subject Property reconnaissance.

Observations Description/Location
Hazardous Substances and
Petroleum Products as Defined by
CERCLA 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14) with
identified uses:

None observed.

Drums/Totes/Intermediate Bulk
Containers (≥ 5 gallons):

None observed.

Strong, Pungent, or Noxious
Odors:

None observed.

Pools of Liquid: None observed.

Unidentified Substance Containers: None observed.

Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-
Containing Equipment:

None observed
Other Observed Evidence of
Hazardous Substances or
Petroleum Products:

None observed.

5.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS
Stantec was unable to access the interior of structures during the site reconnaissance. 680

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 5.3

5.5 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS
Stantec made the following observations during the site reconnaissance of exterior areas of the Subject Property and/or identified the following information during the interview or records review portions of the assessment:

Observations Description
On-site Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons: A pool was observed in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property.

Stained Soil or Pavement: None observed.

Stressed Vegetation: None observed.

Waste Streams and Waste
Collection Areas:

None observed.

Solid Waste Disposal: None observed.

Potential Areas of Fill Placement: No mounds, piles, or depressions suggesting the placement of fill material were observed on the Subject Property.

Wastewater: No exterior wastewater discharge was observed.

Stormwater: Stormwater is expected to infiltrate the soil, or flow westward into the Archibald Avenue drainage system or eastward into the Santa Ana River.

Wells: No wells were observed.

Septic Systems: No visible evidence of the existence of a septic system was observed.

Other Exterior Observations: None observed.

5.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS/STRUCTURES
Existing
USTs:

No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface patches), which would indicate the presence of USTs, was discovered during the site reconnaissance.

Former
USTs:

No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface patches), reports, or other evidence of the former presence of USTs was discovered during this Phase I ESA.

Other
Underground
Structures:

None observed.
681

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 5.4

5.7 ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Existing
ASTs:

Two empty unlabeled storage tanks were observed in the southwestern portion of the Subject Property. The storage tanks appear to be associated with livestock operations.

Former
ASTs:

No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface stains), reports, or other evidence of the former presence of ASTs was discovered during this Phase I ESA.

5.8 ADJOINING PROPERTIES

5.8.1 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
As viewed from the Subject Property and/or from public rights-of-way, Stantec made the following observations about use and activities on adjoining sites:

NORTH Grapewin Avenue, Eastvale Trail, and residential housing.

EAST Santa Ana River.

SOUTH Church under construction.

WEST Residential development and Archibald Avenue.

Refer to Figure 2.

5.8.2 Observed Evidence of Past Uses of Adjoining Properties Observations of adjoining sites providing indications of past use and activities, if any, are described below.

NORTH None observed.

EAST None observed.

SOUTH None observed.

WEST None observed.

5.8.3 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons on Adjoining Properties
As viewed from the Subject Property and/or from public rights-of-way, Stantec made the following observations about the presence of pits, ponds, and lagoons on adjoining sites:

NORTH None observed.

EAST None observed.

SOUTH None observed.
682

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 5.5
WEST None observed.

5.9 OBSERVED PHYSICAL SETTING
Topography of the
Subject Property and
Surrounding Area:

The Subject Property and surrounding area are relatively flat with a gentle slope to the northwest.
683

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 6.1

6.0 PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
During the early stages of the Phase I ESA, Stantec identified the following RECs:
• Historical records indicate that the Subject Property and vicinity were historically utilized for agricultural purposes. Based on the historical agricultural use, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and or herbicides (that could contain lead and arsenic) may have been utilized on the Subject Property and near-surface soils may have potentially contained these compounds. • Two nearby former dairy farm operations are located upgradient from the Subject Property.

The following scope of work was completed to address the identified RECs.

6.1 PRE-DRILLING ACTIVITIES
Prior to the commencement of fieldwork activities Stantec made the following preparations:
• Stantec obtained an Underground Service Alert (USA) ticket number prior to commencement of drilling activities.
• In accordance with federal OSHA regulations (29 CFR, Section 1910.120), Stantec developed a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) for the Property. All Stantec personnel and subcontractors associated with the project were required to be familiar with, and comply with, all provisions of the HASP.

6.2 INVESTIGATION
To evaluate the aforementioned RECs and data gap above, Stantec performed a Phase II ESA, between March 25 and 27, 2024, that consisted of a soil and soil vapor assessment on the Subject Property. The scope of work performed included the advancement of 12 soil borings (HA-1 through HA-12) to a maximum depth of approximately 3 feet below ground surface (bgs) to assess the Property for OCPs and lead and arsenic. In addition, three soil borings (SVB-1 through SVB-3) were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 5.5 feet bgs. Soil vapor probes were set in three soil borings (SVB-1 through SVB-3) at 5- feet bgs. The locations of the soil vapor borings were along the western perimeter to evaluate the potential off-site release from the upgradient former dairy farms with former USTs.

The soil vapor samples were collected on March 27th, 2024 and were submitted for analysis for Methane and Fixed Gases by ASTM D1946 and VOCs by EPA Test Method 8260B. 684

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 6.2

6.3 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING
Subsurface soil vapor sampling was performed in accordance with the July 2015 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) “Advisory - Active Soil Gas Investigations” (DTSC Advisory).

All of the soil vapor borings were advanced using a hand auger to 5.5-ft bgs. Following the advancement of each boring, the sample probes were constructed with a 10-inch sampling screen set across the sampling interval. Each of the sampling screens were connected to the ground surface via dedicated Nylaflow ® nylon tubing. The annulus around the exposed probe tip was backfilled with a silica sand filter pack to an elevation of about six inches above the sampling screen. Above the filter pack, a 6 to 12-inch transition zone was constructed using dry bentonite granules. From that point to ground surface, hydrated bentonite granules were utilized to seal the annular space. At the surface, the exposed nylon tubing was capped with tight fitting plastic endcaps and labeled to indicate sampling depth. The soil vapor sample probes were allowed to equilibrate for a minimum of 48 hours prior to leak testing and sample collection.

Prior to vapor sample collection from each probe, a shut-in test was performed that consisted of an aboveground apparatus of valves, line, and fitting located downstream from the top of the probe. The line was evacuated to a measured vacuum and the vacuum was shut in with closed valves on opposite ends of the sampling train. A vacuum gauge connected to the line was observed for any signs of a loss in vacuum.

As specified in the DTSC Advisory a default purge of 3 volumes of the sampling system was performed prior to sample collection. This process included purging the sampling system (tubing, sample screen, and void space of sand pack and dry bentonite) using a flow rate between 100 and 200 milliliters per minute (ml/min) while maintaining a low vacuum of 100 inches of water or less. The soil vapor samples were collected by a laboratory chemist and analyzed by an off-site laboratory for chemical analysis. All vapor samples collected were analyzed for Methane and Fixed Gases by ASTM D1946 and VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.

During soil vapor sampling a leak check was performed using isopropanol (IPA) as the tracer compound.

The tracer compound was applied to a clean rag and situated around the sampling point and fittings to evaluate seal integrity. Seal integrity was confirmed by the absence of the tracer compound in the collected samples.

6.4 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Soil samples collected from the 1-ft interval during this investigation were analyzed for OCPs by EPA Method 8081A; and the metals lead and arsenic by EPA Method 6010B by Jones Environmental Inc. (JEI), located in Santa Fe Springs, California.

Soil vapor samples collected during this investigation were analyzed for Methane and Fixed Gases by ASTM D1946 and VOCs by USEPA Test Method 8260B by an off-site laboratory operated by ones Environmental Inc. (JEI), located in Santa Fe Springs, California.

All samples collected during this investigation were transported under chain-of-custody protocols and analyzed by certified for hazardous waste testing by the California State Water Resources Control Board 685

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 6.3
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP). Complete laboratory reports, including QA/QC documentation is included in Appendix G.

6.5 INVESTIGATION RESULTS

6.5.1 FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Soils encountered during the investigation consisted largely of silt and clay with large cobbles.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the boreholes. No staining or odors were observed in any of the boreholes.

6.5.2 Soil Analytical Results
The results of the completed assessment reported one minor detections of the OCP 4,4’-DDE at 0.0173 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). This detection of 4,4’-DDE is below the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Level (RSL) of 2.0 mg/kg and below the hazardous waste level of 1.0 mg/kg used for waste disposal. There were no other detections of OCPs above their corresponding laboratory reporting limits.

6.5.3 Soil Vapor Analytical Results
Laboratory analytical test results from this assessment are attached as Appendix G. The laboratory test results from this phase of investigation are discussed below and soil vapor results were compared to the more conservative value between the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) HERO Note 3 screening level for residential sites (DTSC, 2022), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for commercial sites (USEPA, 2021), using both the official attenuation factor (AF) of 0.001 used for risk evaluations and the screening-level/guidance AF of 0.03. All soil vapor probe locations from this assessment are presented on Figure 2.

Soil vapor results showed minor detections of volatile organic compounds below their respective residential screening levels when applying the most conservative attenuation factor (AF) of 0.03 with the exception of benzene and chloroform. Benzene was reported at 5.0 ug/m3 and chloroform was reported at 9 ug/m3 in soil vapor sample SVB-1 which is above their respective residential screening levels of 3.23 and 4.0 ug/m3 when applying the most conservation attenuation factor of 0.03. However, the concentrations are below 686

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 6.4
their respective residential screening levels of 97 and 120 ug/m3 when applying the attenuation factor of

0.001 which is used to evaluate risk. There were no other detections above the laboratory reporting limits (i.e., the results were “non-detect”) for any other VOCs in any of the soil vapor samples. Additionally, no methane was detected in any of the soil vapor samples collected.

6.1 PHASE II ESA CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDTAIONS
Based on the results of Stantec subsurface assessment, historical agricultural use of the Subject Property and the upgradient dairy farms with the former USTs are no longer considered a REC and no further assessment or remedial action is warranted.

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Evaluation
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 7.1

7.0 EVALUATION
This section provides a summary overview of or Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions.

7.1 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
Information gathered from interviews, reviews of existing data, and an inspection was evaluated to determine if RECs are present in connection with the Subject Property. Based on this information, Stantec made the following findings and developed the following opinions. • Historical records indicate that the Subject Property and vicinity were historically utilized for agricultural purposes between the 1930s and 1960s. Based on the historical agricultural use, pesticides and or herbicides may have been utilized on the Subject Property and near-surface soils may have potentially contained these compounds. The Subject Property has not been fully redeveloped subsequent to agricultural use, and all surface soils have likely not been reworked.

Therefore, the historical agricultural use of the Subject Property is considered to represent a REC for the Subject Property.

To evaluate the aforementioned REC, Stantec performed a Phase II ESA, between March 25 and 27, 2024, that consisted of a soil and soil vapor assessment on the Subject Property. The results of that assessment are discussed above in Section 6.0.

Based on the results of the soil sampling, Stantec concludes that the historical agricultural use does not represent a REC or a human health risk in light of the contemplated residential redevelopment of the Subject Property. No further investigation appears to be warranted. • A historical dairy farm operation, located at 8301 Archibald Avenue approximately 125 west southwest upgradient to the Subject Property, is listed as having two historic 1,000-gallon USTs containing diesel and unleaded fuel. The status of the USTs is not reported. The site also is listed as having an animal waste discharge permit from at least 1979 to 2002. Given this site is upgradient and there is no information regarding UST status, this represents a potential vapor encroachment condition (VEC) and is considered a REC for the Subject Property.

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Evaluation
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 7.2
• A historic dairy farm/fertilizer operation, located at 8247 Archibald Avenue approximately 224 feet northwest upgradient to the Subject Property, is listed as having two historic 3,000-gallon USTs containing diesel and unleaded fuel. The status of the USTs is listed as active. The site also is listed as a historical composting facility of agricultural sludge waste. A cleanup/abatement order was issued at the site in 1987; no details are provided regarding the incident. Given this site is upgradient and there is no information regarding UST status, this represents a VEC and is considered a REC for the Subject Property.

Based on the results of the soil vapor sampling, Stantec concludes that the historical dairy farm operations and USTs do not represent a VEC/REC or a human health risk in light of the contemplated residential redevelopment of the Subject Property. No further investigation appears to be warranted.
• Subject Property structures were constructed circa at least 1970s, and the presence of asbestoscontaining materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) is possible. It is recommended that an ACM and LBP survey be conducted prior to redevelopment in accordance with applicable federal and local regulations.

7.2 DATA GAPS
The federal AAI final rule [40 CFR 312.10(a)] and ASTM E1527-21 identify a “data gap” as the lack or inability to obtain information required by the standards and practices of the rule despite good faith efforts by the EP or the User.

Any data gaps resulting from the Phase I ESA described in this report are listed and discussed below.

Gap Discussion
Deletions or Exceptions from
Scope of Work Referenced in
Section 1.4:

None.

Weather-Related Restrictions to
Site Reconnaissance:

None.

Facility Access Restrictions to
Site Reconnaissance:

None.

Other Site Reconnaissance
Restrictions:

None.

Data Gaps from Environmental
Records Review:

None.
689

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Evaluation
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 7.3
Gap Discussion
Data Gaps from Historical
Records Review:

None.

Data Gaps from Interviews: Due to the sensitive nature of the transaction no on-site interview was conducted. Given the historical documents, the lack of an on-site interview is not considered to impact the findings of this report.

Other Data Gaps: None.

7.3 CONCLUSIONS
We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 of the Subject Property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described Section 2.3 of this report. This assessment has revealed no recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs (CRECs), or significant data gaps in connection with the Subject Property. No further investigation appears to be warranted at this time.

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Non-Scope Considerations
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 8.1

8.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS
The following ASTM E1527-13 non-scope services were performed as part of this Phase I ESA:

8.1 LEAD-BASED PAINT
Concern for LBP is primarily related to residential structures. The EPA’s Final Rule on Disclosure of LeadBased Paint in Housing (40 CFR Part 745) defines LBP as paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight.

The risk of lead toxicity in LBP varies based upon the condition of the paint and the year of its application.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has identified the following risk factors:
• The age of the dwelling as follows:
− Maximum risk is from paint applied before 1950.
− There is severe risk from paint applied before 1960.
− There is moderate risk from deteriorated paint applied before 1970. − There is slight risk from the paint that is intact but applied before 1977. • The condition of the painted surfaces.
• The presence of children and certain types of households in the building. • Previously reported cases of lead poisoning in the building or area.

Construction Date Residential
(Yes/No) Observed Condition of Painted Surfaces
1970s Yes No structures are present on the Subject Property.

An LBP survey is recommended prior to
redevelopment.

8.2 ASBESTOS
Asbestos can be found in many applications, including sprayed-on or blanket-type insulation, pipe wraps, mastics, floor and ceiling tiles, wallboard, mortar, roofing materials, and a variety of other materials commonly used in construction. The greatest asbestos-related human health risks are associated with friable asbestos, which is ACM that can be reduced to powder by hand pressure. Friable asbestos can become airborne and inhaled, which has been associated with specific types of respiratory disease. The manufacturing and use of asbestos in most building products was curtailed during the late 1970s.

The Subject Property was developed circa 1970s; an ACM survey is recommended prior to redevelopment.
691

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Non-Scope Considerations
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 8.2

8.3 RADON
Radon is a colorless, tasteless radioactive gas with an EPA-specified action level of 4.0 PicoCuries per liter of air (pCi/L) for residential properties. Radon gas has a very short half-life of 3.8 days. The health risk potential of radon is primarily associated with its rate of accumulation within confined areas near or in the ground, such as basements, where vapors can readily transfer to indoor air from the ground through foundation cracks or other pathways. Large, adequately ventilated rooms generally present limited risk for radon exposure. The radon concentrations in buildings and homes depend on many factors, including soil types, temperature, barometric pressure, and building construction (EPA, 1993).

Stantec reviewed regional data published by the EPA on average indoor radon concentrations in the vicinity of the Property (http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html).

EPA Radon Zones (w/Average Measured Indoor Radon concentrations) Zone 1 – High
(>4.0 pCi/L)
Zone 2 – Moderate
(2 to 4 pCi/L)
Zone 3 – Low
(<2 pCi/L)
X
Normally occupied sub grade areas present? (i.e., basement apartments, offices, stores, etc.) No subgrade areas currently present at the Property.

The Subject Property is located in Zone 2 and is considered to have a moderate potential for radon. To determine Subject Property-specific radon levels, a radon survey would have to be conducted. However, because the Subject Property does not have any occupied subgrade areas and is planned for redevelopment, further investigation of indoor radon issues does not appear to be warranted.

8.4 FLOOD ZONES
According to the Physical Setting summary portion of the EDR report, the eastern border (adjoining the Santa Ana River) of the Subject Property is located within a 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone. 692

PHASE I AND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
References
April 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806478 9.1

9.0 REFERENCES
ASTM International, 2021, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process, Designation: E 1527-21.

ASTM International, 2022, Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Subject Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, Designation E 2600-22.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2024, EnviroStor.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118: Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Chino Subbasin.

California State Department of Water Resources Control Board, 2024, GeoTracker.

California State Department of Water Resources SGMA Portal (SGMA), 2024, GeoTracker.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), 2024. EDR Radius Map with Geocheck, Inquiry Number 7586606.2s, dated March 5, 2024.
_____, Certified Sanborn Map Report, Inquiry Number 7586606.3, dated March 5, 2024. _____, Historical Topographic Map Report, Inquiry Number 7586606.4, dated March 5, 2024. _____, Aerial Photo Decade Package, Inquiry Number 7586606.8, dated March 5, 2024. _____, City Directory Abstract, Inquiry Number 7586606.5 dated March 5, 2024. 693

FIGURES
694
695
696

APPENDICES
697

APPENDIX A

PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE

PROPERTY AND VICINITY
698
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Address: APNs 130-070-015, 130-080-004, and 130-070-021, Eastvale, CA Photographer: Alex Sobolew
Date: March 27, 2024

Page 1 of 18 ends

Eastvale City CouncilApril 23, 2025

Eastvale City Council
April 23, 2025