CITY OF EASTVALE
12363 Limonite Ave, Suite 910
Eastvale, CA 91752
Phone: 951-361-0900
CITY COUNCIL
Jocelyn Yow, Mayor
Clint Lorimore, Mayor Pro Tem
Todd Rigby, Council Member
Christian Dinco, Council Member
Mike McMinn, Council Member
CITY STAFF
Mark Orme, City Manager
Erica L. Vega, City Attorney
Amanda Wells, Finance Director/City Treasurer
NBS
Corina Chavez, Analyst
Adina McCargo, Client Services Director
1956
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
2. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Reason for Assessment ........................................................................................... 2
2.2 Process for Annual Assessment .............................................................................. 2
2.3 Same or Lesser Assessment .................................................................................... 2
2.4 Fiscal Year 2026/27 Assessment ............................................................................. 2
3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 3
3.1 Description of Improvements ................................................................................. 3
4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS ....................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 ........................................................................ 4
4.2 Definition of Budget Items ...................................................................................... 6
5. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 8
5.1 Legal Considerations ............................................................................................... 8
5.2 Special Benefit ......................................................................................................... 9
5.3 General Benefit ..................................................................................................... 10
5.4 General and Special Benefits Separated ............................................................... 10
5.5 Method of Assessment Spread ............................................................................. 12
6. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 14 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM .................................................................................. A APPENDIX B – ASSESSMENT ROLL .......................................................................................... B
1957
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 1
1. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
On March 25, 2026, the City Council of the City of Eastvale (the “City”), under the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (the “1982 Act”) adopted its Resolution No. 26-07, a Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Annual Levy and Collection of Assessments and Ordering the Preparation of an Annual Report for Benefit Assessment District No. 2014-2 (the “District”) (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1) for Fiscal Year 2026/27.
The Resolution Initiating Proceedings directed NBS to prepare and file an Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27 pursuant to the requirements of the 1982 Act. The Annual Report presents the plans and specifications for the maintenance and operation of authorized services, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance and operation of the authorized services, an assessment diagram, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance and operation of the authorized services for the referenced fiscal year, assessing the net amount upon all assessable lots and/or parcels in the District in proportion to the special benefit received.
The following assessment is proposed to be authorized in order to pay the estimated costs of administration, maintenance, operation, and servicing of the improvements to be paid by the assessable real property in the District in proportion to the special benefit received. The following table summarizes the proposed assessment for the District.
Benefit Assessment District 2014-2
Fiscal Year 2026/27
Maintenance, Operation, and Servicing Costs $8,080.00
Incidental Expenses 3,988.70
Other Costs/Contributions (6,566.70)
Total Net Amount to be Assessed $5,502.00
Total Number of Benefit Points to be Assessed 1,750
Actual Assessment per Benefit Point (1) $3.14
Maximum Allowable Assessment per Benefit $3.57
(1) The unrounded assessment per benefit point is $3.14497. 1958
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 2
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Reason for Assessment
Approval of the assessment covered by this Annual Report will generate the revenue necessary to provide for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements described in this Annual Report.
2.2 Process for Annual Assessment
On an annual basis, a report is prepared which contains a description of the services proposed to be financed, a description of each lot or parcel subject to the assessment, the amount of the proposed assessment for each parcel, and the basis and schedule of assessment.
2.3 Same or Lesser Assessment
If the assessments are to be levied in the same or lesser amounts than the maximum assessment amount approved, the City Clerk will give notice by causing the Resolution of Intention to be published. Any interested person may, prior to the conclusion of the public hearing, file a written protest which shall state all grounds of objection. The protest will contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by the property owner filing the protest. During the course of, or upon conclusion of the hearing, the City Council may order changes in any of the matters provided in the report, including changes in the improvements, any zones within the District, and the proposed diagram for the proposed assessment.
2.4 Fiscal Year 2026/27 Assessment
The Fiscal Year 2026/27 assessments described in this Annual Report are not proposed to exceed the previously approved maximum assessment range formula that was approved at the time the District was formed. No land is proposed to be annexed to the District. There are no proposed new improvements or any substantial changes in existing improvements.
The net amount to be assessed in the District upon all assessable lots or parcels, as shown on the latest equalized roll at the County of Riverside (the “County”) Assessor’s Office, is shown on the Assessment Roll in Appendix B of this report.
1959
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 3
3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The District provides funding for the administration, maintenance, operation, and servicing of various improvements located in District.
3.1 Description of Improvements
The traffic signal to be operated and maintained is at the following location:
Limonite Avenue & Scholar Way
The fossil filters to be managed and maintained are at the following locations:
Seven along Scholar Way between Limonite Avenue and Primrose Road One on 58th Street west of Scholar Way
1960
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 4
4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS
The estimated costs of administration, maintenance, operation, and servicing the improvements, as described in the Plans and Specifications for the District, are summarized below:
4.1 Benefit Assessment District 2014-2
4.1.1 ANNUAL BUDGET
The estimated costs associated with the District are shown below:
BAD 2014-2 Costs
Estimated
2026/27 Costs
Maintenance, Operation and Servicing Costs
Traffic Signal $6,080.00
Fossil Filters 2,000.00
Subtotal Maintenance, Operation and Servicing Costs $8,080.00 Incidental Expenses
Annual Administration (City) $840.00
Annual Administration (Consultant) 2,935.47
County Collection Fees 213.23
Subtotal Incidental Expenses $3,988.70
Total BAD 2014-2 Costs $12,068.70
General Benefit Contribution ($6,565.00)
Operating Reserve Contribution 0.00
Operating Reserve Collection 0.00
Contribution From Other Sources 0.00
Rounding (1.70)
Total Costs to be Assessed $5,502.00
Total Net BAD 2014-2 Assessment (1) $5,502.00
Total BAD 2014-2 Benefit Points to be Assessed 1,750
Actual Assessment per Benefit Point – Fiscal Year 2026/27 (2) $3.14 Maximum Allowable Assessment per Benefit Point –
Fiscal Year 2026/27 $3.57
(1) Actual assessments may be rounded to the nearest even cent in accordance with the requirements of the County for placement on the tax rolls. (2) The unrounded assessment per benefit point is $3.14497. 1961
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 5
4.1.2 OPERATING RESERVE
It is the intent of the City to maintain an Operating Reserve which shall not exceed the estimated costs of maintenance and servicing of the improvements prior to December 10 of the fiscal year, or when the City expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the County, whichever is later. The reserve balance information for the District is as follows:
Estimated Fiscal Year Ending 6/30/25 Operating Reserve Cash Balance (1)
$21,992.44
Estimated Operating Expenses – Fiscal Year 2026/27 0.00 Estimated Operating Collection – Fiscal Year 2026/27 0.00 Estimated Fiscal Year Ending 6/30/26 Operating Reserve Cash Balance
$21,992.44
The estimated Fiscal Year ending 6/30/26 Operating Reserve Cash balance is estimated based on the available cash balance, less actual expenses to date, and less estimated expenses through the end of the Fiscal Year.
4.1.3 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT INCREASE
The maximum allowable assessment per Benefit Point listed in the annual budget is the amount which was approved at the time of formation of the District, with the allowable annual increase over the maximum assessment for the previous year. The allowable annual increase is defined as: “the greater of two percent (2.0%) or the percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County California Standard Metropolitan Statistical area (“Index”) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. The annual CPI-U adjustment will be based on the increase, if any, in the Index as it stands on March of each year over the base Index for March of 2015.” Previously, the Los Angeles-RiversideOrange County index was made up of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. The BLS split this index into two areas; one that represents Los Angeles and Orange counties (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim) and another that represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario). Beginning with the 2018/19 calculation, the City began using the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario CPI as of March for the purposes of computing annual changes in the assessment rates for the District.
Each year, prior to the assessments being placed on the tax roll, the City will review the cost estimate and determine the amount needed to maintain the improvements for the upcoming fiscal year. The actual assessment per Benefit Point will be based on the estimated costs, available fund balance, and maximum allowable assessment with the goal of maintaining the improvements in a satisfactory and operational condition. The actual assessment amount may be equal to or lower than the maximum allowable assessment; however, it may not exceed the maximum unless the increase is approved by the property owners in accordance with Proposition 218. 1962
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 6
4.2 Definition of Budget Items
The following definitions describe the costs and expenses included in the cost estimate for the District:
4.2.1 MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND SERVICING COSTS
Energy Costs for Streetlights: This item includes the cost of energy provided by the electric utility provider.
Fossil Filters: This item includes the cost of cleaning and furnishing services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of the fossil filters and appurtenances, including repair, replacement, removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste.
Field Inspection/Management: This item includes the cost of inspecting fossil filters, reporting, and compliance with applicable regulations.
Repair/Replacement: This item includes the cost of furnishing services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of the fossil filters and appurtenances, including repair and replacement.
Traffic Signals: This item includes the cost of furnishing services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of traffic signals and appurtenances, including repair and replacement.
4.2.2 INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Annual Administration (City): This item includes the cost to departments and staff of the City for providing the administration, coordination, and management of District services, operation, and expenses. This item also includes management of the annual process including reports, resolutions, and public inquiries.
Annual Administration (Consultant): This item includes the contract fees and allowable expenses for annual administration of the District, including preparation of the Annual Report, preparation of resolutions, submittal of the levy to the County, responding to public inquiries, attendance at various meetings, and delinquency management. The contract fee is subject to a cost-of-living increase annually.
County Collection Fees: This item includes the fees charged by the County to process the levy submittal and collect and distribute funds on behalf of the City.
4.2.3 OPERATING RESERVE AND OTHER SOURCES
Operating Reserve Contribution: This item includes the amount to be credited to the annual assessment. When the Operating Reserve balance is greater than approximately one half of the annual costs, an Operating Reserve Contribution may be credited to the total costs.
Operating Reserve Collection: This item includes the amount to be collected to maintain reserves to enable the City to pay for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements prior to December 10 1963
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 7 of the fiscal year, or whenever the City expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the County, whichever is later. The Operating Reserve collection may continue until such a time the Reserve Fund balance is approximately one half of the annual costs.
Contributions From Other Sources: This item includes any amount contributed to the District from any source of funds other than the annual assessments.
Rounding Adjustment: This item includes any amount necessary to round the actual assessment amount for each parcel to an even cent, as the County requires that the total levy amount submitted be even, so that the amount can be divided into two equal installments on the tax roll. 1964
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 8
5. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
5.1 Legal Considerations
5.1.1 PROPOSITION 218
Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act” was approved by California voters in 1996, which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California State Constitution. The primary results of Proposition 218 were stricter definitions of assessments, special taxes, fees, and charges, and a general mandate for some type of voter approval for any new or increased tax, assessment, or property-related fee. The Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (the “Implementation Act”) was approved July 1, 1997.
The Implementation Act provided direction for procedures throughout the notice, protest, and hearing process. It should be noted that this report has been prepared to be consistent with current practices and the California State Constitution.
Article XIII D, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property. Article XIII D also provides that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment.
The net amount to be assessed may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels. Proposition 218 requires the Engineer to separate general benefit from special benefit, where only special benefit is assessed.
5.1.2 1982 ACT
Pursuant to the 1982 Act and Article XIII D, all parcels that have a special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements and services shall be identified, and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entire costs of the maintenance and operation of improvements. The 1982 Act, permits the establishment of assessment districts for the purpose of providing certain public services which include the maintenance and operation costs of drainage, flood control street lighting, and streets.
Section 54711 of the 1982 Act requires that benefit assessments must be related to the benefit to the parcel.
This Section states:
“The amount of the assessment imposed on any parcel of property shall be related to the benefit to the parcel which will be derived from the provision of the service.”
“The annual aggregate amount of the assessment shall not exceed the estimated annual cost of providing the service…”
“The revenue derived from the assessment shall not be used to pay the cost of any service other than the service for which the assessment was levied.” 1965
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 9
5.2 Special Benefit
Pursuant to Article XIII D of the California Constitution, Section 2(i) “Special benefit means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute special benefit.” All parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the services and activities provided shall be identified, and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entire cost of the services and activities.
In accordance with Article XIII D §4(a), “No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.”
The maintenance and servicing of the District improvements (which are described in the Plans and Specifications Section of this report) are for the benefit of the properties in the District, and as such confer a special and direct benefit to parcels in the District, respectively. A description of the special benefit conferred to property in the District has been excerpted from the formation Engineer’s Report and provided below:
5.2.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Traffic signals allow for the orderly flow of traffic for all roadway users and provide for increased safety of vehicles, their passengers and pedestrians. Conversely, a lack of traffic signalization can lead to roadway congestion and decreased safety. When evaluating safety of an intersection, one must look holistically at all system users to evaluate the benefit conveyed. Further, the task of traveling on the roadway system, whether by vehicle, by foot or by bicycle, involves searching for, finding, understanding, and applying the information, as well as reacting to unanticipated information. Once found and understood, the relevance of this information must be evaluated, decisions made and actions taken in response. This activity is cyclical, often occurring many times per second in complex, demanding environments. Traffic signals are one of the many pieces of information that must be processed as a traveler approaches an intersection in the roadway system.
Increased Safety to Motorists: Traffic signals provide for the orderly movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at roadway intersections. While traffic signals cannot eliminate collisions, their installation has been shown to reduce the frequency of right-angle vehicle collisions, left-turn collisions, pedestrian collisions, and head-on collisions. Heavy traffic is interrupted to allow other vehicular traffic to pass through in a safe manner.
Increased Safety to Pedestrians: Traffic signals prioritize movement across and through an intersection. By allowing pedestrians the right-of-way to enter and cross the roadway, traffic signals increase the safety to pedestrians.
Increased Traffic Capacity and Efficiency: Use of properly timed traffic signals that smooth the traffic flow allow for increased vehicle traffic and reduce congestion. Ingress and egress from developments is more timely and efficient when traffic signals are installed. 1966
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 10
5.2.2 FOSSIL FILTER MANAGEMENT, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE Fossil filters are designed to remove petroleum hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff that enters catch basins. Petroleum hydrocarbons are a primary energy source, utilized as combustible fuel. Petroleum hydrocarbons are also found in their solid form in asphalt used in roadway construction. Petroleum hydrocarbons are pollutants which are required to be removed from stormwater and runoff before they can be released into the environment. Properly operating fossil filtration systems provide the following special benefits to property:
Pretreatment of Local Drainage Stormwater: Fossil filters pretreat stormwater by removing pollutants as the water flows through the filter into the storm sewer system. Vehicles and asphalt are the primary source of pollutants that enter the storm sewer system. In particular, localized vehicular traffic produces the majority of the pollutants that enter each catch basin which are removed by the fossil filters. Since the localized vehicular traffic, associated with local property, produces most of the pollution, the local property receives special benefit from the fossil filtration system by having the pollutants it produces removed from the stormwater runoff near the source of pollution. Cleaner Local Drainage Catch Basins: By managing, maintaining, and servicing the fossil filters, the catch basins are cleared of debris that might cause localized flooding. Catch basins are designed to collect storm water runoff that results from the large amount of impervious area on developed land.
Without clear, functioning catch basins, the stormwater runoff pools and floods local streets and property. Fossil filtration system maintenance confers a special benefit to property by ensuring they are clear of debris so that stormwater runoff can flow freely into the catch basin and not flood local property.
The above-mentioned items affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at large do not share. They contribute to a specific enhancement of the properties in the District. Since these improvements were installed and are maintained specifically for the properties in the District; only properties in the District receive a special benefit and are assessed for said maintenance.
5.3 General Benefit
Article XIII D of the California Constitution requires any local agency proposing to increase or impose a special assessment to “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.” General benefits are defined as those services or improvements which provide a general increase in property values to all property or provide benefits to the health, safety or education of the public. The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that the property owners are not charged with an assessment that pays for general benefits. Thus, a local agency carrying out projects or services that provide both special and general benefits may levy an assessment to pay for the special benefits but must acquire separate funding to pay for those general benefits.
5.4 General and Special Benefits Separated
The amount of general benefit that is conferred from the improvements and activities cannot be funded via benefit assessments. In order to separate only that portion of the budget which is related to special benefits conferred by the improvements and activities, thereby excluding those costs which are associated 1967
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 11 with general benefits related to the improvements and activities, pass through traffic data has been reviewed.
General benefit conferred from the improvements cannot be funded by assessments. In order to separate only that portion of the cost of operating, maintaining, and servicing the improvements which is related to special benefits conferred, thereby excluding those costs which are related to general benefits, pass through traffic data has been analyzed.
The City’s General Plan, adopted on June 13, 2012, indicates that streets within the City generally consist of local roads, secondary and major collectors, arterials and urban arterials. There is a general benefit component associated with traffic signals and fossil filter management along arterial/collector streets roughly equal to the percentage of pass-through trips using those streets (typically 15-25% based on the amount of traffic volume placed on each type of roadway). The following table summarizes the special and general benefit for the various types of roadways based on general industry practice standards:
In order to assess the parcels within the District for the special benefits received from the improvements and activities described in Section 3.1, the general and special benefits must be separated. The general benefit conferred by the improvements and activities is 81.25%. Accordingly, 18.75% of the benefits from the improvements and activities are considered to provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessment therein.
Roadway Type Special Benefit General Benefit Comments
Local 98% 2%
Nearly all traffic is generated by local properties;
the exception would be school busses, delivery and
service vans/trucks, meter readers, and turn
around traffic which is generally less than 2%.
Collector 50% 50% Some General Benefit related to thru traffic and overall traffic safety benefits from traffic signals.
Arterial 25% 75% Some General Benefit related to thru traffic and overall traffic safety benefits from traffic signals.
5.4.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The one traffic signal to be operated, maintained, and serviced is located along Limonite Avenue which is an Arterial according to the City of Eastvale General Plan. The intersecting roadway, Scholar Way is also an Arterial. Generally, Arterials would see an estimated 75% of trips attributed to pass through traffic rather than local traffic. The District is located on the west side of Scholar Way north of Limonite Avenue. Local traffic originates from District property, as well as from surrounding property. The additional local traffic from surrounding property not in the District results in a total portion of pass through traffic not related to District property of 81.25%.
5.4.2 FOSSIL FILTER MANAGEMENT, INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE Seven of the fossil filters to be managed, inspected, and maintained are located along Scholar Way which is an Arterial according to the City’s General Plan. There is also one fossil filter on 58th Street which is a Collector. Generally, Arterials would see an estimated 75% of trips attributed to pass through traffic rather than local traffic. The District is located on the west side of Scholar Way north of Limonite Avenue and south 1968
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 12 of 58th Street. Local traffic originates from District property, as well as from surrounding property. The additional local traffic from surrounding property not in the District results in a total portion of pass-through traffic not related to District property of 81.25%.
5.4.3 GENERAL BENEFIT PORTION
The total general benefit conferred as a result of the improvements and activities is 81.25% which is based on the share of pass-through traffic related to traffic signal operation and maintenance and fossil filter management, inspection and maintenance.
5.5 Method of Assessment Spread
Each of the parcels in District are deemed to receive special benefit from the improvements. Each parcel that has a special benefit conferred upon it as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements are identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire costs of the maintenance and operation of the improvements.
As outlined above, each of the parcels within the District receives special benefit from the operation, maintenance, and services of the improvements. Each parcel that has a special benefit conferred upon it is identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire costs of the operation, maintenance, and services of the improvements. In order to facilitate this analysis, Benefit Points will be assigned based on the following factors:
5.5.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AND FOSSIL FILTER MANAGEMENT,
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
Special benefit points are proportionally assigned to all parcels within the District for each of the following special benefits conferred:
Increased Safety to Motorists
Increased Safety to Pedestrians
Increased Traffic Capacity and Efficiency
Pretreatment of Local Drainage Stormwater
Cleaner Local Drainage Catch Basins
Each parcel with a residential county land use code is expected to generate traffic, which must pass through the signalized intersection and by the fossil filters, therefore, each parcel may be assigned one Benefit Point per dwelling unit per benefit. Likewise, each non-residential parcel is expected to generate traffic, which must pass through the signalized intersection and by the fossil filters, therefore each parcel may be assigned one Benefit Point per acre, or portion thereof, per benefit. (e.g. If the parcel acreage is 1.38, the parcel receives 1.38 Benefit Points per benefit.)
The maximum allowable assessment per parcel is the amount which was approved at the time of formation of the District, with the allowable annual increase also approved at the time of formation. A description of the allowable annual increase for the District has been excerpted from the formation Engineer’s Report and provided below:
1969
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 13 Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 – The annual assessment will be adjusted annually by the greater of 2% or the cumulative percentage increase in the CPI-U if any, as it stands as of March of each year over the base index for March of 2015.
The total amount of maintenance, servicing, and incidental costs for maintaining and operating the Improvements is assessed to the individual parcels of real property in the District in proportion to the special benefit received by such parcels of real property. The proposed individual assessments are shown on the Assessment Roll in this report.
1970
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 14
6. APPENDICES
The following Appendices contain Appendix A – Assessment Diagram and Appendix B – Assessment Roll for the District.
1971
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 A APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
The Assessment Diagram for the District is shown on the following pages. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the County Assessor of the County of Riverside, at the time this report was prepared, and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Annual Report.
1972
CITY OF EASTVALE
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2014-2
(TRACTS 32821 & 32821-1)
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE, THIS _______ DAY OF ______________, 20__. _______________________________
CITY CLERK
CITY OF EASTVALE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AN ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE ON THE LOTS, PIECES AND PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN ON THIS ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM. THE ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED ON THE _______DAY OF ______________, 20__. THE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT ROLL WERE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE
OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR THE EXACT AMOUNT OF EACH ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST EACH PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN ON THIS ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM.
_______________________________
CITY CLERK
CITY OF EASTVALE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE, THIS _______ DAY OF ______________ , 20__.
_______________________________
SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS
CITY OF EASTVALE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FILED THIS _______ DAY OF ______________ , 20__ AT THE HOUR OF _______ O’CLOCK _______ M. IN BOOK , PAGE ______________ OF MAPS OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA.
_______________________________
COUNTY RECORDER
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
NOTES:
FOR PARTICULARS OF THE LINES AND DIMENSIONS OF ASSESSOR’S PARCELS, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE MAPS OF THE ASSESSOR OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE.
CITY OF EASTVALE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1 LIMONITE AVE
58TH ST
SUMNER AVE
FUJI ST
DANCY ST
LARRY DEAN ST
BRIAR ST
VALENCIA ST
REDHAVEN ST
MULAN ST
SHORTHORN DR
CORTLAND ST
LAVONDA ST
SPRINGCREST ST
ELIAS
ST
HAZEL ST
MARYLAND AVE
RED GOLD ST
JARDENE ST HEATHER LEE ST
ASHWELL CT
CALITERRA C
D
T
ELICIOUS
WAY
CLEVELAND AVE
JAMESTOWN AVE
CAROLINAS LN
ANNANDALE PL
COSMOS ST
HEREFORD LN
BAY ST
LONGHORNE DR
BRIDGEWATER DR
PATTISON ST
EARLY CRIMSON ST
WESTCHESTER WAY
SAVANNAH PL
EMPIRE CT
ANNA CT
JIMSON CT
HOLLAND CT
KALY CT
ALEXANDRIAAVE
LYNDSEY ST
MCINTOSH CT
BLUEBELL ST
NOBURY
CT
DORSETT GOLDEN ST
ANJOU ST
RUBY CT
NUFFIELD CT
CHAROLAIS CT
KARA CT
TOM SAWYER
WAY
SALERS C
TA
T
NCY CT
BEVERLY HILLS CT
CLEVELAND AVE
0 0.0375 0.075 0.15 0.225
Miles
Legend
Assessment ID
Traffic Signal
Parcel Lines
District Boundary
Legend
Sheet 1 of 1
1 Assessment ID APN
1 164-030-027
1973
City of Eastvale
2026/27 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 B APPENDIX B – ASSESSMENT ROLL
The assessment roll is a listing of the assessments for Fiscal Year 2026/27 apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Riverside.
Based on County Assessor’s secured roll data, current assessor’s parcels, including corrected and/or new assessor’s parcels, will be submitted and/or resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The annual assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel(s) shall be determined in accordance with the method of apportionment and assessment rate approved in this Annual Report.
Therefore, if a single assessor’s parcel has a status change in development, other land use change, or subdivides into multiple assessor’s parcels, the assessment amounts applied to each of the new assessor’s parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment amount.
The assessment roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27 is listed on the following pages. 1974
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-711-001 6148 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 $15.72
164-711-002 6152 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-003 6156 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-004 6160 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-005 6134 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-006 6138 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-007 6142 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-008 6146 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-009 6132 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-010 6136 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-011 6140 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-012 6144 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-014 6103 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-015 6109 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-016 6115 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-017 6113 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-018 6107 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-019 6101 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-020 6104 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-711-021 6110 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-711-022 6116 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-711-023 6114 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-711-024 6108 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-711-025 6102 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-711-027 13055 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-711-028 13061 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-711-029 13049 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-711-030 13043 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-711-031 13031 SNAPDRAGON DR 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 1 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1975
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-711-032 13037 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-711-033 13025 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-711-034 13019 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-711-036 6118 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-037 6122 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-038 6126 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-039 6130 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-040 6116 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-041 6120 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-042 6124 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-043 6128 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-044 6102 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-045 6106 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-046 6110 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-047 6114 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-048 6100 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-049 6104 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-050 6108 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-051 6112 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-053 6121 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-054 6127 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-055 6133 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-056 6131 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-057 6125 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-058 6119 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-711-059 6120 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-711-060 6126 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-711-061 6132 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-711-062 6118 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 2 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1976
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-711-063 6124 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-711-064 6130 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-001 6068 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-002 6072 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-003 6076 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-004 6080 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-005 6078 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-006 6074 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-007 6070 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-008 6066 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-009 6052 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-010 6056 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-011 6060 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-012 6064 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-013 6062 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-014 6058 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-015 6054 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-016 6050 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-018 6070 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-019 6076 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-020 6082 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-021 6080 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-022 6074 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-023 6068 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-025 6050 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-026 6056 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-027 6062 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-028 6060 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-029 6054 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 3 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1977
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-712-030 6048 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-031 6055 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-032 6061 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-033 6067 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-034 6065 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-035 6059 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-036 6053 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-038 6034 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-039 6040 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-040 6046 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-041 6044 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-042 6038 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-043 6032 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-044 6037 SNAPDRAGON WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-045 6043 SNAPDRAGON WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-046 6049 SNAPDRAGON WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-047 6047 SNAPDRAGON WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-048 6041 SNAPGRAGON WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-049 6035 SNAPDRAGON WAY 5.00 15.72
164-712-051 6036 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-052 6040 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-053 6044 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-054 6048 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-055 6046 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-056 6042 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-057 6038 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-058 6034 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.00 15.72
164-712-059 6020 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-712-060 6024 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 4 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1978
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-712-061 6028 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-712-062 6032 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-712-063 6030 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-712-064 6026 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-712-065 6022 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-712-066 6018 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-713-001 13103 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-713-002 13109 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-713-003 13097 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-713-004 13091 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-713-005 13079 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-713-006 13085 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-713-007 13073 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-713-008 13067 GOLDENROD DR 5.00 15.72
164-713-010 6119 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-011 6125 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-012 6135 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-013 6129 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-014 6139 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-015 6145 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-016 6155 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-017 6149 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-019 6029 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-020 6031 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-021 6039 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-022 6033 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-023 6035 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-024 6041 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-025 6043 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 5 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1979
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-713-026 6037 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-028 6069 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-029 6075 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-030 6083 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-031 6077 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-032 6105 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-033 6111 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-034 6115 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-035 6109 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-037 6045 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-038 6051 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-039 6055 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-040 6049 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-041 6053 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-042 6059 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-043 6071 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-713-044 6065 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.00 15.72
164-721-001 5968 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-721-002 5972 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-721-003 5976 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-721-004 5980 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-721-005 5978 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-721-006 5974 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-721-007 5970 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-721-008 5966 LIMONIUM LN 5.00 15.72
164-721-009 5952 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-010 5956 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-011 5960 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-012 5964 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 6 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1980
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-721-013 5962 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-014 5958 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-015 5954 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-016 5950 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-018 5936 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-019 5940 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-020 5944 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-021 5948 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-022 5946 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-023 5942 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-024 5938 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-025 5934 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-026 5920 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-027 5924 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-028 5928 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-029 5932 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-030 5930 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-031 5926 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-032 5922 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-033 5918 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-035 13068 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-036 13074 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-037 13078 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-038 13072 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-039 13080 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-040 13086 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-041 13090 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-042 13084 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-044 13088 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 7 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1981
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-721-045 13094 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-046 13106 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-047 13100 IRISBEND AVE 5.00 15.72
164-721-049 13105 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-050 13099 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-051 13087 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-052 13093 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-053 13089 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-054 13083 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-055 13079 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-056 13085 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-057 13077 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-058 13071 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-059 13067 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-721-060 13073 SUGARLOAF DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-001 5878 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-002 5882 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-003 5886 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-004 5890 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-005 5888 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-006 5884 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-007 5880 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-008 5876 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-010 5862 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-011 5866 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-012 5870 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-013 5874 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-014 5872 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-015 5868 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 8 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1982
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-722-016 5864 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-017 5860 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-019 5846 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-020 5850 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-021 5854 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-022 5858 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-023 5856 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-024 5852 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-025 5848 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-026 5844 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-722-028 13048 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-029 13042 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-030 13038 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-031 13032 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-032 13010 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-033 13016 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-034 13020 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-035 13026 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-037 13056 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-038 13050 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-039 13046 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-040 13058 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-041 13062 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-042 13068 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-043 13042 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-044 13050 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-045 13058 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-046 13062 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-047 13054 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 9 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1983
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-722-048 13046 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-050 13086 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-051 13080 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-052 13076 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-053 13088 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-054 13092 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-055 13098 58TH ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-056 13044 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-057 13052 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-058 13060 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-059 13056 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-060 13048 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-722-061 13038 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-001 5985 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-002 5979 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-003 5973 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-004 5971 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-005 5977 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-006 5983 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-008 13043 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-009 13037 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-010 13035 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-011 13041 BRAMBLE ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-013 5938 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-014 5942 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-015 5946 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-016 5944 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-017 5940 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-018 5936 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 10 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1984
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-723-020 5969 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-021 5963 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-022 5957 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-023 5955 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-024 5961 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-025 5967 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-027 5952 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-028 5958 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-029 5964 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-030 5962 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-031 5956 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-032 5950 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-034 5863 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-035 5859 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-036 5855 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-037 5853 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-038 5857 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-039 5861 GINGER DR 5.00 15.72
164-723-041 5858 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-042 5862 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-043 5866 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-044 5864 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-045 5860 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-046 5856 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-048 5968 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-049 5974 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-050 5980 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-051 5978 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-723-052 5972 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 11 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1985
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-723-053 5966 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-001 5855 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-002 5853 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-003 5863 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-004 5861 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-005 5869 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-006 5871 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-007 5879 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-008 5877 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-009 5885 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-010 5887 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-012 5921 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-013 5919 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-014 5927 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-015 5929 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-016 5937 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-017 5935 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-018 5943 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-019 5945 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-021 5953 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-022 5951 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-023 5959 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-024 5961 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-025 5969 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-026 5967 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-027 5975 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-028 5977 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-029 5985 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-030 5983 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 12 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1986
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Site Address Total BP Assessment Total
164-724-031 5991 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
164-724-032 5993 SILVEIRA ST 5.00 15.72
350 Accounts 1,750.00 $5,502.00
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 13 of 13 05/11/2026 10:52:37AM 1987
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City Council Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Agenda Item No. 12.2
June 24, 2026
Adop*on of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2026/2027 through 2030/2031
Prepared By:
Jimmy Chung, Public Works Director/ City Engineer
Recommended Action(s)
Staff recommends that the City Council hold the public hearing and adopt a resolu on approving the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2026/2027 through 2030/2031.
Summary
The City of Eastvale's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plan outlines a strategic framework for infrastructure development, including project cost overview, project descrip ons, categories, project status, and project priority, all aimed at enhancing the community's quality of life and addressing its long-term needs. This comprehensive plan ensures transparency, accountability, and effec ve resource alloca on, contribu ng to the successful execu on of the city's capital projects over the specified planning period.
The CIP focuses on addressing cri cal, essen al, and desirable projects across various project categories. These categories encompass a wide range of sectors, including transporta on, parks and recrea on, public safety, City maintenance, u li es, accessibility improvements and public facili es.
Each project has been carefully evaluated and categorized based on its significance and impact on the community. Pursuant to the California Government Code, adop on of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) requires the Planning Commission and City Council to hold public hearings to allow public input and pass a resolu on to adopt the CIP. Staff has no ced for public hearing regarding this item pursuant to California Government Code Sec on 65090 and provided a resolu on for considera on which adopts the Five-Year CIP pursuant to California Government Code Section 66002.
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1988
Background
A=ached is the CIP for City Council considera on on projects proposed for fiscal years 2026/2027 through 2030/2031. Proposed is a list based on the priori es of the City Council of citywide projects including accessibility improvements, roadway safety/traffic improvements, street improvements, citywide maintenance: land, building, facili es, and equipment . Projects are then further categorized into three priori es: Cri cal, Essen al, and Desirable, which was established at the May 27, 2026 City Council meeting.
Accessibility Improvement Projects
This program is dedicated to improving Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessibility through various types of repairs to curbs, gu=ers, and sidewalks throughout the City. The program includes costs to prepare and implement a plan for ADA compliance.
Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements
This program improves roadway safety and traffic through upgrades and improvements to exis ng and/or adding new high-visibility traffic signs, pavement markings, and other geometric improvements (i.e. site distance) or traffic circulation improvements.
Street Improvement
This program is dedicated to improving various streets. Improvements may include widening or capital pavement maintenance.
Citywide Maintenance
This program is dedicated to right-of-way maintenance and repair, including, but not limited to striping, stenciling, repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facili es, storm damage/flood control projects, widening/pavement maintenance of streets (slurry seals/crack seals/pot holes/deep patch), and various assets in the public right of way.
Land, Buildings, Facilities, & Equipment
This program aims to provide safe, clean, well-maintained and func onal facili es in order to allow City departments to effec vely provide services to the community. This program details construc on and capital improvements of City-owned buildings and facili es and offsite improvements to include sidewalk, curb and gutter and pavement.
Environmental
Adop on of the CIP is an administra ve ac vity and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sec ons 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because adop on of the CIP does not commit the City to construct any of the projects included in the CIP and therefore will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements will be determined on a project-byproject basis prior to final approval and construction of each project.
Strategic Plan Action - Priority Level: 1 | Target #: E | Goal #: A The adop on of the City's 5-Year CIP for the 2026-2027 budget cycle will support the development of a Civic Center and support financial planning efforts for newly proposed infrastructure projects. 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1989
Fiscal Impact
The City's infrastructure projects are financed through various funding sources, including SB 1, Gas Tax, SB 132 Road Maintenance and Rehabilita on Account, Measure A, Community Development Block Grant, federal grants, state grants, developer contribu on, fire structural funds, County Flood Control funds, development impact fees, and General Fund.
The budgetary summary for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan is part of 2026-2027 Annual Opera ons and Capital Improvement Budget, which will be presented to Council for adop on at the June 24, 2026 City Council meeting.
Prior City Council/Commission Action
On June 22, 2026, the Planning Commission will meet to review the proposed Capital Improvement Plan and render findings of General Plan consistency.
On May 27, 2026, the City Council reviewed and approved a project priority list for the 2026-2027 budget cycle to be included in the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Attachment(s)
Attachment 1 - Resolution adopting CIP
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A to Resolution - Draft 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Attachment 3 - Proof of Public Hearing Notice
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1990
RESOLUTION NO. 26-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026/2027 THROUGH 2030/2031
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eastvale desires to adopt the City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2026/2027 through 2030/2031 (“CIP”), as defined below;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a presentation on the proposed CIP at a public hearing held on June 24, 2026 where members of the public had the opportunity to comment on the proposed CIP;
WHEREAS, the proposed CIP is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code, section 66002, the City duly gave public notice of the public hearing of the proposed CIP, a copy of which has been on file with the City Clerk at least 10 calendar days prior to the City Council’s commencement of such public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the CIP as set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EASEMENT CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2026/2027 through 2030/2031, a copy of which is attached hereto as exhibit “A” and made a part hereof by this reference.
SECTION 2. The Capital Improvement Plan may be updated by the City Council from time to time pursuant to California Government Code, section 66002, or as otherwise provided by law.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24 day of June, 2026. __________________________________________
Jocelyn Yow
Mayor
1991
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
__________________________________________ __________________________________________ Erica Vega Marc A. Donohue, MMC
City Attorney City Clerk
1992
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) §
CITY OF EASTVALE )
I, Marc A. Donohue, City Clerk of the City of Eastvale, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 26-XX, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Eastvale, California, at a meeting held on the 24 day of June, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________________
Marc A. Donohue, MMC
City Clerk
1993
1994
Introduction and Summary .................................................................................................. 4 Program Summary ............................................................................................................... 5 Program Project Detail Sheets ............................................................................................ 9 Appendix A Critical Projects Detail Sheets..............................................................10 Appendix B Essential Projects Detail Sheets .......................................................... 29 Appendix C Desirable Projects Detail Sheets ......................................................... 45 Table 1 - Critical Projects Category Summary ................................................................... 7 Table 2 - Essential Projects Category Summary ............................................................... 7 Table 3 - Desirable Project Category Summary ................................................................. 8
SUMMARY OF TABLES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1995
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2026/2027 THROUGH FY 2030/2031 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FY 2026/2027 through FY 2030/2031
CITY COUNCIL
Jocelyn Yow, Mayor
Clint Lorimore, Mayor Pro Tem
Christian Dinco, Council Member
Michael McMinn, Council Member
Todd Rigby, Council Member
ADMINISTRATION
Mark Orme, City Manager
Prepared By:
Public Works Department
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Jimmy Chung, P.E.
1996
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2026/2027 THROUGH FY 2030/2031 4 The City of Eastvale's Five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) serves as a strategic blueprint for infrastructure planning and investment. It includes detailed project descriptions, cost estimates, project status, prioritization, and categorization — all with the goal of improving quality of life and addressing the City's long-term infrastructure needs.
This comprehensive planning tool ensures transparency, fiscal responsibility, and efficient allocation of resources, thereby supporting the successful delivery of capital projects throughout the five-year planning period.
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is overseen by the Public Works Department and serves as a strategic framework for the planning, design, and construction of various infrastructure projects throughout the City. These include improvements in transportation, drainage, public facilities, and parks. Public Works staff are responsible for managing all phases of CIP projects—from initial planning and design to final construction and project closeout.
CIP addresses a broad range of project types, including critical, essential, and desirable improvements across categories such as transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, maintenance, utilities, accessibility enhancements, and public facilities. Each project is assessed and categorized based on its urgency and anticipated community benefit.
Five-Year Capital improvement Plan (CIP) Annual Update
Each year, as part of the City's budget process, the City Council reviews and adopts a FiveYear Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in accordance with California Government Code Section 65403.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090, the adoption of the Five-Year CIP requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council, providing opportunities for community input prior to formal adoption through resolution. At their meeting on June 17, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and determined that the plan conforms to the goals, objectives, and policies of the elements of the General Plan.
Annual Capital Improvement Budget Process
The Annual Capital Improvement Budget (Annual CIP) process usually starts in January or
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1997
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2026/2027 THROUGH FY 2030/2031 5 February with the development of the overall City budget. This process identifies all priority operational needs, as well as capital improvement needs. Once the budget is completed, it is recommended for adoption by the City Council prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, which begins in July. City management and the City Council are updated monthly on the status of CIP projects through status reporting and meetings.
FY 2026/2027 Annual Operations and Capital Improvement Budget was adopted by the City Council on June 24, 2026. The budget document provides detailed insights into the financial aspects and funding sources allocated for each project within the Capital Improvement Program. It serves as a valuable resource, outlining the financial considerations and allocations for the specified planning period.
This document presents the City of Eastvale Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2026/2027 through 2030/2031. The City of Eastvale’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is comprised of thirty-eight (38) projects divided into five categories: Accessibility Improvements Program, Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements, Street Improvements, Citywide Maintenance Program, and Land, Building, Facilities & Equipment. The projects are further categorized into three priorities based on the following order of precedence:
1. Safety Projects
2. Annual projects
3. Funding deadlines
4. Projects with significant progress (more than 50% in design)
5. New projects from Strategic Goal
6. All others
The three priorities are:
Critical Projects:
Critical projects are those that require immediate attention due to safety concerns, regulatory compliance, or their potential to adversely affect the City's infrastructure or services if left unaddressed. These projects are given the highest priority and are crucial for maintaining the integrity and functionality of City of Eastvale's public systems.
PROGRAM SUMMARY
1998
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2026/2027 THROUGH FY 2030/2031 6 Essential Projects:
Essential projects are deemed necessary to meet the growing demands of the community and improve the overall quality of life for its residents. These projects aim to enhance existing infrastructure, expand services, and create a more sustainable environment. They play a vital role in ensuring City of Eastvale remains a vibrant and desirable place to live, work, and engage in recreational activities.
Desirable Projects:
Desirable projects, while not as critical or essential, are still significant in enhancing the community's well-being and supporting its long-term vision. These projects focus on various aspects such as aesthetic improvements, public safety improvements, infrastructure maintenance, and transportation advancements. They contribute to the unique identity and character of City of Eastvale, creating a more appealing and engaging environment for residents and visitors.
The Five-Year CIP is summarized as follows:
Priority Category Total number of Projects
Critical 21
Essential 14
Desirable 3
A summary of proposed projects by category for the entire Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan is included in Table 1 through Table 3. A program summary by category that includes each project cost estimates is presented in Appendices A through C. 1999
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2026/2027 THROUGH FY 2030/2031 7 Table 1 -Critical Projects Category Summary
Project
No.
Project Title Project
Category
95025 Civic Center Surface Parking Lot Critical
95024 Civic Center Parking Structure Critical
95023 Civic Center Site Improvement Critical
95017 Public Works Yard Facility Project Critical
95014 Police Station Critical
95012 Library Critical
95011 City Hall Critical
94016 Parkway Landscape Infill and Enhancement Project Critical 94015 Tree Management Plan and Installation Project Critical 94014 Beautification Project at Sumner Ave and Bellegrave Ave Critical 94010 Citywide Branding: Entryway and Median Improvements Critical 94006 Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization – Phase 1 Arterials Critical 94005 Miscellaneous Traffic/Pedestrian Safety Critical
94001 Pavement Slurry Seal and Resurfacing Project Critical 93040 Hamner Utility Trench Repair Critical
93039 Median Improvement Project at River Rd, Cantu Galleano Rd, and Archibald Ave
Critical
93037 Limonite Gap Pedestrian Bridge Critical
93034 Hellman Avenue Street Widening Critical
93018 Annual Overlay Critical
92021 Traffic Signal Improvement at Sumner and 68th Critical 92001 Traffic Sign Inventory and Replacement Critical
Table 2 - Essential Projects Category Summary
Project
No.
Project Title Project
Category
95022 Citrus Reimagined Project Essential
95020 OCPW Land Use – Passive Park Essential
95016 Fire Medic Squad Replacement Essential
95015 Fire Aerial Ladder Truck Purchase Essential
95013 Fire Station Essential
94011 Smart City Masterplan Essential
94007 Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization – Phase 2 Collectors Essential 94004 Street Maintenance: Pot Holes, Deep Patch, and Crack Seal Essential 93036 Streetlight Installation Project Essential
93027 Schleisman Road Mobility, Safety, and Connectivity Project Essential 92020 Hamner Avenue Beautification Project Essential
92013 Cantu Galleano Ranch Interchange Gateway Feature Essential 92012 Improvement of Bike Network Connectivity Essential 91010 Citywide Americans with Disabilities Act Improvement Project Essential 2000
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2026/2027 THROUGH FY 2030/2031 8 Table 3– Desirable Project Category Summary
Project
No.
Project Title Project
Category
92018 Orchard Park to American Heroes Park Trail Desirable 92014 Roadway Vision Desirable
92011 Traffic Signal Battery Backup Systems Desirable
2001
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2026/2027 THROUGH FY 2030/2031 9 For each proposed project in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), a Project Detail Sheet has been prepared that presents the various project details including:
• Project Title and Location
• Project/CIP No. and Category
• Project Priority Category
• Project Justification
• City Council Goal & Objectives
• Description of Project
• Project Cost Overview
• Review and Comments
PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEETS
2002
CRITICAL PROJECTS
(appendix continues on next page)
10 APPENDIX A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BY
PROJECT DETAILS
2003
Civic Center Surface Parking Lot
95025
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Construction Contracts 3,450,000$
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost 3,750,000$ Annual O&M Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Design-Build Start: Q3 2026Estimated Completion: Q2 2028Funding Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 300,000$
Property Acquisition1
City Council Goals & Objectives:Project Category: Location: Northwest corner of Hamner Ave and Premier PlaceDescription of Improvements: This project will construct a surface parking lot to service the new Civic Center.
Justification or Significance of Improvement:
The new parking structure will support the anticipated increase in parking demand associated with the new Civic Center.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2004
Civic Center Parking Structure
95024
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
Feasibility Study In Progress
x Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Construction Contracts 33,300,000$
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost 39,030,000$ Annual O&M Review and Comments: 1Based on $1,109,639 per acre (from the appraisal done for Lot 14 from DA; but the actual cost will be determined when an appraisal is done)Tentative Schedule:
Design-Build Start: Q3 2026Estimated Completion: TBDFunding Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 3,330,000$
Property Acquisition1 2,400,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:Project Category: Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: This project will utilize a design-build approach, and the scope includes the construction of a multi-story underground parking structure that will serve the Civic Center and the future Downtown area.Justification or Significance of Improvement:
The new parking structure will support the anticipated increase in parking demand associated with the new Civic Center.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2005
Civic Center Site Improvement
95023
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects N/A
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Construction Contracts2 26,653,021$
Other Professional Serv.3 785,404$
Other Misc Expenses4 654,843$ Total Cost 31,046,700$ Annual O&M Review and Comments: 1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre2includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency3Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,,4Includes FF&E, AV System, and Alternatives5Includes project cost estimates for Site Improvements including Park and PlazaTentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025Estimated Completion: Q2 2028Funding Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates5
Architect & Eng Serv. 1,843,624$
Property Acquisition1 1,109,808$
City Council Goals & Objectives:Project Category: Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: An approximately 2.8 acre City Park with an amphitheater and a central hardscape Civic Plaza and associated site work around the three buildings: City Hall, library, and police station.Justification or Significance of Improvement:
Phase I of the Downtown Eastvale Project includes a City Hall, a library, a police station, arts and cultural spaces, a park and an amphitheater, and an open plaza. The Civic Center will be a community serving and welcoming place, space and destination where people can connect and prosper. Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2006
Public Works Yard Facility Project
95017
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
Feasibility Study In Progress
x Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q1 2027Estimated Completion: Q1 2028 9,480,272$
Annual O&M
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 7,730,272$
1,250,000$
500,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: 14821 & 14835 Chandler StDescription of Improvements: This project will utilize a design-build approach. The project scope includes the construction of maintenance yard buildings with vehicle/equipment storage area, office spaces, washing bays, and rest areas and the site work.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : The City is lacking appropriate space for storage of equipment, supplies, fleet garage, workshop space, crew break room. The City also needs to be prepared for the increased demand for services once the Civic Center, Civic Park, and Civic Plaza construction begins.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2007
Police Station
95014
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects Priority 1, Target A, Goal A
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Other Professional Serv.3
Other Misc Expenses4Total Cost
Review and Comments: 1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre2includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency3Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,,4Includes FF&E, AV System, and AlternativesTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q3 2025Estimated Completion: Q2 2028 Annual O&M
54,016,207$
1,912,753$ 2,291,090$
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2
3,101,867$
44,843,263$
1,867,234$
Project Cost Overview
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: A design-bid-build project to construct a new Police Station, approximately 22,021 SF in size, located in the southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The Police Station a two-story building with one level below grade secured parking. Justification or Significance of Improvement : The new police station would serve as the City’s law enforcement headquarters and will enhance the provision of law enforcement services for the City’s current residents as well as or new development and population as the City continues to grow over future decades..The new police station would also house the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which would serve as a central command-and-control facility for coordinating emergency response and recovery efforts during disasters and major emergencies. Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2008
Library
95012
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.3Other Misc Expenses4Total Cost Review and Comments: 1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre2includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency3Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,,4Includes FF&E, AV System, and AlternativesTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q3 2025Estimated Completion: Q2 2028 Total Project Cost Estimates
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2 40,168,002$
1,672,560$ 2,778,473$
Project Cost Overview
Annual O&M
49,552,653$
2,856,611$ 2,077,007$
Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:City Council Goals & Objectives:Funding Information:Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:Project Category: Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan.
Description of Improvements: A design-bid-build project to construct an approximately 25,599 SF Library located in the southeast commercial quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The Library is a two-story building featuring book collection areas for all ages, group study rooms, acitivity spaces, offices, and an occupiable terrace.Justification or Significance of Improvement : The City's existing library is operated by a facility that is shared with a high school. The new facility would be the first true library in the City, which is currently underserved by its existing library facilities. The construction of a new Library is vital to fostering education, equality, community cohesion, and personal development. The library would accommodate a range of public programs and offer expanded access to equipment to increase public access to literacy and digital programs.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Status:
2009
City Hall
95011
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.3Other Misc Expenses4Total Cost Review and Comments: 1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre2includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency3Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,,4Includes FF&E, AV System, and AlternativesTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q3 2025Estimated Completion: Q2 2028 Annual O&M
79,605,104$
4,696,329$ 3,377,447$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2 64,395,621$
2,681,377$ 4,454,330$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: A design-bid-build project to construct an approximately 52,340 SF City Hall located in the southeast commercial quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The City Hall is a three-story building that includes public counter spaces, an outdoor amphitheater, a council chamber that could be converted into a stage for performances, conference rooms, and office spaces.Justification or Significance of Improvement:
Eastvale was incorporated in 2010, making it a relatively new city. Before incorporation, there was no City Hall in Eastvale. The construction of a new City Hall is essential to support government operations, offer services to the public, encourage civic engagement, and serve as a symbol of local governance.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2010
Park Landscape Infill and Enhancement Project
94016
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
x Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Priority 2, Target B, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
260,000$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q3 2026Estimated Completion: Q2 2027
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 10,000$
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 250,000$
Project Cost Overview
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:City Council Goals & Objectives:Funding Information:Project Category: Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: This project will identify parkway areas where landscaping has been removed and not replaced, and infilling those areas with in-kind materials to restore and enhance aesthetics. Justification or Significance of Improvement : This project will address visible gaps in the parkway landscape that negatively impact the overall appearance and consistency of the area. By infilling these areas with in-kind materials, the project restores a cohesive and wellmaintained streetscape that aligns with the original design intent. This not only enhances visual continuity and neighborhood character but also supports a more attractive and welcoming environment for residents and visitors.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2011
Tree Management Plan and Installation Project
94016
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
x Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
320,000$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q3 2026Estimated Completion: Q2 2027
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 20,000$
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 300,000$
Project Cost Overview
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:City Council Goals & Objectives:Funding Information:Project Category: Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: This project will develop a tree management plan for the City and implement it by planing new trees in the City's right of way to fill gaps and enhance overall beautification. Justification or Significance of Improvement : This project will address visible gaps in the parkway landscape that negatively impact the overall appearance and consistency of the area. By infilling these areas with in-kind materials, the project restores a cohesive and wellmaintained streetscape that aligns with the original design intent. This not only enhances visual continuity and neighborhood character but also supports a more attractive and welcoming environment for residents and visitors.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2012
Beautification Project at Sumner Ave and Bellegrave Ave 94014
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Target B, Goal H
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q3 2026Estimated Completion: Q1 2027 Annual O&M
700,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 650,000$
50,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: Southwest corner of Bellegrave Ave/Merrill Ave and Sumner Ave Description of Improvements: This project will include installation of landscaping and hardscape to beautify the gap that exists at the southwest corner of Bellegrave Ave/Merrill Ave and Sumner Ave.Justification or Significance of Improvement : Sumner Ave at Bellegrave Ave/Merrill Ave serves as a key entry point into the city, making it essential to enhance its appearance and create a welcoming atmosphere for both residents and visitors. This improvement will not only elevate the aesthetic appeal but also set a positive tone for all who enter our community. Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2013
Citywide Branding: Entryway and Median Improvements
94010
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target B, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q3 2026Estimated Completion: Q1 2027 Annual O&M
1,210,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 1,100,000$
110,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Citywide Branding efforts including entryway median improvement, monument installation at various locations within the City, and various street beautification projects.Justification or Significance of Improvement : Although this project has been categorized as Essential in previous Five-Year CIP’s, staff has been actively seeking opportunities to implement it in coordination with other improvement efforts, such as the median project at Cantu and River Road. With the acceptance of the Right-of-Way dedication at the corner of Sumner Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue, we are now ready to move forward with the design and installation of the Entryway City Branding Monument, in conjunction with the Beautification Project (Project No. 94014).Project Priority
within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2014
Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization - Phase 1 Arterials 94006
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)Target E, Goal D x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q3 2026Estimated Completion: Q1 2027 Annual O&M
6,000,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 5,000,000$
1,000,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: This project will implement traffic signal synchronization along major arterials including Hamner Ave, Archibald Ave, and Schleiman Ave. Description of Improvements: Install traffic synchronization components and fiber optic line and/or wireless antenna to relay signal per the traffic signal synchronization master plan. Traffic signal synchronization of major corridors will be completed in two phases. Phase 1 includes Hamner Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Schleisman Road and Scholar Way. Phase 2 includes collectors streets including Harrision Ave, Sumner Ave, 65th St, and Citrus St (CIP 94007). This project is for Phase 1, and sycnrhonization on Schleisman Rd will be completed after the intersection of Schleisman Rd and Sumner is improved by a developer. Justification or Significance of Improvement : Synchronizing major corridors throughout the City has remained a high priority. WRCOG’s recent Nexus Study highlighted and included the ITS improvements along these key corridors. Implementing this initiative will significantly enhance traffic flow and reduce travel times, delivering clear benefits to the public.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2015
Miscellaneous Traffic/Pedestrian Safety
94005
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target E, Goal F
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:This is an ongoing annual project.
Annual O&M
100,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 50,000$
50,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Miscellaneous design and construction to improve traffic safety for year-round traffic/safety needs.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2016
Pavement Slurry Seal and Resurfacing Project
94001
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
CalRecycle and RMRA (Road Maintenance and Rehalibitation Account)Target E, Goal C x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
1,500,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 1,500,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Category: Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Annual program to treat pavement on various residential streets throughout the City with slurry seal. This is an ongoing project and will be reappropriated each year as needed.Justification or Significance of Improvement : Preventative maintenance is a proactive strategy that helps City manage infrastructure responsibly, ensuring roads remain safe, functional, and cost-effective over time. Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2017
Hamner Utility Trench Repair
93040
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvementsx
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Construction Contracts 750,000$
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost 750,000$ Annual O&M Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q3 2026Estimated Completion: Q1 2027Funding Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. -$
Property Acquisition
City Council Goals & Objectives:Project Category: Location: Hamner Ave north of Schleisman Rd in front of Dollar Tree store Description of Improvements: This project will excavate and property backfill the existing trench line over the storm drain line along Hamner Ave in front of Dollar Tree store. Justification or Significance of Improvement : It is critical to address the settlement issues observed at the project location to ensure roadway safety and structural integrity of the roadway and to ensure its long-term performance.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2018
Median Improvement Projects at River Rd, Cantu Galleano Rd, and Archibald Ave 93039
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvementsx
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects Priority 2, Target E, Goal F
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Construction Contracts 2,200,000$
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost 2,400,000$ Annual O&M Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q3 2025Estimated Completion: Q3 2026Funding Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 200,000$
Property Acquisition
City Council Goals & Objectives:Project Category: Location: River Rd at Baron Dr, Cantu Galleano Rd between Hamner Ave and Goodman Way, and Archibald Ave between Corbin Dr and existing raised median to the northDescription of Improvements: Install landscaped raised median to physically separate opposing traffic streams and help stop vehicles traveling into opposing traffic lanes. Justification or Significance of Improvement : Public Safety Needs to prevent illegal left turns and dangerous driving pattern.
Project Priority
within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2019
Limonite Gap Pedestrian Bridge
93037
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvementsx
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal E
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 781,000$
500,000$
Construction Contracts 3,500,000$
Other Professional Serv. -$
Property Acquisition
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:Project Category: City Council Goals & Objectives:
-$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q4 2026Estimated Completion: Q4 2027 Total Cost 4,781,000$ Other Misc Expenses
Location: Over Cucamonga Creek Channel, approximately 0.1 mil south of Limonite Ave.
Description of Improvements: Design and construct a pedestrian bridge that is roughly 300 ft in length over Cucamonga Creek Channel to close the gap of pedestrian path that will ultimately extend to a 2.5-mile multiuse trail and connect with four parks through a nonmotorized corridor.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:Project Number: Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Construction of this project was approved for CPFCDS (Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending) funding through the FY22-23 earmark process. Funding obligation deadline is September 30, 2026.
Project Status:
Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:
2020
Hellman Avenue Street Widening and Walters Pedestrian Bridge 93034
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvementsx
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)Priority 2, Target E, Goal F x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: TBD (pending TUMF construction budget allocation)Estimated Completion: TBD (pending TUMF construction budget allocation) Annual O&M
25,500,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 8,500,000$
15,000,000$
2,000,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: Hellman Ave between Chandler St. to Walters St.Description of Improvements: The project involves widening Hellman Avenue from Walters Street to River Road to eliminate bottlenecks and improve traffic flow. The scope includes conducting a feasibility study, preparing environmental documents, right-of-way easement documents, and PS&E. The project will be completed in two phases: 1) Widening of Hellman Avenue north of Chandler Avenue, including lot grading south of Rondo Elementary School and bridge widening. 2) Widening of Hellman Avenue from Shortham Street to River Road.The feasibility study will determine the most efficient approach for phasing the project.Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2021
Annual Overlay
93018
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvementsx
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:This is an annual project.
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction ContractsAnnual O&M
3,250,000$ 3,250,000$
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:City Council Goals & Objectives:Funding Information:Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:Project Category: Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Annual asphalt concrete overlay or micro-resurfacing treatment on various streets according to the approved Pavement Management Plan. The contractor for construction will be selected by a bidding procedure.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Status:
2022
Traffic Signal Improvement at Sumner Ave and 68th St
92021
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal D
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Total Cost 721,800$ Annual O&M
Review and Comments: NoneTentative Schedule: Construction Start: Q4 2026Estimated Completion: Q3 2027Funding Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 87,000$
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 634,800$
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc Expenses
City Council Goals & Objectives:Location: At the intersection of Sumner Ave and 68th StDescription of Improvements: Design and install traffic signals at the intersection of Sumner Ave and 68th Street Justification or Significance of Improvement: This project will improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and also allow for future opportunity to synchronize the Sumner Ave corridor. City Council directed the staff to commence the process for signalizing this intersection at April 10, 2024, meeting.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:
Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP) Cycle 12
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:Project Number:
2023
Traffic Sign Inventory and Replacement
92001
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
107,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 107,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: The City of Eastvale owns and maintains approximately 8,210 traffic signs throughout the city. Signs that are missing, weathered, faded, or non-compliant will be replaced. One key compliance measure is retroreflectivity, a standard established to enhance nighttime driving safety. Approximately 2,160 signs have been scanned, with 821 failing to meet retroreflectivity standards. The remaining signs will be scanned while the failed ones are replaced. Additionally, the typical lifecycle of traffic signs is 10 years. This is an ongoing project and will be reappropriated annually as needed.Justification or Significance of Improvement : Traffic signs are vital sources of infomration that communicate traffic control rules, warnings, and provide the necessary guidance that roadway users need to safetly and efficiently navigate.
Project Priority
within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
Project Title:Project Number:
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
2024
ESSENTIAL PROJECTS
(appendix continues on next page)
29 APPENDIX B
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BY
PROJECT DETAILS
2025
Citrus Reimagined Project
95022
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target E, Goal B
Fully Funded Partially Funded x No Funding
Construction Contracts2 82,000,000$
Other Professional Serv.3 12,300,000$ Other Misc Expenses 4,100,000$ Total Cost 104,960,000$ Annual O&M
Review and Comments: 18% of the total construction cost2Based on $40/ft for site improvements and $1,000/sf for building construction
315% of the total construction cost45% of the total construction costFunding Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv.1 6,560,000$
Property Acquisition -$
City Council Goals & Objectives:Project Category: Location: 13200 Citrus St., Eastvale CADescription of Improvements: In consistence with 2040 Eastvale General Plan, this project is envisioning to transform the 22-acre City owned lot into a community gathering hub that include a 15,000 sf indoor aquatic center, a 20,000 sf to 25,000 sf community center, an event center repurposed from an old residential property, an outdoor amphitheater, park spaces, pickleball courts, dog parks, a skate park, picnic areas, and a Sana Ana River education pond and pier. Justification or Significance of Improvement : This project is consistent with the adopted 2040 Eastvale General Plan. This project will directly benefit the health and wellbeing of the residents and its visitors. Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2026
OCPW Land Use - Grand Park
95020
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target E, Goal B
Fully Funded Partially Funded x No Funding
Other Professional Serv.3Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments: 18% of the total construction cost2Based on $750k/acre ($18/sf) from JCSD park fee315% of the total construction cost45% of the total construction cost Annual O&M
192,000,000$
7,500,000$
22,500,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.1
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts2
12,000,000$
150,000,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: Area near Hellman Avenue south of Walters St.Description of Improvements:OCPW owns a floodplain area near Hellman Avenue, south of Walters Street. The city is requesting land use approval from OCPW to develop a passive park on approximately 200-acre lot. The Grand Park will exhibit Conservation Areas, Picnic Areas, Recreation Areas, and a Visitor Center.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Encompassing a variety of restored ecosystems, community spaces and recreation opportunities Eastvale Grand Park will play a role in transforming quality of life for Eastvale residents.
Project Priority
within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2027
Fire Medic Squad Replacement
95016
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
Feasibility Study x In Progress Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target A, Goal F
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:
800,000$
Annual O&M
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 800,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: N/ADescription of Improvements: Replacement funding for the City's two Fire Medic Units (Ambulances), Ford F-250 trucks with service body modifications, cabinets, etc.Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2028
Fire Truck Purchase
95015
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
Feasibility Study x In Progress Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target A, Goal F
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
2,700,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 2,700,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: N/ADescription of Improvements: Purchase of additional fire truck for the new third fire station at Scholar Way and 58th Street to provide more efficient, effective emergency services to the residents. The truck will either be a tractor-drawn or a rear-mount "Quint" style truck (rear-mount style is illustrated below). Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2029
Fire Station
95013
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.3Other Misc Expenses4Total Cost Review and Comments: 1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,639 per acre2Includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency based on the contstruction unit cost per sq ft of the City Hall (95011) 3Includes project/consulant management, plan check, and geotech4Includes FF&E and AV System Annual O&M
18,843,368$
952,624$ 752,855$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2 14,763,994$
1,352,650$ 1,021,245$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: A design build project to construct a Fire Station located in the southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The project scope includes 12,000 sqaure feet facilitiy and site improvements.Justification or Significance of Improvement : The Fire Station (to be operated by the Riverside County/CalFIRE) will provide service to the northern portion of the City of Eastvale within proximity to the Downtown Leal Project and also provide immediate response to the commercial retail/industrial/logistics corridor north of Bellegrave, along and across the I-15 Interstate corridor, as well as the residential neighborhoods and commerical retail/industrial along the Limonite cooridor from Hellman to I-15 Interstate.
Project Priority
within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2030
Smart City Masterplan
94011
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 3, Target F, Goal A and B
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
7,150,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 7,000,000$
150,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Develop a feasibility study and master plan for Smart City initiatives to support the pursuit of grant opportunities for construction outlined in the master plan. The feasibility study will define the scope of work, including areas of interest for fiber optic infrastructure, public Wi-Fi, and other related components.Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2031
Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization - Phase 2 Collectors 94007
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
x Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal D
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
2,000,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 1,500,000$
500,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Install traffic synchronization components and fiber optic line and/or wireless antenna to relay signal per the traffic signal synchronization master plan. Traffic signal synchronization of major corridors will be completed in two phases. Phase 1 includes Hamner Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Schleisman Road and Scholar Way. Phase 2 includes collectors streets including Harrision Ave, Sumner Ave, 65th St, and Citrus St.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2032
Street Maintenance: Pot Holes, Deep Patch and Crack Seal 94004
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
50,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 50,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Annual program to provide pavement preventative treatment on arterial streets by crack sealing, repairing pot holes and deep patching in difficult locations. This is an ongoing project and will be reappropriated each year as needed. The contractor will be selected by a bidding procedure as needed.Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2033
Streetlight Installation Project
93036
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
50,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 25,000$
25,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Project scope includes design and installation of new streetlights to enhance lighting and safety and retofit existing light fixture to LED. Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2034
Schleisman Road Mobility, Safety and Connectivity Project 93027
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
11,000,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Target E, Goal E
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 10,000,000$
1,000,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Project Category: Location: Schleisman Road between Hamner Avenue and Sumner Avenue Description of Improvements: Design and construction of Schleisman Road between Hamner Avenue and Sumner Avenue to include allinclusive, all ages and abilities Class I trail/pathways in existing roadway to enhance mobility, safety and connectivity.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:
2035
Hamner Avenue Beautification Project
92020
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
2,000,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 1,800,000$
200,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Location: Hamner Avenue between 65th Street and Schleisman Road Description of Improvements: Design and install landscape median along Hamner Avenue between 65th Street and Schleisman Road to close the gap of landscape median long Hamner Avenue within the City limits.The project is estimated to start after Hamner Avenue Traffic Signal is synchronized (Project #94007).Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:Project Number:
2036
Cantu Gallano Ranch Interchange Gateway Feature
92013
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
x Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target B, Goal C
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
435,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 350,000$
85,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Location: I-15/Cantu Galleano Ranch InterchangeDescription of Improvements: Design and construction of an iconic and memorable gateway feature at I-15 Cantu Galleano Ranch Interchange to brand Eastvale and welcome visitors and residents into the City. Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:Project Number:
2037
Improvement of Bike Network Connectivity
92012
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal E
Fully Funded Partially Funded x No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
29,250,000$
2,500,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 25,000,000$
1,750,000$
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:Project Number: Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Location: Scholar Way and Harrison AvenueDescription of Improvements: Design and construction of nearly 5 miles of Class I trails running along Scholar Way and Harrison Avenue, utilizing excess right-of-way rather than impacting vehicle circulation/travel lanes. The project will provide dedicated space for people to bike and walk from northern City limit to the Santa Ana River trail connecting to schools, parks, retail and neighborhoods. The project construction documents have been developed with a budget that is partially funded by ATP. Funding/grant opportunities are to be identified to fund the construction and successfully deliver the project.Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) 2038
Citywide Americans with Disabilities Act Improvement Project 91010
x Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Target D, Goal D
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
Project Title:Project Number:
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Annual program to provide improvements focusing on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility, including curb ramps, sidewalks and public facilities throughout the City as identified in the Transition Plan that was adopted in 2024. This is an ongoing project and will be reappropriated each year as needed. Justification or Significance of Improvement : Beyond legal obligations, the City is dedicated to creating a more inclusive, accessible, and equitable environment for all individuals through ADA improvement projects.Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction ContractsAnnual O&M
250,000$ 250,000$
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:This is an annual project.Funding Information:
2039
DESIRABLE PROJECTS
(appendix continues on next page)
45 APPENDIX C
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BY
PROJECT DETAILS
2040
Orchard Park to American Heroes Park Trail
92018
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
xx Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal E
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:Total Project Cost Estimates include staff time only.
Annual O&M
100,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts
100,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Location: Bellegrave Ave. from Orchard Park to American Heros Description of Improvements: Design and install trail along Bellegrave from Orchard Park to American Heros. Cost estimate is to be determined until the right-of-way acquisition process is completed and feasibility study and preliminary concepts have been determined. City will pursue grant opportunities. General fund is to be used for preliminary feasibility studies. Measure A will be used as local match to future grant(s).Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
Project Title:Project Number:
2041
Roadway Vision
92014
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
xx Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:Total Project Cost Estimates include staff time only.
Annual O&M
15,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Target E, Goal E
Funding
Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts
15,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Conceptual design of trails and/or linear parks within the existing City roadways where there are more than sufficient space to provide safe drive lanes and dedicated space for people to bike and walk. This project includes landscape architectural trail design on all major arterials and collectors. This project will recommence after City completes the design of Improvement of Trail Network Connectivity (Project #92012), Schleisman Trail (Project# 93027), Alternate Drainage Water Quality (Project #93031) and General Plan (Project #94008) to define the City's vision and goal of trails and/or linear parks.Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
Project Title:Project Number:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
2042
Traffic Signal Battery Backup Systems
92011
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Other Professional Serv.Other Misc ExpensesTotal Cost
Review and Comments:This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
25,000$
City Council Goals & Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding Information:
Target E, Goal D
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property AcquisitionConstruction Contracts 25,000$
Project Status:Special Funding Milestones/ Deadlines:Location: CitywideDescription of Improvements: Eastvale has approximately 77 traffic signals throughout the City, 56 solely maintained by the City and 21 shared by other jurisdictions. Each Battery cell cost roughly about $250, and depending on the type of the battery backup system, some intersections use 4 battiers, and some use 6 batteries. A complete new system is approximately $7,000. A backup system for signals greatly improve traffic safety during power outages. This is an ongoing project.Justification or Significance of Improvement : A backup system for signals greatly improve traffic safety during power outages.
Project Priority
within CIP Category:
Critical (Start within a year)Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years) Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
Project Title:Project Number:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031
2043
FILER
City Clerk
[email protected]
(951) 361-0900
FILING FOR
The Press-Enterprise
INTERIM AD DRAFT
This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run in The Press-Enterprise on the dates indicated below.
If changes are needed, please contact us prior to deadline at (951) 368-9229.
Notice ID: aZpjdY8FifZnhaFLj95r | Proof Updated: Jun. 03, 2026 at 11:42am PDT Notice Name: CC 062426 - FIVE YEAR CIP
This is not an invoice. Below is an estimated price, and it is subject to change. You will receive an invoice with the final price upon invoice creation by the publisher.
Columns Wide: 4
Total Column Inches: 19.06
Number of Lines: 49
Ad Class: Legals
06/14/2026: City Notices 348.81
Digital Rate 50.00
Subtotal $398.81
Tax $0.00
Processing Fee $0.00
Total $398.81
See Proof on Next Page
CC 062426 - FIVE YEAR CIP - Page 1 of 2
2044
CC 062426 - FIVE YEAR CIP - Page 2 of 2
2045
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City Council Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Agenda Item No. 12.3
June 24, 2026
PLN25-20102 – Density Bonus Agreement, Tenta/ve Tract Map 39416, and Major Development Review for Regent Land Company, LLC Residential Development
Prepared By:
Jamie K. Cerda, AICP, Principal Planner
Recommended Action(s)
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec'on 15183 based on the findings and conclusions provided in the Exemp'on Determina'on Report, a0ached hereto and the conclusion that the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 20222080090);
2. Approve the Density Bonus Agreement between Regent Land Company LLC and the City of Eastvale, authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement, and authorize the City Manager to made minor revisions to the Agreement as determined prudent with the concurrence of the City Attorney;
3. Adopt the Resolu'on approving Tenta've Tract Map No. 39416 to subdivide four (4) exis'ng residen'al lots totaling 3.57 gross acres into 35 residen'al lots, two (2) open space purposes and four (4) for street purposes, subject to condi'ons of approval, and approving the Major Development Review for the master building architecture and site planning of 35 single-family residential lots, landscaping, and parking areas, subject to conditions of approval.
Summary
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2046
The applicant, Regent Land Company is requesting approval of a density bonus agreement, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 39416 to subdivide four (4) exis'ng residen'al lots totaling 3.57 gross acres (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 144-070-016, 144-070-017, 144070-018, and 144-070-020) into 35 singlefamily residen'al lots, two (2) le0ered lots for open space purposes, and four (4) lots for street purposes, as well as the master site planning and architecture of the 35 single-family residen'al homes with two (2) as affordable to very-low income.
As proposed, the project is eligible for a density bonus and waivers of development standards pursuant to California Government Code sec'ons 65915 through 65918 (State Density Bonus Law) and Eastvale Municipal Code (EMC) Sec'on 120.05.090. Addi'onally, the proposed project is subject to the provisions of Housing Accountability Act (HAA), which provides that the receipt of a density bonus or other benefits under the State Density Bonus Law is not a valid basis to find a proposed housing development project inconsistent with applicable objective development standards.
The project is reques'ng a 22.5 percent density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law to allow up to 9.8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) where the General Plan allows for densi'es up to 8 du/ac.
The project is eligible for this density bonus because the developer has commi0ed to set aside two of the proposed units for very-low income households. The EMC provides that the City Council is the approval authority for density bonus requests, however, State Density Bonus Law does not give the City Council discre'on to deny a density bonus if the project meets all eligibility criteria for the requested density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s requests due to the project sa'sfying the intent of the Eastvale General Plan 2040’s Housing Element to promote the development of adequate housing to meet the City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs for all income segments of the popula'on, and because the project meets all applicable objec've development standards other than those waived or modified under the State Density Bonus Law.
Background
Location
The 3.57-acre project site is located on four (4) exis'ng residen'al lots comprised of Assessor Parcel Numbers: 144-070-016, 144-070-017, 144-070-018, and 144-070-020 at the northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Walters Street. The project site is bound by exis'ng residen'al to the north, Walters Street and Philis'ne Rondo Elementary School of Discovery to the south, exis'ng residen'al to the east and Hellman Avenue and the City of Chino to the west.
Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Sec'on 65589.5) applies to this project.
The HAA established the state’s overarching policy that a local government may not disapprove, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objec've local development standards except under very limited condi'ons. For projects that are consistent with applicable objec've standards in effect on the date the applica'on was "deemed complete" (the date an SB 330 preliminary applica'on was submi0ed or the date a complete project applica'on was submi0ed if there is no SB 330 preliminary applica'on), the city cannot disapprove the project or condi'on it to be developed at a lower density unless a wri0en finding is made, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to sa'sfactorily mi'gate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The HAA defines 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2047
what cons'tutes a "specific, adverse impact" very narrowly to mean "a significant, quan'fiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objec've, iden'fied wri0en public health or safety standards, policies, or condi'ons." Any nega've impacts of the project that do not meet this stringent definition are not sufficient to justify disapproving the project or lowering its density.
Furthermore, the HAA provides that the receipt of a density bonus or other benefits under the State Density Bonus Law "shall not cons'tute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision." The HAA also provides that for project sites where the general plan land use designa'on and zoning are inconsistent, a project that is consistent with the general plan land use designa'on is not required to apply for and obtain a zone change. The City can require the project to comply with objec've development standards applicable in a zone that is consistent with the general plan land use designa'on. The project site has a General Plan land use designa'on of "Chandler Policy Area" and is zoned A-2 Heavy Agriculture. City Staff has iden'fied the R-1 One-Family Dwelling zoning designa'on as the most closely consistent zone with the exis'ng General Plan land use designa'on for the purpose of establishing development standards for the project. An SB 330 preliminary applica'on was submi0ed for this project on October 9, 2025, so the City must apply the applicable standards in effect on that date to this project.
State Density Bonus Law
The California Density Bonus law allows developers who meet the requirements of the state law to seek increases in base density in exchange for providing affordable units on site. To help make construc'ng on-site affordable units feasible, the law allows developers of density bonus projects to request certain numbers of incen'ves/concessions for their project, and en'tles density bonus projects to an unlimited number of waivers or reduc'ons of development standards that would "physically preclude" the development of the project at the increased density and with the concessions/incen'ves permi0ed under the State Density Bonus Law. This project does not include any incen've/concession requests, but does include development standard waiver requests. Those waivers are discussed below in the analysis sec'on below under each of the applicable development standard subheadings, however, for reference a summary of the requested waivers is include in the following table.
Table 1: Requested Waivers
Item R-1 Standard Requested
Minimum Lot Size 7,200 square feet 2,600 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 24 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 80 feet
Front Setback 20 feet 18 feet
Side Interior Setback 5 feet 4 feet
Side Street Setback 10 feet 5 feet
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2048
Max Fence Height 6 feet
7.5' (1.5' retaining with 6' privacy
fence)
8' (2' retaining with 6' privacy
fence)
11' (5' retaining with 6' privacy
fence)
Street Width
32 feet curb to curb
50-foot right-of-way
26 feet curb to curb
36-foot right-of-way
(Modified County Standard 106,
given private streets)
RDG-7
All projects of 10 or more
residential lots should include at
least one single-story floor plan
Two-story plan types (no singlestory model)
RDG-8
Garages are encouraged to be
placed at varying distance from
the street
All garages to be plotted at 20'
from right-of-way with the
exception of two (2) plotted at
18' from right-of-way.
The first version of the Density Bonus Law was adopted in 1979 and has since been amended at various 'mes. In early 2017, the law was amended to restrict the ability of local jurisdic'ons to require studies to “jus'fy” the density bonus and requested incen'ves/concessions, and development standard waivers. The onus is on local jurisdic'ons to prove that the requested incen'ves/concessions or waivers are not jus'fied. Pursuant to California Government Code Sec'on 65915(d)(1) and 65915(e)(1), a local jurisdic'on is limited in its ability to deny requested incen'ves/concessions and waivers, and State Density Bonus Law does not provide a local jurisdiction with any discretion to deny a density bonus.
State Density Bonus Law requires the local agency to ensure that an affordable for-sale unit that qualified the project for a density bonus is ini'ally sold to an income qualified household at an affordable price, and that an equity sharing agreement is recorded to ensure that if the home is sold the agency recaptures the "ini'al subsidy" (market value minus the ini'al affordable sales price) plus a proportionate share of the appreciation.
Analysis
Tentative Tract Map No. 39416
The applicant has submi0ed an applica'on for Tenta've Tract Map (TTM 39416) to subdivide four (4) exis'ng, previously developed residen'al lots totaling 3.57 gross acres into thirty-five (35) single family residen'al lots, two (2) lots for open space purposes and four (4) lots for street purposes within the Chandler Policy Area land use designation.
Municipal Code requirements pertaining to subdivisions (Tract Maps and/or Parcel Maps) are governed by the Subdivision Map Act (State of California Government Code § 66410-66499.58), and Title 130 (Subdivision) of the Eastvale Municipal Code. Furthermore, all subdivision maps must 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2049
comply with the provisions of the City General Plan, Zoning Code, and all other ordinances, statutes and laws pertaining to the use, sale, leasing or subdivision of land.
General Plan Consistency
The subject property is classified as Chandler Policy Area in the Eastvale General Plan 2040. This classifica'on allows up to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per acre or a base density of 29 total dwelling units for the project site (8 du/ac x 3.57 ac ≈ 29 du). Pursuant to the California Density Bonus law, the density bonus is the number of units permi0ed to be built in addi'on to the “base density”, or the number of units that would be permi0ed to be built under generally applicable local requirements without a density bonus. The amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale, based upon the percentage of affordable units at each income level.
With the applicant’s u'liza'on of State Density Bonus law providing an affordable unit percentage of six percent (6%) or two (2) affordable units for the very low-income category (30-50 percent area median income) the applicant is en'tled to a density bonus of 22.5%, or an addi'onal seven (7) units above the base density of what would be permi0ed to be built under the General Plan without a density bonus (29 total du of base density X 0.06 affordability rate ≈ 1.74, which gets rounded up to 2 affordable du) . The applicant is reques'ng a total of only 35 residen'al units rather than their entitled 36 residential units (29 base density units + 7 density bonus units) as part of this project.
Table 2: Density Bonus Calculation
Affordable Unit - 6% (2 units -
Very Low Income)*
Density Bonus Calculation Units Allowed
Base Density - Single Family Low 3.57 acres x 8 du/ac 28.56 Units, rounds up to 29
22.5 Percent State Density Bonus (29 du base density x 0.225) + 6.526 units, rounds up to 7
units
Total Units
36 Units Allowed
35 Units Proposed
*Affordable unit percentage is calculated excluding units added by a density bonus.
Tentative Tract Map No. 39416 ( Attachment 1) proposes a density of 9.8 du/ac (i.e., 35 residential lots ÷ 3.57 acres = 9.8 du/ac), exceeding the permitted density for the site per the General Plan (i.e., 8 du/ac); however, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, units added by a density bonus (i.e., 7 additional units) are excluded from density calculation; therefore, the project has a proposed density of 8 du/ac (i.e., 28.56 base density units ÷ 3.57 acres = 8 du/ac); therefore consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the Chandler Policy Area.
Zoning Code Compliance
The property is zoned A-2 Heavy Agriculture. This designa'on is intended as an area for large lot single-family residential units with minimum lots sizes of 20,000 square feet.
As proposed, TTM 39416 does not conform to the development standards of the A-2 zone in that the 35 proposed residen'al parcels do not sa'sfy the minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, lot width of 100 feet, and lot depth of 150 feet. The smallest lots comprising TTM 39416 have minimums of 2,698 square feet in size, 33 feet in width, and 80.5 feet in depth.
However, under the provisions of HAA, a housing development cannot be required to rezone the 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2050
property if it is consistent with the objec've General Plan standards for the property because the A2 zoning is inconsistent with the Chandler Policy Area land use designa'on. As stated above the proposed project complies with the standards of the Chandler Policy Area General Plan land use designa'on. The proposed development also needs to comply with the objec've zoning code standards applicable to the property, but only to the extent they facilitate the development at the density allowed by the General Plan.
Since the development standards of the A-2 zone would preclude the development of the site at the density permi0ed by the General Plan, the applicant designed the community to reflect the development standards of the R-1 zone outlined in Table 3.2-2 of the Eastvale Zoning Code to the greatest extent feasible and is formally reques'ng waivers from the development standards the project cannot satisfy under the State Density Bonus Law.
While the minimum lot size, width, and depth of the proposed lots do not meet all the minimum standards outlined in Table 3.2-2 of the Eastvale Zoning Code for the R-1 zone, the R-1 zone is the only zone designated for single family detached residen'al units. The proposed development standards will be discussed in greater detail later in this report.
Access and Circulation
Access to the tract is proposed via a driveway along Walters Street (i.e., Street “A”) and a driveway along Archibald Avenue (i.e., Street “B”). The entry road off Walters Street (i.e., Street “A”) would extend into the site a distance approximately 330 feet where it intersects Street “B” providing vehicular access back out to Archibald Avenue approximately 260 feet away. The entry ways would include decora've paving treatment, and enhanced landscape nodes at either side to create an a0rac've “grand entry”. All streets within the tract are proposed to be private and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
The streets are designed with a 26-foot paved sec'on and 5- foot sidewalk on either side within a 36-foot-wide right-of-way, which does not meet minimum street standards for public streets; however, the streets are proposed to be private and are designed to meet Riverside County Modified County Standard 106 for Private Streets. The Riverside County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed street design and Fire Lane Striping Plan to ensure adequate circula'on and is suppor've of the proposed design. Lastly, the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed project access and on-site circulation and did not cite any concerns with the proposed design.
Grading and Drainage
Site eleva'on is rela'vely flat with a gently sloping terrain with surface drainage generally directed to the south. Regional water quality regula'ons require storage and treatment of stormwater onsite to the maximum extent feasible in order to reduce pollutant loads, prior to discharge downstream. Accordingly, the applicant’s Hydrology Report proposes the project will direct onsite flows towards the southeast corner of the project site via a series of gu0ers throughout the development. Surface flows in these proposed gu0ers will direct runoff towards a modular wetland system before discharging into an exis'ng storm drain system within Walters Street, which ultimately outfalls to Cucamonga Creek.
The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed grading and drainage plan for the project and has not expressed any concerns regarding the proposed design. Standard condi'ons of approval have been suggested that require final grading and drainage plans and the final Water Quality 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2051
Management Plan (WQMP) to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Traffic
The proposed project is deemed consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed 35-unit residen'al project represents an increase of only 6 units of development on the site over what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR adopted and cer'fied by the City Council on March 27, 2024. The project would not result in transporta'on impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
Noise
In general, construc'on ac'vi'es on the project site would increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity on an intermi0ent but temporary basis. Noise levels during construc'on would fluctuate depending on the construc'on phase, equipment type and dura'on of use, distance between the noise source and receptors (i.e., neighboring residences and schools in the vicinity), and the presence or absence of barriers between the noise source and receptors. Staff notes that construc'on-related noise is exempt from the City’s noise control ordinance, provided that construc'on noise occurs between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. June through September and between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. October through May. Staff has also included a condi'on of approval reitera'ng allowable construc'on hours and emphasizing the sensi'vity of this issue to surrounding neighboring residents and the Philis'ne Rondo Elementary School of Discovery. It is an'cipated that the primary source of noise impacts to the project site would be traffic noise from Archibald Avenue that is adjacent to the west side of the project site.
Public Infrastructure
Implementa'on of the proposed project will result in addi'onal demand on exis'ng public services, including demand for fire and police services. However, this increase in demand can be accommodated by exis'ng service levels, and therefore would be less than a significant impact.
Addi'onally, the increase in demand to the u'li'es, i.e., water, gas, power, and sewer, can be accommodated by exis'ng service levels as there is sufficient capacity to serve the project site under present condi'ons. Jurupa Valley Community Services District (JCSD) has provided a will-serve letter for the proposed project confirming availability of sufficient water supply to serve the project.
In addi'on, Riverside County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan for fire/emergency access and did not iden'fy any significant issues of concern that would require further submi0als to Riverside County Fire Department subsequent to any approval of the project granted by the City. Riverside County Fire Department suggest applicable standard condi'ons of approval, which staff has included in the attached conditions of approval.
Schools
The proposed project would not include significant or unplanned popula'on growth as the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The project would be required to comply with SB 50 requirements, which allow school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new projects.
According to Sec'on 65997 of the California Government Code, payment of statutory fees is the exclusive method of mi'ga'ng environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facili'es.
Thus, upon payment of required fees by the applicant consistent with exis'ng State requirements, impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, Corona-Norco Unified School District has 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2052
provided the applicant a Will-Serve le0er confirming their availability to accept student enrollment from the proposed development (Attachment 13).
Parks and Recreation
In an effort to develop and maintain a comprehensive system of parks, recrea'on and natural open space lands that meet the ac've and passive recrea'on and open space needs of all residents and visitors, the Eastvale General Plan, specifically Policy CO-2.4, requires new residen'al developments to dedicate land and/or payment of in lieu fees consistent with state law. As outlined in Sec'on 130.20.020 of the Eastvale Municipal Code, applicants are required to provide three (3) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents within the subdivision. In the case of the subject project the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 0.31 acres of land for public parks and recrea'onal purposes.
This is calculated by the number of dwelling units in the subdivision (35 residen'al units) mul'plied by the average number of persons per dwelling unit (2.98 persons per detached single family residen'al unit) mul'plied by .003 (3 acres per 1,000 residents). As the proposed project will not offer any onsite public park and recrea'onal facili'es, the applicant will be required to remit necessary in lieu fees as a condi'on of approval. In lieu fees are calculated using the fair market value of the land divided by 3.57 (project site acreage) and mul'plied by 0.31 (parks and recrea'on land dedica'on requirement). Prior to recording the Final TTM, the applicant will be required to pay the required fees ensuring Eastvale’s goal of a comprehensive system of parks, recrea'on and natural open space lands are available to all residents and visitors.
Major Development Review
In order to safeguard and enhance the appearance and quality of development in the City of Eastvale, Sec'on 120.02.010 of the Eastvale Zoning Code requires Major Development Review approval for any new single-family subdivision development. This scope of review is outlined in the aforementioned code section, and includes, but is not limited to, exterior design, materials, textures, colors, as well as ensuring the proposed structures will be property related to the site and to the surrounding site in order to prevent structures detrimental to the character of the buildings already established in the area. The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the applicable development standards and required findings for a Major Development Review as set forth in Sec'on 120.02.010 (C)(5) of the Eastvale Zoning Code. The required findings are detailed in Attachment 7 – Draft Resolution.
Architecture and Treatments
As proposed, the thirty-five (35) single-family homes are designed with quality urban design, architecture and landscaping. Based on staff’s review, the project is generally consistent with the Eastvale Design Guidelines except for the requested waivers discussed below.
The applicant is proposing three (3) different model home plans. The table below provides a summary description of the models proposed:
Table 3: Plan Summary
Plan
Square
Footages
No. of
Stories
No. of
Bedrooms
No. of
Bathrooms
Garage
Parking
Percentage
of Total
Project
Plan 1 1,905 ft2 2
3+ loft (4 bed
option)
2.5 2/421 ft2 31 %
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2053
Plan 2 2,075 ft2 2
4+ loft (5 bed
option) 2.5 2/423 ft2 37%
Plan 3 2,150 ft2 2
3+ loft + flex (5
bed option)
3 2/489 ft2 31%
In addi'on to the three (3) different plan types, the following three (3) architectural styles are also proposed as part of the master architecture:
• Cottage (31 percent of units)
• Farmhouse (34 percent of units)
• Monterey (34 percent of units)
Included in the development plans (AAachment 3) the applicant proposes a total of nine (9) different color schemes, seven (7) different trim and siding colors, and five (5) different roofing materials for the above models. Addi'onal architectural details include window shu0ers, wood siding, pronounced windowsills and ledges, and board and batten.
The variety of op'ons available to all plans will ensure that a rich diversity of colors and materials will be apparent throughout the community. The illustra've color eleva'ons contained within the project plan set provide further details regarding these proposed options.
The City of Eastvale’s Design Standards and Guidelines (RDG-7) requires all projects with ten (10) or more residen'al lots to include at least one single-story floor plan. The proposed project consists of 35 residen'al units with no single-story floor plan but rather three (3) two-story models. To achieve the necessary density of eight (8) dwelling units an acre afforded by HAA and State Density Bonus Law the individual lot sizes of the project are forced to be smaller than most R-1 zoned proper'es in that they range from 2,698 to 4,096 square feet. The applicant’s proposed two-story models range in size from 1,950 – 2,150 square feet. Given the small lot size of Tenta've Tract Map 39416 and the fact that single-story floor plans have larger footprints than two-story floor plans it would not be feasible to construct a compa'ble or desirable single-story model in the proposed tract; therefore, staff is supportive of the requested waiver.
Site Planning
Staff reviewed the site plan for each of the lots under considera'on as part of this Major Development Review. As noted above, the proposed development needs to comply with the objec've zoning code standards applicable to the property, but only to the extent they facilitate the development at the density allowed by the General Plan.
To create consistency with the surrounding single-family residen'al neighborhoods and in compliance with HAA, the applicant designed the community to the R-1 One-Family Dwelling development standards, to the greatest extent feasible. Apart from the front and side yard setback standards, requested to be waived, all residen'al units are plo0ed in compliance with the standards applicable to the R-1 One-family Dwelling zone. As such, staff is suppor've of the proposed plo\ng as it meets the intent of HAA as well as creates a compa'ble development within an exis'ng developed portion of the city.
Table: 4 Compliance with R-1 Development Standards
Compliance with R-1 One-Family Dwelling Residential Development Standards 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2054
Standard Required Proposed Meets Standard
Front Setback 20 feet 18 feet No
Rear Setback 10 feet 10 feet Yes
Side Yard Setback
(Interior)
5 feet 4 feet No
Side Yard Setback
(Street Side)
10 feet 6 feet No
Building Height 40 ft. maximum 26 feet Yes
Off-Street Parking
2 covered spaces
minimum
2 covered spaces and 2
driveway spaces
Yes
As stated previously, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(e)(1), if a city development standard would physically preclude the project from being built at the permitted density, the developer may propose to have those standards waived or reduced. The applicant is requesting a two-foot reduction in the front yard setback from twenty feet to eighteen feet on Lot 9 and Lot 10.
Staff has evaluated the request and found that the proposed front yard setback continues to meet the minimum off-street parking dimension of eighteen feet; therefore, allowing Lot 9 and Lot 10 to provide driveway spaces. Additionally, the location of these lots, located off an alley and not a main road, would not affect general circulation and for this reason staff is supportive of the requested wavier. A one-foot reduction or waiver of the interior side yard setback from five (5) feet to four (4) and a four (4) foot reduction or waiver of the street side yard setback from ten (10) feet to six (6) feet is also proposed. Staff has evaluated and determined the requests comply with California Building Code and does not pose a health and safety risk; that paired with the narrower lot width than typical R-1 zone property (33 feet versus 60 feet), staff supports the waiver request.
Parking
Each proposed dwelling unit would include two (2) garage spaces and two (2) driveway spaces, for a total of 140 spaces, with the project providing an addi'onal six (6) guest parking stalls on Street “B.” Pursuant to Sec'on 120.05.060 of the Eastvale Zoning Code, the project would exceed the City’s minimum parking requirement of 70 spaces (2 spaces per dwelling unit) by 6 parking spaces (70 driveway spaces + 6 guest parking stalls). In addi'on, the site is parked in compliance with California Government Code Sec'on 65915(p)(1)(B)(C) in that California Density Bonus Law allows
2.5 parking spaces per four or more bedrooms, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking. It should be noted, given the width of the private streets, that vehicles are prohibited from parking on the street.
The Major Development Review includes provisions requiring the following parking management prac'ces, to be incorporated into the final, recorded CC&Rs, and applicable throughout the life of the project:
Requiring onsite parking permits (such as s'ckers or hangtags) for any parking in the surface guest parking spaces;
Policies for maximum times vehicles may be parked in the surface guest spaces; Policies for towing unauthorized vehicles; vehicles parked in unauthorized loca'ons, such as fire lanes; vehicles parked in surface guest parking without a s'cker, hangtag, or other identifiers; and vehicles parked longer than any maximum guest parking timeframes allowed; Policies prohibi'ng the parking, storage, or driving of commercial vehicle, RV, boat, trailer, 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2055
ATV, golf cart, or similar vehicle on-site;
Policies requiring all garages be used for the sole purpose of housing parked vehicles (i.e., not for storage purposes); and
Policies authorizing rou'ne garage inspec'ons to ensure garages are available for vehicle parking.
Walls and Landscaping
Sec'on 120.05.030 Table 5.3-1 of the Eastvale Zoning Code establishes the height and development standards for fences, walls and screens within residen'al zoning districts. Pursuant to Table 5.3-1 fencing is limited to a maximum of six feet (6’) in height.
The proposed fencing along the project’s boundaries, including Hellman Avenue and Walters Street would consist of a six-foot (6’) tall split face block with a tan concrete masonry unit (CMU) cap, and decora've pilasters consistent with the Zoning Code. Internal to the project site, return walls and privacy walls between residen'al lots consist of a six-foot (6’) high, tan vinyl fence and vinyl gate.
The northern tract boundary or rear walls of Lots 1-5 range in height due to the proposed grade differences between the subject site and the proper'es to the north. The northern wall is a combina'on retaining/privacy screen wall with a total max height of eight (8) feet (2’ retaining + 6’ privacy/screen) as visible from the proper'es to the north. The applicant is reques'ng a waiver from the six-foot height limitation to construct the northern wall.
The eastern tract boundary or rear walls of Lots 9-21 range in height due to the proposed grade differences between the subject site and the proper'es to the east. The eastern wall is a combina'on retaining/privacy screen wall with a total max height of 7.5 feet (1.5’ retaining + 6’ privacy/screen) as visible from the proper'es to the east. The applicant is reques'ng a waiver from the six-foot heigh limita'on to construct the eastern wall. Staff has added a condi'on of approval that the applicant make a good faith effort to obtain approval of each adjacent property owner to the east in order to remove the exis'ng block wall and replace with one singular block wall. Should an exis'ng owner not wish to enter into such an agreement with the applicant and have the desire to keep their exis'ng 6’ block wall then the applicant shall construct their proposed 7.5’ wall adjacent to the exis'ng 6’ wall and incorporate a weed abatement that would prevent vegeta'on from growing between the two walls.
The western tract boundary or rear walls of Lots 22-28 range in height due to the proposed grade difference between the subject site and the property to the west (APNs: 144-070-021 and 144-070- 019). The western wall is a combina'on retaining/privacy screen wall with a total max height of eight (8) feet (2’ retaining + 6’ privacy/screen) as visible from the property to the west. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the six-foot height limitation to construct the northern wall.
Lastly, the rear walls of lots 31-35 (facing south) range in height due to the proposed grade difference between the subject site and the property to the south (APN: 144-070-019). The southern facing wall is a combina'on retaining/privacy screen wall with a total max height of eleven (11) feet (5’ retaining + 6’ privacy/screen) as visible from the property to the south. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the six-foot height limitation to construct this wall.
As stated before, if a city development standard would physically prevent the project from being built at the permi0ed density, the developer may propose to have those standards waived or reduced according to Government Code Sec'on 65915(e)(1). In the case of the applicant’s Wall and 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2056
Fence Plan, staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the waivers are necessary to develop the site to the density permi0ed by right under the General Plan and HAA. The exis'ng site topography with developed single family residen'al property to the north, south and east, is necessary to retain and stabilize the site via retaining walls as well as provide future residents the expected level of privacy (i.e., 6’ screen wall).
The applicant’s Preliminary Landscape Plans (AAachment 4) offer enhanced landscaped frontages (i.e., Hellman Avenue and Walters Street) and entrances into the future residen'al community (i.e., Street “A” and Street “B”), crea'ng a sense of arrival. The frontages will be planted with Coastal Live Oak and Silk Oak trees, shrubs consis'ng of Fortnight Lily, Spanish Lavender, Li0le John, Sweet Bay, Compact Texas Ranger, and many others. Addi'onally, where visible, tract perimeter walls will be condi'oned to be clad in Ivy to so_en the appearance of the block walls and provide addi'onal greening to the community. Finally, per the City of Eastvale’s Residen'al Design Standards and Guidelines, each lot is required to plant a minimum of one (1) yard tree. To meet the Residen'al Design Standard the applicant proposes the following trees for both accent and screening purposes:
Bisbane Box, and Fern Pine trees.
Overall, staff believes that the proposed landscape and wall plans are sa'sfactory. They are generally consistent with other approved tract wall/landscape plans and will ensure aesthe'c treatment of the tracts common areas and other perimeter (publicly visible) por'ons of the tract, and will support a high-quality community design, similar to other developments areas throughout the city. A final landscape plan will be reviewed during the building permit process to ensure that the details of the proposed landscape plan comply with the City landscape regulations.
Density Bonus Agreement
The Density Bonus Agreement for the project is provided as Attachment 6. The Agreement identifies the affordable units, and their household income limits, and other per'nent language such as the term of the agreement. The following summaries the salient sections within the Agreement.
Of the total units in the development, two (2) units are proposed to be affordable to very-low income households (earning 30-50 percent of the area median income, which is currently set at $110,000 adjusted for a four-person household size, or a household income less than $55,950), as published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The applicant proposes both of the affordable units to be Plan 1 which consists of a 1,905 square foot, three-bedroom, two and a half bath, two story unit with a two (2) car garage. The proposed units will be distributed within the 35-unit community and are required to be comparable to the marketrate units in their appearance, materials, and exterior and interior finishes, appliances, and fixtures.
Other terms and conditions of the Density Bonus Agreement include:
Homebuyers will be required to execute a Resale Restric'on Agreement in which each restricted unit must be occupied as the homebuyer’s principal residence.
Affordable units cannot be concentrated in one loca'on within the project site but instead dispersed throughout the project.
The City has the right to inspect the affordable units and documents.
Public Hearing Notification and Comment
The project requires a minimum 10-day public hearing no'fica'on period for property owners and 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2057
commercial tenants within a 600-foot radius of the project site. The public hearing no'ce was published in the Press Enterprise newspaper on June 14, 2026, for the Planning Commission mee'ng on June 24, 2026, and mailing no'ces were mailed on June 11, 2026. The No'ce of Public Hearing and a map showing the proper'es that received no'fica'on are included as AAachment 10 and AAachment 11. As of this wri'ng, staff has received two le0ers of concern from residents on this project. Copies of these letters can be found in Attachment 14.
Environmental
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sec'on 15183, because implementa'on of the proposed project would not result in impacts that are peculiar to the project site and the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR, no addi'onal environmental review beyond a Sec'on 15183 Exemp'on Report is required for the proposed project. A Sec'on 15183 Exemp'on Report was prepared for the project and has been included as Attachment 5 of this report.
Strategic Plan Action - Priority Level: N/A | Target #: B | Goal #: E Diversify the housing stock with more options.
Fiscal Impact
Processing the proposed applica'ons will have li0le to no fiscal impact on the City as the project is funded by the applicant.
Prior City Council/Commission Action
On May 20, 2026, the Planning Commission took public testimony of the requested items and by a 4- 0 vote, recommended the Eastvale City Council deny the proposed residen'al development based on perceived health and safety concerns, par'cularly related to inadequate infrastructure and the project’s proximity to Philis'ne Rondo School of Discovery. Planning Commissioners emphasized the need for further analysis of poten'al impacts, including traffic circula'on, pedestrian safety, and school-related conflicts, and requested staff and the City A0orney to evaluate whether these issues could cons'tute significant adverse impacts warran'ng denial. While recognizing legal constraints under State housing laws, the Commission concluded that, absent clear resolu'on or feasible mitigation of these concerns, the project should not be approved.
Following the May 20, 2026, Planning Commission mee'ng, staff analyzed the above noted concerns raised by the Planning Commission. With the proposed project, both Walters Street and Hellman Avenue would be widened to their ul'mate street right-of-way per the General Plan along their project frontages. While widening would not create greater roadway capacity it would create addi'onal street improvements (i.e. curb/gu0er and sidewalks) and be consistent with the already developed portions of both Walters Street and Hellman Avenue.
The lack of sidewalks across from Philis'ne Rondo School of Discovery was another issue raised.
With the proposed project, sidewalks would be installed along the project frontages of Walters Street and Hellman Avenue, as well as within the project itself. While specific concerns were raised about the lack of sidewalks at the corner of Walters and Hellman, the parcel located at the northeast corner of Walters Street and Hellman Avenue is not within the project boundary or owned by the applicant; thus, sidewalks are not proposed to be installed along the corner, nor can the City 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2058
require the offsite improvements. However, the sidewalks proposed on both sides of the streets within the project site would provide students a safer means of walking north to Hellman Avenue rather than along the remaining unimproved por'ons of Hellman Avenue. As addi'onal sidewalks are to be installed and street improvements are to be made per the General Plan, staff believes the applicant has designed their project to meet City standards and ensure public safety to the greatest extent feasible while being inopportunely located across from Philis'ne Rondo School of Discovery where existing traffic circulation issues have been known to be challenging for existing residents.
Attachment(s)
Attachment 1 - Tentative Tract Map 39416
Attachment 2 - Plot Plan
Attachment 3 - Architectural Development Plans
Attachment 4 - Landscape Plans
Attachment 5 - Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Report
Attachment 6 - Draft Affordable Housing Agreement
Attachment 7 - Resolution Approving Project
Attachment 8 - Exhibit A to Resolution - Conditions of Approval (TTM) Attachment 9 - Exhibit B to Resolution - Conditions of Approval (MDR) Attachment 10 - Public Hearing Notice
Attachment 11 - Radius Map
Attachment 12 - Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2026 with Public Comments Attachment 13 - CNUSD Will Serve Letter
Attachment 14 - Public Comment Letters
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
2059
EX. SD
2060
2061
No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 HELLMAN AVENUE EASTVALE, CALIFORNIA DEVELOPER INFORMATION 3090 PULLMAN STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 CONTACT: BRET ILICH PHONE: (909) 489-2113 EMAIL: [email protected] CONSULTANT INFORMATION KTGY ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 17911 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA 92614 CONTACT: ALAN SCALES PHONE: (949) 221-6256 EMAIL: [email protected] ARCHITECTURE: ADKIN ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DR. RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 CONTACT: BRYAN INGERSOLL PHONE: (951) 688-0241 EMAIL: [email protected] CIVIL: SHEET INDEX - ARCHITECTURE A0.00 COVER A2.10 PLAN 1 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS A2.20 PLAN 1 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS A2.30 PLAN 1 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS A2.40 PLAN 1 - UNIT PLAN A2.50 PLAN 1 - ROOF PLANS A3.10 PLAN 2 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS A3.20 PLAN 2 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS A3.30 PLAN 2 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS A3.40 PLAN 2 - UNIT PLAN A3.50 PLAN 2 - ROOF PLANS A4.10 PLAN 3 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS A4.20 PLAN 3 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS A4.30 PLAN 3 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS A4.40 PLAN 3 - UNIT PLAN A4.50 PLAN 3 - ROOF PLANS C.10 COLOR BOARD - COTTAGE C.20 COLOR BOARD - FARMHOUSE C.30 COLOR BOARD - MONTEREY WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL | SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION COVER A0.00 NTS 2062
T.O. PLATE FFFF 9'-1" 9'-1"
±25'-0" FINISH GRADE 'A' LEGEND (COTTAGE) Stucco, 16/20 Flat Concrete Tile Roof Not Used Vinyl Windows Fiberglass Entry Doors Decorative Shutters (Stucco o/ Foam) Decorative Exterior Light & Address Metal Sectional Garage Door Stucco o/ Foam Trim Decorative Stucco Vent Stucco Arched Soffit Stucco Head and Sill Trim Wood Barge Board Wood Eave Board Decorative Muntins Downspouts 12346789101112513141516 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR 8 7 5 6 15 1 2 4 11 10 13 14 12 PLAN 1 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS A2.10 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2063
T.O. PLATE FFFF 9'-1" 9'-1"
±26'-0" FINISH GRADE 'B' LEGEND (FARMHOUSE) Stucco, 16/20 Flat Concrete Tile Roof Fiber Cement Siding Vinyl Windows Fiberglass Entry Doors Decorative Shutters (Stucco o/ Foam) Decorative Exterior Light & Address Metal Sectional Garage Door Cement Board Trim Board and Batten Siding Wood Post and Beam Stucco Head and Sill Trim Wood Barge Board Wood Eave Board Not Used Decorative Shelf Decorative Muntins Downspout 123467891011121351415161718 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR 8 7 5 6 17 4 16 1 2 12 9 3 11 9 10 13 14 9 PLAN 1 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS A2.20 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2064
T.O. PLATE FFFF 9'-1" 9'-1"
±25'-0" FINISH GRADE 'C' LEGEND (MONTEREY) Stucco, 16/20 Flat Concrete Tile Roof Not Used Vinyl Windows Fiberglass Entry Doors Decorative Shutters (Stucco o/ Foam) Decorative Exterior Light and Address Metal Sectional Garage Door Stucco o/ Foam Trim Decorative Stucco Vents Stucco Column Stucco Head and Sill Trim Wood Barge Board Wood Eave Board Decorative Muntins Downspout 12346789101112135141516 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR 8 7 5 6 4 16 10 1 2 9 1112 14 13 14 PLAN 1 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS A2.30 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2065
52'-3" 25'-0" 14'-6 1/2" 10'-5 1/2" PRIMARY SUITE 14'-0" x 14'-6" SUITE BATH W.I.C. BATH 2 BED 2 11'-8" x 13'-5" BED 3 10'-2" x 11'-10" LOFT/ OPT. BED 4 10'-2" x 12'-4" LAUNDRY 8'-0" x 5'-8" LIN. 45'-2 1/2" 7'-0 1/2" 17R DN
52'-3" 25'-0"
17'-0" 20'-7" 4'-5"
43'-2 1/2" 9'-0 1/2" A/C ENTRY DINING 12'-7" x 10'-10" PDR.
DW
STOVE REF KITCHEN 9'-0" x 14'-6"
SINK PORCH
COAT RTO PANTRY 17RUP W.H. LIVING 11'-10" x 20'-8" GARAGE 20'-0" x 19'-11" GROSS SF 1ST FLOOR 770 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR 1135 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1905 SQ. FT. GARAGE 421 SQ. FT. PORCH/PATIO 55 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR 3 BEDS + LOFT/ 2.5 BATH 4 BEDS / 2.5 BATH SECOND FLOOR No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 PLAN 1 A2.40 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2066
COTTAGE 'A' PITCH: 4:12 UNO EAVE: 12" UNO RAKE: 6" UNO NO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT EXCEPT SOLAR PANELS FARMHOUSE 'B' PITCH:5:12 UNO EAVE:12" UNO RAKE:6" UNO NO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT EXCEPT SOLAR PANELS MONTEREY 'C' PITCH:4:12 UNO EAVE:12" UNO RAKE:3" UNO NO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT EXCEPT SOLAR PANELS 6:12 6:12 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 PLAN 1 ROOF PLANS A2.50 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2067
T.O. PLATE FFFF 9'-1" 9'-1"
±25'-0" FINISH GRADE 'A' LEGEND (COTTAGE) Stucco, 16/20 Flat Concrete Tile Roof Not Used Vinyl Windows Fiberglass Entry Doors Decorative Shutters (Stucco o/ Foam) Decorative Exterior Light & Address Metal Sectional Garage Door Stucco o/ Foam Trim Decorative Stucco Vent Stucco Arched Soffit Stucco Head and Sill Trim Wood Barge Board Wood Eave Board Decorative Muntins Downspouts 12346789101112513141516 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR 8 7 5 6 15 4 1 10 9 11 12 14 14 2 13 PLAN 2 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS A3.10 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2068
T.O. PLATE FFFF 9'-1" 9'-1"
±25'-6" FINISH GRADE 'B' LEGEND (FARMHOUSE) Stucco, 16/20 Flat Concrete Tile Roof Fiber Cement Siding Vinyl Windows Fiberglass Entry Doors Decorative Shutters (Stucco o/ Foam) Decorative Exterior Light & Address Metal Sectional Garage Door Cement Board Trim Board and Batten Siding Wood Post and Beam Stucco Head and Sill Trim Wood Barge Board Wood Eave Board Not Used Decorative Shelf Decorative Muntins Downspout 123467891011121351415161718 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR 8 7 5 1 6 2 9 16 4 11 12 14 12 17 3 11 13 9 10 14 PLAN 2 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS A3.20 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2069
T.O. PLATE FFFF 9'-1" 9'-1"
±27'-0" FINISH GRADE 'C' LEGEND (MONTEREY) Stucco, 16/20 Flat Concrete Tile Roof Not Used Vinyl Windows Fiberglass Entry Doors Decorative Shutters (Stucco o/ Foam) Decorative Exterior Light and Address Metal Sectional Garage Door Stucco o/ Foam Trim Decorative Stucco Vents Stucco Column Stucco Head and Sill Trim Wood Barge Board Wood Eave Board Decorative Muntins Downspout 12346789101112135141516 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR 8 7 5 6 15 1 4 10 2 9 11 14 13 12 PLAN 2 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS A3.30 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2070
ENTRY GARAGE 20'-6" x 19'-11" LIVING 13'-2" x 15'-1" DINING 11'-10" x 15'-1" PDR. DW STOVE REF KITCHEN 16'-7" x 8'-10" SINK 4'-0" 25'-6" 4'-0" 18'-0" 21'-4 1/2" 4'-1 1/2"
34'-6 1/2" 8'-10" PORCH A/C PANTRY
7'-5" 2'-0" RTO COAT W.H. 17RUP
52'-9 1/2" PRIMARY SUITE 14'-6" x 14'-0" SUITE BATHW.I.C. BATH 2 BED 4 10'-6" x 10'-7" 25'-6" 10'-3 1/2" 1'-0" 15'-2 1/2" BED 3 10'-2" x 11'-11" BED 2 10'-6" x 10'-9" LAUNDRY 6'-6" x 7'-4" LINEN LOFT 10'-9" x 13'-6" 17RDN 52'-9 1/2" GROSS SF 1ST FLOOR 789 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR 1286 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 2075 SQ. FT. GARAGE 423 SQ. FT. PORCH/PATIO 31 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 4 BEDS + LOFT/ 2.5 BATH No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 PLAN 2 A3.40 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2071
COTTAGE 'A' PITCH: 4:12 UNO EAVE: 12" UNO RAKE: 6" UNO NO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT EXCEPT SOLAR PANELS FARMHOUSE 'B' PITCH:5:12 UNO EAVE:12" UNO RAKE:6" UNO NO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT EXCEPT SOLAR PANELS MONTEREY 'C' PITCH:4:12 UNO EAVE:12" UNO RAKE:3" UNO NO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT EXCEPT SOLAR PANELS 3:12 3:12 6:12 6:12 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 PLAN 2 ROOF PLANS A3.50 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2072
T.O. PLATE FFFF 9'-1" 9'-1"
±25'-0" FINISH GRADE 'A' LEGEND (COTTAGE) Stucco, 16/20 Flat Concrete Tile Roof Not Used Vinyl Windows Fiberglass Entry Doors Decorative Shutters (Stucco o/ Foam) Decorative Exterior Light & Address Metal Sectional Garage Door Stucco o/ Foam Trim Decorative Stucco Vent Stucco Arched Soffit Stucco Head and Sill Trim Wood Barge Board Wood Eave Board Decorative Muntins Downspouts 12346789101112513141516 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR 8 7 6 15 2 1 4 12 5 7 10 13 14 9 9 PLAN 3 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS A4.10 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2073
T.O. PLATE FFFF 9'-1" 9'-1"
±26'-0" FINISH GRADE 'B' LEGEND (FARMHOUSE) Stucco, 16/20 Flat Concrete Tile Roof Fiber Cement Siding Vinyl Windows Fiberglass Entry Doors Decorative Shutters (Stucco o/ Foam) Decorative Exterior Light & Address Metal Sectional Garage Door Cement Board Trim Board and Batten Siding Wood Post and Beam Stucco Head and Sill Trim Wood Barge Board Wood Eave Board Not Used Decorative Shelf Decorative Muntins Downspout 123467891011121351415161718 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR 8 7 9 17 6 10 12 4 3 1 2 11 5 7 16 9 10 13 14 PLAN 3 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS A4.20 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2074
T.O. PLATE FFFF 9'-1" 9'-1"
±25'-0" FINISH GRADE 'C' LEGEND (MONTEREY) Stucco, 16/20 Flat Concrete Tile Roof Not Used Vinyl Windows Fiberglass Entry Doors Decorative Shutters (Stucco o/ Foam) Decorative Exterior Light and Address Metal Sectional Garage Door Stucco o/ Foam Trim Decorative Stucco Vents Stucco Column Stucco Head and Sill Trim Wood Barge Board Wood Eave Board Decorative Muntins Downspout 12346789101112135141516 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR 8 7 1 9 15 6 10 4 12 11 5 7 14 13 PLAN 3 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS A4.30 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2075
GROSS SF 1ST FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR 1311 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 2150 SQ. FT. GARAGE 489 SQ. FT. ENTRY GARAGE 21'-0" x 20'-2" LIVING 16'-3" x 10'-9" DINING 16'-6" x 7'-0" PDR. / OPT BATH 3 DW STOVE REF KITCHEN 9'-5" x 17'-9" SINK A/C
18'-0" 26'-6"
6'-4" 21'-6" 5'-0"
PANTRY FLEX/ OFFICE OPT. BED 5 10'-0" x 10'-7" COAT RTO 17RUP W.H.
2'-0" 43'-8" 1'-4"
53'-4" PRIMARY SUITE 14'-1" x 16'-1" SUITE BATH W.I.C. BATH 2 BED 2 11'-7" x 11'-11" 26'-6" 45'-0" 8'-4" 21'-6" 5'-0" BED 3 11'-7" x 11'-10" LOFT/ OPT. BED 4 10'-1" x 13'-7" W.I.C. LAUNDRY 8'-11" x 7'-10" LINEN 17R DN
53'-4" 3 BEDS + LOFT+FLEX / 3 BATHS 4 BEDS + FLEX/ 3 BATHS SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 PLAN 3 A4.40 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2076
COTTAGE 'A' PITCH: 4:12 UNO EAVE: 12" UNO RAKE: 6" UNO NO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT EXCEPT SOLAR PANELS FARMHOUSE 'B' PITCH:5:12 UNO EAVE:12" UNO RAKE:6" UNO NO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT EXCEPT SOLAR PANELS MONTEREY 'C' PITCH:4:12 UNO EAVE:12" UNO RAKE:3" UNO NO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT EXCEPT SOLAR PANELS 6:12 6:12 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN 20250163 SCHEMATIC DESIGN EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025 PLAN 3 ROOF PLANS A4.50 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' 2077
No.
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN
20250163
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025
DEVELOPER INFORMATION
3090 PULLMAN STREET
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
CONTACT: BRET ILICH
PHONE: (909) 489-2113
EMAIL: [email protected]
CONSULTANT INFORMATION
KTGY ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
17911 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CA 92614
CONTACT: ALAN SCALES
PHONE: (949) 221-6256
EMAIL: [email protected]
ARCHITECTURE:
ADKIN ENGINEERS
6879 AIRPORT DR.
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
CONTACT: BRYAN INGERSOLL
PHONE: (951) 688-0241
EMAIL: [email protected]
CIVIL:
SHEET INDEX - ARCHITECTURE
A0.00 COVER
A2.10 PLAN 1 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS
A2.20 PLAN 1 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A2.30 PLAN 1 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS
A2.40 PLAN 1 - UNIT PLAN
A2.50 PLAN 1 - ROOF PLANS
A3.10 PLAN 2 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS
A3.20 PLAN 2 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A3.30 PLAN 2 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS
A3.40 PLAN 2 - UNIT PLAN
A3.50 PLAN 2 - ROOF PLANS
A4.10 PLAN 3 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS
A4.20 PLAN 3 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A4.30 PLAN 3 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS
A4.40 PLAN 3 - UNIT PLAN
A4.50 PLAN 3 - ROOF PLANS
C.10 COLOR BOARD - COTTAGE
C.20 COLOR BOARD - FARMHOUSE
C.30 COLOR BOARD - MONTEREY
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL | SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION
COVER A0.00
NTS
COLOR BOARD
COLOR SCHEMES INDICATE TYPICAL COLOR AND MATERIAL APPLICATION
ALL PAINT TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL
ALL ROOFING TO BE WESTLAKE ROOFING OR EQUAL
(DUE TO VARIATIONS IN COLOR PRINTERS, SEE PAINT CHIPS FOR ACTUAL COLORS) C.10
COTTAGE
SW 6988 BOHEMIAN BLACK SW 6988 BOHEMIAN BLACK SW 6988 BOHEMIAN BLACK
ALL METALS ALL METALS ALL METALS
COLOR SCHEME 1
COTTAGE
SW7072 ONLINE
SW6103 TEA CHEST
SW6103 TEA CHEST
THERMA-TRU SMOOTH STAR S205
SW7009 PEARLY WHITE
WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING SOLUTIONS
SAXONY® 900 SHAKE – CHARCOAL BLEND
STUCCO BODY | FOAM TRIM
SHUTTERS
ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR
CONCRETE FLAT TILE ROOF
COLOR SCHEME 2
COTTAGE
SW7067 CITYSCAPE
SW7069 IRON ORE
SERVICE PARTNERS - HARVEST BROWN SERVICE PARTNERS - HARVEST BROWN SERVICE PARTNERS - HARVEST BROWN SW7069 IRON ORE
THERMA-TRU SMOOTH STAR S205
SW7069 IRON ORE
WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING SOLUTIONS
SAXONY® 900 SHAKE – OCEANA BLEND
STUCCO BODY | FOAM TRIM
SHUTTERS
GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER
ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR
CONCRETE FLAT TILE ROOF
SW7009 PEARLY WHITE
FASCIA
SW7008 ALABASTER
SW7048 URBANE BRONZE
SW2817 ROOKWOOD AMBER
THERMA-TRU SMOOTH STAR S205
SW7048 URBANE BRONZE
WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING SOLUTIONS
SAXONY® 900 SHAKE – OCEANA BLEND
STUCCO BODY | FOAM TRIM
SHUTTERS
ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR
CONCRETE FLAT TILE ROOF
SW7008 ALABASTER
TRIMS|FASCIA
COLOR SCHEME 3
COTTAGE
SW7009 PEARLY WHITE
FASCIA
2078
No.
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN
20250163
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025
DEVELOPER INFORMATION
3090 PULLMAN STREET
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
CONTACT: BRET ILICH
PHONE: (909) 489-2113
EMAIL: [email protected]
CONSULTANT INFORMATION
KTGY ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
17911 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CA 92614
CONTACT: ALAN SCALES
PHONE: (949) 221-6256
EMAIL: [email protected]
ARCHITECTURE:
ADKIN ENGINEERS
6879 AIRPORT DR.
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
CONTACT: BRYAN INGERSOLL
PHONE: (951) 688-0241
EMAIL: [email protected]
CIVIL:
SHEET INDEX - ARCHITECTURE
A0.00 COVER
A2.10 PLAN 1 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS
A2.20 PLAN 1 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A2.30 PLAN 1 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS
A2.40 PLAN 1 - UNIT PLAN
A2.50 PLAN 1 - ROOF PLANS
A3.10 PLAN 2 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS
A3.20 PLAN 2 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A3.30 PLAN 2 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS
A3.40 PLAN 2 - UNIT PLAN
A3.50 PLAN 2 - ROOF PLANS
A4.10 PLAN 3 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS
A4.20 PLAN 3 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A4.30 PLAN 3 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS
A4.40 PLAN 3 - UNIT PLAN
A4.50 PLAN 3 - ROOF PLANS
C.10 COLOR BOARD - COTTAGE
C.20 COLOR BOARD - FARMHOUSE
C.30 COLOR BOARD - MONTEREY
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL | SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION
COVER A0.00
NTS
COLOR BOARD
COLOR SCHEMES INDICATE TYPICAL COLOR AND MATERIAL APPLICATION
ALL PAINT TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL
ALL ROOFING TO BE WESTLAKE ROOFING OR EQUAL
(DUE TO VARIATIONS IN COLOR PRINTERS, SEE PAINT CHIPS FOR ACTUAL COLORS) C.20
FARMHOUSE
COLOR SCHEME 4
FARMHOUSE
SW6255 MORNING FOG
SW7674 PEPPERCORN
SW7625 MOUNT ETNA
THERMA-TRU SMOOTH STAR S600
SW7068 GRIZZLE GRAY
STUCCO BODY | GABLE END
FASCIA | SHUTTERS
ENTRY DOOR | SHUTTERS GARAGE DOOR
CONCRETE FLAT TILE ROOF
SW6249 STORM CLOUD
SIDING
COLOR SCHEME 5
FARMHOUSE
SW6254 LAZY GRAY
SW7674 PEPPERCORN
SW6382 CEREMONIAL GOLD
THERMA-TRU SMOOTH STAR S600
SW7068 GRIZZLE GRAY
WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING SOLUTIONS
DURALITE 600 SLATE - CHARCOAL BLEND
STUCCO BODY | GABLE END
FASCIA | SHUTTERS
ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR
CONCRETE FLAT TILE ROOF
SW7067 CITYSCAPE
SIDING
SW7008 ALABASTER
SW2849 WESTCHESTER GRAY
THERMA-TRU SMOOTH STAR S600
SW7068 GRIZZLE GRAY
STUCCO BODY | GABLE END
ENTRY DOOR | SHUTTERS GARAGE DOOR
CONCRETE FLAT TILE ROOF
SW7008 ALABASTER
SIDING
COLOR SCHEME 6
FARMHOUSE
SW7649 SILVERPLATE SW7008 ALABASTER SW6254 LAZY GRAY
TRIM TRIM TRIM
SERVICE PARTNERS - HARVEST BROWN SERVICE PARTNERS - HARVEST BROWN SERVICE PARTNERS - HARVEST BROWN
GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER
WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING SOLUTIONS
DURALITE 600 SLATE - COBBLESTONE
WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING SOLUTIONS
DURALITE 600 SLATE - CHARCOAL BLEND
SW7674 PEPPERCORN
FASCIA
2079
No.
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EASTVALE - HELLMAN
20250163
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
EASTVALE, CA Plot Date: 10/29/2025
DEVELOPER INFORMATION
3090 PULLMAN STREET
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
CONTACT: BRET ILICH
PHONE: (909) 489-2113
EMAIL: [email protected]
CONSULTANT INFORMATION
KTGY ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
17911 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CA 92614
CONTACT: ALAN SCALES
PHONE: (949) 221-6256
EMAIL: [email protected]
ARCHITECTURE:
ADKIN ENGINEERS
6879 AIRPORT DR.
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
CONTACT: BRYAN INGERSOLL
PHONE: (951) 688-0241
EMAIL: [email protected]
CIVIL:
SHEET INDEX - ARCHITECTURE
A0.00 COVER
A2.10 PLAN 1 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS
A2.20 PLAN 1 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A2.30 PLAN 1 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS
A2.40 PLAN 1 - UNIT PLAN
A2.50 PLAN 1 - ROOF PLANS
A3.10 PLAN 2 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS
A3.20 PLAN 2 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A3.30 PLAN 2 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS
A3.40 PLAN 2 - UNIT PLAN
A3.50 PLAN 2 - ROOF PLANS
A4.10 PLAN 3 - 'A' COTTAGE ELEVATIONS
A4.20 PLAN 3 - 'B' FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A4.30 PLAN 3 - 'C' MONTEREY ELEVATIONS
A4.40 PLAN 3 - UNIT PLAN
A4.50 PLAN 3 - ROOF PLANS
C.10 COLOR BOARD - COTTAGE
C.20 COLOR BOARD - FARMHOUSE
C.30 COLOR BOARD - MONTEREY
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL | SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION
COVER A0.00
NTS
COLOR BOARD
COLOR SCHEMES INDICATE TYPICAL COLOR AND MATERIAL APPLICATION
ALL PAINT TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL
ALL ROOFING TO BE WESTLAKE ROOFING OR EQUAL
(DUE TO VARIATIONS IN COLOR PRINTERS, SEE PAINT CHIPS FOR ACTUAL COLORS) C.30
MONTEREY
COLOR SCHEME 7
MONTEREY
SW7011 NATURAL CHOICE
SW7675 SEALSKIN
SW7675 SEALSKIN
THERMA-TRU SMOOTH STAR S93
SW9172 STUDIO CLAY
STUCCO BODY
SHUTTERS
ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR
CONCRETE FLAT TILE ROOF
SW9172 STUDIO CLAY
TRIMS|FASCIA
COLOR SCHEME 8
MONTEREY
SW7548 PORTICO
SW7749 LAUREL WOODS
SW7749 LAUREL WOODS
THERMA-TRU SMOOTH STAR S93
SW9183 DARK CLOVE
STUCCO BODY
SHUTTERS
ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR
CONCRETE FLAT TILE ROOF
SW9183 DARK CLOVE
TRIMS|FASCIA
SW9173 SHIITAKE
SW7674 PEPPERCORN
SW7674 PEPPERCORN
THERMA-TRU SMOOTH STAR S93
SW7039 VIRTUAL TAUPE
STUCCO BODY
SHUTTERS
ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR
CONCRETE FLAT TILE ROOF
SW7039 VIRTUAL TAUPE
TRIMS|FASCIA
COLOR SCHEME 9
MONTEREY
SW 6988 BOHEMIAN BLACK SW 6988 BOHEMIAN BLACK SW 6988 BOHEMIAN BLACK
ALL METALS ALL METALS ALL METALS
SERVICE PARTNERS - HARVEST BROWN SERVICE PARTNERS - HARVEST BROWN SERVICE PARTNERS - HARVEST BROWN
GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER
WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING SOLUTIONS
DURALITE 600 SLATE - BUCKSKIN
WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING SOLUTIONS
DURALITE 600 SLATE - TAHOE BLEND
WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING SOLUTIONS
DURALITE 600 SLATE - BUCKSKIN
2080
RW3 RW3 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1
PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1
PW1 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3
PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3
RW3
RW3 RW3
RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3
RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3
RW2
RW2 RW2
RW2
PW3 PW3 RW2 RW3 RW3 SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY REMARKS TREES GREVILLEA ROBUSTA SILK OAK 36" BOX L
4 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX 24" BOX
M 20 PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINE 24" BOXM 12 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 36" BOXL 6 TREE SCHEDULE SPREADING GROUNDCOVERS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS SPACING Baccharis pilularis `Pigeon Point` Dwarf Coyote Brush 1 Gal L 48" oc Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' Halls Japanese Honeysuckle 1 GalL 48" oc Myoporum parvifolium Creeping Myoporum 1 Gal
L 48" oc Senecio mandraliscae Blue Chalksticks 1 GalL 48" oc Carex divulsa Berkeley Sedge 1 GalL 24" oc Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' Green Carpet Natal Plum 1 GalL 48" oc ACCENT SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS SPACING Anigozanthos x Big Red Big Red Kangaroo Paw 5 Gal
L 48" oc Westringia fruticosa 'Mundi' Mundi Coast Rosemary 5 Gal
L 36" oc Westringia fruticosa Coast Rosemary 5 GalL 36" oc Muhlenbergia dubia Pine Muhly 5 GalL 24" oc Cistus salviifolious Rockrose 5 Gal
L 36" oc Leonitis leonurus Lion's Ear
5 Gal
L 36" oc Dietes bicolor Fortnight Lily 5 Gal
M 36" oc Lavandula stoechas Spanish Lavander 5 Gal
L 36 " oc Rhaphiolepis indica 'clara' Indian Hawthorn 5 Gal M 24" oc Callistemon 'Little John' Little John 5 Gal
L 36" oc Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo 5 Gal
M 36" oc Convolvulus cneorum Bush Morning Glory 5 Gal
L 24" oc Juncus patens California Gray Rush 5 GalL 24" oc Olea europaea 'Little Ollie' Little Ollie 5 GalL 48" oc Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca 5 GalL 36" oc BACKGROUND/ SCREENING SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS Leucophyllum frutescens `Compacta`
Compact
Texas
Ranger 5 Gal
L 48" oc Laurus nobilis Sweet Bay 5 GalL 48" oc Rhamnus califonica Coffeeberry 5 GalL 60" oc Ligustrum japonicum Japanese Privet 5 Gal M 60" oc Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma 5 GalM 60" oc Prunus caoroliniana 'Bright 'N Tight' Bright 'N Tight Laurel 5 GalM 60" oc PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SQUARE FEET 3,030 0' 310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 NORTH 0' 30' 60' 90' AL-4 SHEET INDEX SHEET L-1 : OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET L-2 : TYPICAL FRONT YARD PLAN SHEET L-3 : WALL AND FENCE PLAN SHEET L-4: SECTION A SHEET L-5: SECTION B SHEET L-6: SECTION C SHEET L-7: SECTION D SHEET L-8: SECTION E SHEET L-9: SECTION F SHEET L-10: SECTION G SHEET L-11: PLANT IMAGERY SHEET L-12: PLANT IMAGERY L-1 OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN WALTERS STREET HELLMAN AVENUE STREET "B"
ALLEY "C"
STREET "A" VICINITY MAP NTS NORTH SITE WALTERS ST
HELLMAN AVE
PINE AVE
SCHEISMAN RD MARKET ST ALDERGATE RD LEGACY
DISCOVERY
PARK AVE PARK ST NOT A PART
BL-5
CL-6
DL-7
EL-8
FL-9
GL-10 4/7/2026 IRRIGATION CONCEPT NOTE: THE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL INCORPORATE THE LATEST IN SMART IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES. ALL NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS WILL INCLUDE HIGH EFFICIENCY, LOW WATER USE IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT AND METHODS. A SMART IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WITH A RAIN SHUT OFF DEVICE WILL ALSO BE INCORPORATED. BARK MULCH WILL BE USED TO RETAIN MOISTURE AND REDUCE EVAPORATION AND AN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE WILL BE PROVIDED TO PROGRAM THE CONTROLLER. TWO IRRIGATION SCHEDULES SHALL BE PREPARED, ONE FOR PLANT ESTABLISHMENT AND ONE FOR MAINTENANCE. ALL NEW IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL COMPLY WITH ALL CURRENT LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. LANDSCAPE CONCEPT NOTE: THIS LANDSCAPE WILL CONSIST OF CALIFORNIA-FRIENDLY, LOW AND MEDIUM WATER USE PLANT MATERIAL. ALL PLANTS HAVE BEEN CHOSEN FROM THE LOW OR MEDIUM WATER USE CATEGORY ACCORDING TO WUCOLS. PLANTS HAVE BEEN CHOSEN TO CREATE A UNIFORM THEME ACROSS THE SITE CONSISTING OF MEDITERRANEAN AND CALIFORNIA FRIENDLY PLANT MATERIAL. MAINTENANCE AND LONGEVITY OF PLANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. ROOT PANELS AND BARRIERS WILL BE UTILIZED ON ALL TREES NECESSARY, CONSISTENT WITH ALL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. A 3" LAYER OF BARK MULCH WILL BE USED IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WILL CONFORM TO ALL CURRENT LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. MAILBOX CLUSTER LOCATION (3) R.O.W. PROPERTY LINE, TYP. EASEMENT STREET LIGHT, TYP. STREET LIGHT, TYP. STREET LIGHT, TYP. GRAVEL R.O.W. EASEMENT 2081
PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 FRONT YARD SHRUB LEGEND ELEVATION STYLE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE / SPACING WUCOLS BACKGROUND SHRUBS Elevation 1 Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma 5 Gal @ 60" O.C. M Elevation 2 Rhamnus califonica Coffeeberry 5 Gal @ 60" O.C. L Elevation 3 Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Waxleaf Privet 5 Gal @ 48" O.C. M MID-GROUND SHRUBS Elevation 1 Cistus salviifolius Rockrose 5 Gal @ 36" O.C. L Elevation 2 Agave Attenuata Fox Tail Agave 5 Gal @ 36" O.C. L Elevation 3 Lavandula stoechas Spanish Lavender 5 Gal @ 36" O.C. L MID GROUND LOW SPREADING SHRUB Elevation 1 Carissa m. 'Green Carpet' Natal Plum 1 Gal @ 60" O.C. M Elevation 2 Baccharis Pigeon Point Dwarf Coyote Brush 1 Gal @ 60" O.C. L Elevation 3 Westringia Mundi Mundi Westringia 1 Gal @ 60" O.C. L ACCENT UPRIGHT COLUMN - TO BE SPOTTED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO PLANTING BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 2 PER LOT Elevation 1 Podocarpus e. 'Monmal' Blue Ice Yellow wood 5 Gal M Elevation 2 Prunus caroliniana 'Bright 'N Tight' Bright 'N Tight Laurel 5 Gal M Elevation 3 Laurus Nobilis Sweet Bay (Column Form) 5 Gal L GROUNDCOVERS Elevation 1 Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' Halls Japanese Honeysuckle Flats @ 18" O.C. L Elevation 2 Myoporum Parvifolium Pink Pink myoporum Flats @ 18" O.C. L Elevation 3 Senecio mandraliscae Blue Chalksticks Flats @ 18" O.C. L HARDSCAPE Decorative Gravel Copper Canyon Size: 3/4" Southwest Boulder & Stone RW2 RW2 RW2 RW2 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 0' 310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 L-2 10' 20' 30' TYPICAL FRONT YARD PLAN GENERAL PLANTING NOTES: 1. ALL TREES STANDARD UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED IN LEGEND. 2. ALL TREES WITHIN 6' OF HARDSCAPE TO BE INSTALLED WITH ROOT BARRIERS. ROOT BARRIERS SHALL NOT ENCIRCLE THE TREE ROOTBALL BUT SHALL BE LOCATED AT EDGE OF HARDSCAPE AND EXTEND BEYOND CENTER OF TREE A MINIMUM OF 5 FT IN EACH DIRECTION. 3. 3" LAYER OF BARK MULCH WILL BE USED IN ALL SHRUB AREAS; 1 1/2" THICK MULCH LAYER FOR GROUND COVER FROM ROOTED CUTTINGS. 4. ORDINANCES 348 & 460 - TREES STAKED WITH 2-3 STAKES AND SIX TREE TIES (RUBBER CINCH TIES - NO WIRE). USE A TRIPLE STAKING WITH 3" DIAMETER STAKED IN HIGH WIND AREAS. 5. STREE TREES TO BE LOCATED CLEAR OF UTILITY LINES, EQUIPMENT & STREET LIGHTS IDENTIFIED IN ON-SITE REVIEW PER LOT. 6. STREET TREES ARE TO BE 20' AWAY FROM STREET LIGHTS. 7. THERE ARE NO STORMWATER BMP'S PROVIDED ON THESE PLANS. 8. ALL ABOVE-GROUND UTILITIES TO BE SCREENED WITH PLANT MATERIAL. 9. THERE IS NO SPECIAL LANDSCAPING PER ORDINANCE 859.3 SECTION 3 ON THESE PLANS. 10. WUCOLS ZONE IS ZONE 4. 11. TURFGRASS IS NOT ALLOWED FRONT YARD QUANTITY CALCULATIONS 50% OF FRONT LANDSCAPE AREA TO MEET FOLLOWING PARAMETERS: 1 SHRUB PER 25 SQUARE FEET OF PLANTING AREA 60% 5 GALLON SHRUBS OR PER 100 SQUARE FEET 40% 1 GALLON SHRUBS 1 - 15 GALLON TREE PER LOT LOT TYPICAL STREET PLAN 3 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 4/7/2026 TYPICAL CORNER LOT PLAN 3 2082
RW3 RW3 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1
PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1
PW1 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3
PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 PW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3
RW3
RW3 RW3
RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3
RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3 RW3
RW2
RW2 RW2
RW2
PW3 PW3 RW2 RW3 RW3 WALL AND FENCE LEGEND CODE/SYMBOL DESCRIPTION 6'-0" TALL SPLIT-FACE BLOCK WALL W/ PRECISION BLOCK CAP, COLOR TAN 6'-6" TALL SPLIT-FACE BLOCK PILASTER W/ PRECISION BLOCK CAP 6'-6" TALL ENTRY MONUMENT WALL 6'-0" TALL VINYL FENCE W/ VINYL GATE 3'-0" WIDE VINYL GATE RETAINING WALL VARIES PER CIVIL PLAN W-01 W-02 W-04 W-05 W-03 W-06 WALL AND FENCE ELEVATIONS WALL: W-01 PILASTER: W-02 6'-0" TALL PERIMETER WALL AND PILASTER FENCE: W-0 4 GATE: W-05 6'-0" TALL VINYL FENCE W/ VINYL GATE WALL: W-0 3 PILASTER: W-02 6'-6" TALL ENTRY MONUMENT WALL 0' 310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 L-3 NORTH 0' 30' 60' 90' WALL & FENCE PLAN STREET "B" ALLEY "C"
STREET "A" WALTERS STREET
HELLMAN AVENUE NOT A PART 4/7/2026
2083
0' 310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 NORTH INDEX MAP NTS 0' 1' 2' 4' 6' 1/2" = 1'-0" L-4 SECTION A CURRENT SHEET 4/7/2026 2084
0' 310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 NORTH INDEX MAP NTS 0' 1' 2' 4' 6' 1/2" = 1'-0" L-5 SECTION B CURRENT SHEET 4/7/2026 2085
0' 310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 NORTH INDEX MAP NTS 0' 1' 2' 4' 6' 1/2" = 1'-0" L-6 SECTION C CURRENT SHEET 4/7/2026 2086
0' 310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 NORTH INDEX MAP NTS 0' 1' 2' 4' 6' 1/2" = 1'-0" L-7 SECTION D CURRENT SHEET 4/7/2026 2087
0' 310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 NORTH INDEX MAP NTS 0' 1' 2' 4' 6' 1/2" = 1'-0" L-8 SECTION E CURRENT SHEET 4/7/2026 2088
0' 310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 NORTH INDEX MAP NTS 0' 1' 2' 4' 6' 1/2" = 1'-0" L-9 SECTION F CURRENT SHEET 4/7/2026 2089
0' 310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 NORTH INDEX MAP NTS 0' 1' 2' 4' 6' 1/2" = 1'-0" L-10 SECTION G CURRENT SHEET 4/7/2026 2090
310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 PLANT IMAGERY4/7/2026 ACCENT SHRUBS GREVILLEA ROBUSTA SILK OAK LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINE QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK ANIGOZANTHOS X BIG RED BIG RED KANGAROO PAW RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA' INDIAN HAWTHORN WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MUNDI' MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA COAST ROSEMARY MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA PINE MUHLY CISTUS SALVIIFOLIOUS ROCKROSE LEONOTIS LEONURUS LION'S EAR DIETES BICOLOR FORTNIGHT LILY LAVANDULA STOECHAS SPANISH LAVENDER CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' LITTLE JOHN NANDINA DOMESTICA HEAVENLY BAMBOO CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM BUSH MORNING GLORY JUNCUS PATENS CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH OLEA EUROPAEA 'LITTLE OLLIE' LITTLE OLLIE HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCA TREES L-11 2091
310 NORTH JOY STREET CORONA, CA 92879 T: 951.737.1124 F: 951.737.6551 EASTVALE 3 PREPARED FOR REGENT LAND COMPANY 1968 SOUTH COAST HWY, SUITE 3043 LAGUNA BEACH, 92618 PLANT IMAGERY4/7/2026 BACCHARIS PILULARIS 'PIGEON POINT' DWARF COYOTE BUSH LONICERA JAPONICA 'HALLIANA' HALLS JAPANESE HONEYSUCKLE MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM CREEPING MYOPORUM SENECIO MANDRALISCAE BLUE CHALKSTICKS CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE CARISSA MACROCARPA 'GREEN CARPET' GREEN CARPET NATAL PLUM BACKGROUND/SCREENING SHRUBS LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS 'COMPACTA' COMPACT TEXAS RANGER LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY RHAMNUS CALIFONICA COFFEBERRY LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM JAPANESE PIVOT XYLOSMA CONGESTUM SHINY XYLOSMA PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 'BRIGHT 'N TIGHT' BRIGHT 'N TIGHT LAUREL SPREADING GROUNDCOVERS L-12 2092
CEQA EXEMPTION
DETERMINATION REPORT
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
7500 Hellman Avenue
(APNs 144-070-016,-017, -018, and -020)
Project Proponent:
Warmington Residential
Brian Taylor
Lead Agency:
CITY OF EASTVALE
Community Development Department
12363 Limonite Avenue, Suite 910
Eastvale, CA 91752
April 2026
2093
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
1 INTRODUCTION
This Exemption Determination Report has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, exempts from additional environmental review any project that is consistent with either the development density established by existing zoning, a community plan, or an existing general plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, a project cannot be exempt from CEQA if:
• project-specific impacts “peculiar” to the project or its site exist; • there is a significant impact not evaluated in the prior EIR on the plan or zoning; and/or • previously identified impacts are found to be more severe based on new information not known when the prior EIR was certified.
Further, Section 15183(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards … then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” On March 27, 2024, the City of Eastvale (City) Council adopted the Eastvale General Plan 2040 (General Plan; City of Eastvale 2024a) and certified the Final EIR for the General Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2022080090). The intent of this report is to document that: (1) implementation of the proposed PLN25- 20102 project (project) would not result in impacts that are peculiar to the project site; and (2) there would be no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the proposed project would not trigger expanded environmental review, beyond this Section 15183 Exemption Report. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
The 3.57-acre project site is located at the northeast corner of Walters Street and Hellman Avenue, at 7500 Hellman Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 144-070-016, 144-070-017, 144-070-018, and 144-070-020). The project site is currently vacant and is surrounded by single-family residential development to the north and east, with Walters Street and Rondo Elementary School of Discovery located to the south, and residential development and Hellman Avenue to the west; refer to Figure 1, Project Site.
2094
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
FIGURE 1: PROJECT SITE
2.2 Project Characteristics
The project site is zoned as Heavy Agriculture (A-2) and is designated as Chandler Policy Area (CH-PA), which allows for a density of 5-8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The project proposes a 35-dwelling unit two-story detached single family residential development. The residences would include three to four bedrooms, two drive-in onsite parking spaces, and two driveway spaces for each unit. The project also proposes six shared parking spaces. Additional improvements include the development of underground detention facilities along the site’s southern boundary, roads, and associated infrastructure (electrical, water, sewer, etc.). The project site provides two access points, one from Walters Street and one from Hellman Avenue. Refer to Appendix A, Project Site Plan, for the proposed layout of the project features.
Six percent (2 units) of the base density (29 units) would be designated as very low-income affordable units. Because of this provision of very low-income affordable units, the project is allowed a 22.5 percent density bonus per State Density Bonus Law (3.57 acres x 8 du/ac = 29 dwelling units [base density]; 29 dwelling units x 22.5 percent density bonus = 36 dwelling units). At the proposed 35 units, the project’s density would be 9.8 du/ac, which exceeds the density allowed by the CH-PA (5-8 du/ac), however the additional units are permitted under State law regardless of the site’s land use and zoning designation, along with any related concessions, incentives, and/or waivers needed to accommodate the bonus units. 2095
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section includes a discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with the General Plan EIR, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. This analysis is based on a desktop review of the project site and projectspecific technical studies. This section includes a brief discussion of environmental impacts that would be similar to those disclosed in the General Plan EIR, as well as a more detailed analysis of potential project impacts that could be site specific, including biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, paleontological resources, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials.
3.1 Environmental Topics Considered but Not Discussed Further The following topics were considered but no peculiar impacts, and no new or more severe impacts beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR, were identified. As a result, there is no further discussion about these issues in this document. • Air Quality: Because the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the General Plan upon application of the State Density Bonus Law, neither construction nor operation of the proposed 35-unit residential project would result in air quality impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. • Energy and Greenhouse Gases: Because the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the General Plan upon application of the State Density Bonus Law, neither construction nor operation of the proposed 35-unit residential project would result in energy or greenhouse gas impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
• Hydrology and Water Quality: The project contractor would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations to ensure the proposed project would not result in construction-related hydrology or water quality impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, implementation of a project-specific stormwater management plan would ensure that project operation would not result in peculiar or more severe operational impacts than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
• Land Use and Planning: With approval of the project applicant’s density bonus waivers, which are allowable due to the provision of very low-income residential units, the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in land use and planning impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
• Noise: The project contractor would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which restricts the timing on construction activities. Additionally, because the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the General Plan upon application of the State Density Bonus Law, construction and operation of the proposed 35-unit residential project would not result in noise impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
2096
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
• Population and Housing: Because the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the General Plan upon application of the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed 35-unit residential project would not result in population and housing impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. • Public Services and Recreation: Because the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the General Plan upon application of the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed 35-unit residential project would not result in public services or recreation impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. • Transportation: Because the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the General Plan upon application of the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed 35-unit residential project would not result in transportation impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. • Utilities and Service Systems: Because the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the General Plan upon application of the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed 35-unit residential project would not result in utilities and service systems impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. • Effects Found Not to Be Significant in the General Plan EIR: Because the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the General Plan upon application of the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed 35-unit residential project would not result in aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, or wildfire impacts that are peculiar or more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
3.2 Biological Resources
Summary of Findings in the General Plan EIR: Impacts to biological resources were analyzed in Section
3.2, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR. Eastvale is generally a highly developed area with limited natural open space, although sensitive vegetation communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and special-status plant and wildlife species occur (or have the potential to occur) within the City’s boundaries.
The most prominent natural resource within the City is the Santa Ana River and surrounding riparian and woodland habitat. The Santa Ana River forms the southern boundary of Eastvale and is an important local and regional open space resource. Portions of the City along the Santa Ana River, as well as the northernmost portion of the City, are included in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), of which the City is a signatory.
The General Plan EIR acknowledges that grading and construction activities associated with future development could impact sensitive biological resources. In accordance with MSHCP requirements, preparation of a project-specific General Biological Resource Assessment for development proposals located in areas with the potential to contain special-status species and/or sensitive habitat identified by the MSHCP would be required. Further, future development would be subject to compliance with relevant federal, state, and local requirements, including the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Clean Water Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, California Fish and Code, and MSHCP policies. 2097
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
The analysis in the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the General Plan policies and the City’s preapplication review process (which includes a project-specific General Biological Resource Assessment in areas with the potential to contain MSHCP-identified special-status species and/or sensitive habitat), as well as continued adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements, implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project: A Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation, and MSHCP Consistency Analysis(JE 2026) dated February 2026 was prepared for the proposed project by Jennings Environmental LLC (JE) and is included as Appendix B of this report. No sensitive vegetation communities, potentially jurisdictional areas, special-status species (including MSHCP narrow endemic plants), or MSHCP riparian/riverine areas were observed on-site during biological reconnaissance-level survey and protocol surveys conducted on December 20, 2025.
Regarding special status species, the burrowing owl (BUOW) is a State candidate for endangered status and a state and federal Species of Special Concern (SSC). No evidence of BUOW including pellets, feathers, or whitewash was found within the project area or buffer. No suitably sized burrows or burrow surrogates were observed on the subject parcel and no-host burrowers were observed during the survey. Despite these negative findings, the project site does contain low quality habitat for this species. Because the project site retains low potential to support BUOW, to prevent any potential impacts to this species protocol surveys were conducted in compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP. Although BUOW was not detected, implementation of SDC BIO‑1 would ensure that protective measures remain in place for this species, consistent with the MSHCP.
According to the Biological Resources Assessment, portions of the project site and the immediate surrounding area provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. There are mature trees onsite and in the adjacent parcels, and site provides suitable habitat for other ground nesting species (i.e. killdeer [Charadrius vociferus]). Implementation of SDC BIO-2 would ensure the protection of nesting birds. SDC BIO-2 requires that a qualified avian biologist conduct pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) within three days prior to any ground-disturbing or construction activities. If no active nests are found, construction may proceed. If an active nest is detected, the biologist would establish no-work buffers based on nest sensitivity, nesting stage, and anticipated construction disturbance. Additionally, SDC BIO3 requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) from Appendix C of the MSHCP. These BMPs are intended to minimize indirect impacts during construction and ensure compliance with the MSHCP’s general resource protection standards. Implementation includes keeping the site clean to avoid attracting predators of the species of concern and restricting all construction activities and equipment within fenced work areas. SDC BIO-3 reduces the potential for unnecessary or incidental impacts during construction.
The following standardized Site Development Conditions (SDCs) will be required for the proposed project:
SDC BIO-1: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey. In accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) species-specific objective #6 for burrowing owl, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance by a qualified biologist where suitable habitat is present 2098
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
within the study area (project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer). If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31), all work within 300 feet of any active burrow will be halted until that nesting effort is finished as determined by a qualified biologist. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season (September 1 through February 28), then a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and approved by the County of Riverside Environmental Programs Department in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl (2012) and the MSHCP, which allows for passive relocation (i.e., use of one-way doors and collapse of burrows). Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to prevent reentry.
SDC BIO-2: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey. Prior to ground disturbances that would impact potentially suitable nesting habitat for avian species, the project applicant shall adhere to the following:
1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common, migratory, and special status) regardless of the time of year during the nesting season, a qualified avian biologist retained by the project applicant will conduct pre‐construction Nesting Bird Surveys within three (3) days prior to project‐related disturbance within the entire project site and a 300-foot buffer around the project site at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows and cavities. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required.
2. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the qualified avian biologist shall establish a disturbance-free buffer until additional surveys can be completed prior to the commencement of ground disturbing project activities. If an active nest is found, the qualified avian biologist will set appropriate no‐work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity, and duration of the disturbance. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the qualified avian biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The qualified avian biologist shall not risk failure of the nest to determine the exact location or status and shall make every effort to limit the nest to potential predation as a result of the survey/monitoring efforts (e.g., limit number of surveyors, limit time spent at/near the nest, scan the site for potential nest predators before approaching, immediately depart nest area if indicators of stress or agitation are displayed).
The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird. The qualified avian biologist shall use their best professional 2099
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate. The nests and buffer zones shall be field-checked daily weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no‐work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.
SDC BIO-3: Implement Standard Best Management Practices. To ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the proposed project will adhere to MSHCP Appendix C, Standard Best Management Practices.
Conclusion: With implementation of SDC BIO-1 through SDC BIO-3 and compliance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the proposed project would not result in impacts to biological resources that are peculiar to the project site, and there are no new or more severe direct or cumulatively considerable impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not trigger additional environmental review.
3.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Summary of Findings in the General Plan EIR: Impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources were analyzed in Section 3.3, Cultural Resources, and Section 3.12, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR. No historic resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources occur within the City’s boundaries, although the City contains one locally historic resource, the Desi House. In accordance with Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City notified local tribes about the General Plan on August 2, 2022. The Gabrielieño Tongva Indians of California, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians responded in August 2022 and declined consultation. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation also declined consultation for the General Plan but requested to be consulted for future ground-disturbing development projects within the City.
The General Plan EIR acknowledges that grading and construction activities associated with future development could unearth unknown historical or archaeological resources and/or disturb human remains during ground-disturbing activities. General Plan Policy CO-6.4 requires a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for new development proposals that occur on native soils. Additionally, future sitespecific development proposals subject to CEQA would be required to undergo government-togovernment consultation in accordance with AB 52 requirements, and would be required to implement any project-specific SDCs to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources. Further, future development would be subject to compliance with relevant federal, state, and local requirements, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, which pertain to the treatment of human remains.
The analysis in the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the General Plan policies and the City’s preapplication review process (which includes a project-specific Cultural Resources Assessment for projects that could impact native soils and, if required, project-specific AB 52 consultation), as well as 2100
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
continued adherence to applicable federal,state, and localregulations and requirements, implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project: A Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report dated March 23, 2026 (CRM 2026) was prepared for the proposed project by CRM Tech. This technical study is included as Appendix C of this report.
To evaluate the project’s potential to support historic resources, a records search request was submitted to the South Central Information Center (SCIC) and the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The search was conducted to identify previously recorded cultural resources and previously conducted cultural resources studies within a one-mile radius of the project site. In addition, a Sacred Lands File search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). An intensive-level cultural resources field survey of the project site was conducted on December 17, 2025. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project boundaries and all soil exposures were carefully examined for evidence of cultural resources; refer to Appendix C.
The records search revealed that more than cultural resource studies were previously conducted within onemile of the project site. One Study, conducted in 2018, overlapped the project site. The previous studies resulted in the recording of 31 historical/archaeological sites within the records search scope, including three (3) prehistoric (i.e., Native American) sites and 28 historic-period sites as listed in Table 1 of Appendix C. None of these resources were identified within the project boundaries, although three (3) were recorded on properties adjacent to the project site. In addition, the Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity, and the field survey was negative for cultural and historic resources.
Nonetheless, given the low ground visibility on the project site and presence of adjacent resources, there is potential for the presence of buried cultural resources on-site.
The following standardized SDCs will be required for the proposed project:
SDC CUL-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project 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 addressing potential impacts to undiscovered buried archaeological resources associated with this project. The CRMP shall be reviewed by any consulting tribe(s) and reviewed and approved by the City.
SDC CUL-2: Tribal Monitoring and Treatment Agreement. The project applicant shall provide for Native American monitoring during grading. The Native American monitor(s) shall work in concert with the archaeological monitor to observe ground disturbances and search for cultural materials. The City shall coordinate with the consulting tribe(s) to facilitate communications with the project developer/applicant so that all parties can develop a 2101
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
mutually acceptable Tribal Monitoring and Treatment Agreement, which will include the scope of monitoring, scheduling of monitors from individual consulting tribe(s), and the course of action for inadvertent discoveries.
SDC CUL-3: Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training. 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. The training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project site and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earth-moving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event that 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.
SDC CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery. 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, include the following.
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 City at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the City, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The City 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 City before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the County coroner and City 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 Native American Heritage Commission) shall 2102
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
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.
SDC CUL-5: Treatment of an Inadvertent Discovery. 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 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 Final Monitoring Report (refer to SDC CUL-6).
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 the Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources (California Office of Historic Preservation 1993). The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
SDC CUL-6: Final Monitoring Report. A Final 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 City prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report will include the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Primary and Archaeological Site Forms. The Final Monitoring 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).
Conclusion: With implementation of SDC CUL-1 through SDC CUL-6 and compliance with relevant federal, state, and local requirements, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California 2103
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the proposed project would not result in impacts to cultural resources or tribal cultural resources that are peculiar to the project site, and there are no new or more severe direct or cumulatively considerable impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the proposed project would not trigger additional environmental review.
3.4 Geology and Soils
Summary of Findings in the General Plan EIR: Impacts to geology and soils were analyzed in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, of the General Plan EIR. Earthquake risk is very high in western Riverside County (including Eastvale) due to the presence of two of California’s most active faults: the San Andreas Fault and the San Jacinto Fault. In the City, earthquake-triggered geologic effects could include ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction, and subsidence. Future development would be required to comply with grading standards established in the City’s Municipal Code, as well as the City’s Building Code (Municipal Code Chapter 110.04) and the California Building Code. The General Plan includes several policies that would minimize risks to public health, safety, and welfare resulting from geologic and seismic hazards, including Policy S-2.3, which requires proposed developments in areas of known or suspected seismic or other geologic hazards to submit a project-specific geotechnical report and ensure appropriate SDCs are incorporated.
Impacts to paleontological resources were also analyzed in Section 4.3 of the General Plan EIR. Portions of the City are designated as areas of high sensitivity for paleontological resources as mapped by the County of Riverside (City of Eastvale 2024b). The General Plan EIR acknowledges that much of the future development would occur on already developed sites and would not be anticipated to unearth unknown paleontological resources.
The analysis in the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the General Plan policies and the City’s preapplication review process (which includes a project-specific geotechnical report in areas of known or suspected seismic or other geologic hazards), as well as continued adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements, implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to geology and soils. The analysis in the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the City’s preapplication review process (which includes a project-specific paleontological resources study for projects, as determined necessary by the City Community Development Department), implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to paleontological resources.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project: The project site is mapped by Riverside County as having very high liquefaction potential and being susceptible to subsidence.1 Liquefaction is the process where saturated, loose soil temporarily losesstrength and behaves like a liquid during earthquake shaking, causing severe structural damage. Subsidence is the general sinking or lowering of the ground surface, which can occur due to liquefaction, causing gradual or sudden settlement. 1 Riverside County Geographic Information System (GIS), Map My County Public Viewer, https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public, accessed March 26, 2026 2104
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
In accordance with Eastvale 2040 General Plan Policy S-2.3, projects proposed in areas of known or suspected seismic or other geologic hazards, such as the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones and liquefiable soils, require submittal of a geotechnical report which incorporates appropriate protection measures.
In conformance with Eastvale 2040 General Plan Policy S-2.3, a project-specific Geotechnical Investigation, was prepared by Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. (Alta) and is included as Appendix D of this report. Alta conducted a subsurface investigation of the project site on April 17, 2025, which consisted of five geotechnical exploratory borings and two infiltration test borings on the project site. Based on laboratory testing conducted on the borings, as well as review of published geologic maps, the project site was determined to be underlain by young alluvial fan deposits. Alta performed a liquefaction analysis utilizing blow count data from the subsurface investigation to determine the liquefaction potential of the younger alluvium. Based on the liquefaction analysis, design recommendations specific to the prevention of bearing failure and settlement in Sections 6.1.2 and 7.1 of the Geotechnical Investigation. With adherence to the design recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation, the project would not result in liquefaction or subsidence impacts greater than identified in the General Plan EIR.
Concerning paleontological resources, the project site is mapped by Riverside County as having High Paleontological Sensitivity.2 As a result, a project-specific Paleontological Resources Assessment Report was prepared by CRM Tech and is included as Appendix E of this report. According to the Paleontological Resources Assessment Report,surface sediments within the project area are relatively young and have been substantially disturbed by past land uses, resulting in a low potential for containing significant nonrenewable paleontological resources at shallow depths. However, the geologic units underlying the project site consist of Pleistocene-aged alluvial deposits. Pleistocene alluvial units are highly paleontologically sensitive, and any unknown fossil materials at the project site would likely be scientifically significant. Although no vertebrate fossil localities are recorded directly within the project site, fossil remains have been recovered from similar alluvial deposits in the surrounding area. Based on these findings, to protect potential subsurface paleontological resources, SDC PAL-1 and SDC PAL-2 would require a Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)-qualified paleontologist to be retained prior to ground-disturbing construction activities to prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) to guide monitoring procedures and establish protocols to follow in the event of a fossil discovery in the event of inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. With implementation of SDC PAL-1 and SDC PAL-2, impacts would be less than significant.
The following standardized SDCs will be required for the proposed project:
SDC PAL-1: Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that the project 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-grading conference, shall describe procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, including monitoring of all earth-moving 2 Riverside County Geographic Information System (GIS), Map My County Public Viewer, https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public, accessed March 26, 2026 2105
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
operations that extend beyond two feet below the existing ground surface, and shall establish in the PRIMP, in cooperation with the project applicant and City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and should collect samples of sediments that are likely to contain fossil remains of small vertebrates or invertebrates. The monitor shall also have the authority to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens. Sediment samples collected during monitoring shall be processed to recover small fossil remains, and all recovered specimens shall be identified and curated in a repository that provides permanent, retrievable storage. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.
SDC PAL-2: Post-completion Discovery. If paleontological resources are uncovered and after completion of the project, the project applicant shall submit the paleontologist’s followup 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. A report of findings shall be prepared that includes an itemized inventory of all recovered specimens. The report shall also provide a discussion of the scientific significance of the paleontological findings, if any. The project applicant shall prepare excavated material to the point of identification. The project 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. The project applicant shall make a one-time payment of curatorial fees for the storage of these resources in perpetuity.
Conclusion: With adherence to the design recommendations in Appendix D, the City’s grading standards and Building Code, the California Building Code, and other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and requirements, the proposed project would not result in impacts to geology or soils that are peculiar to the project site, and there are no new or more severe direct or cumulatively considerable impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR.
With implementation of SDC PAL-1 and SDC PAL-2, the proposed project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources that are peculiar to the project site, and there are no new or more severe direct or cumulatively considerable impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not trigger additional environmental review.
3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Findings in the General Plan EIR: Impacts from hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in Section 3.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR. On June 20, 2023 (when the impact analysis for the General Plan EIR was conducted), there were 26 hazardous materials 2106
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
sites in the City’s boundaries, with the closest hazardous materials site located approximately 0.6 miles north of the project site. It is noted that all 26 sites have been cleaned up and require no further action.
The General Plan EIR acknowledges that future development could involve grading and excavation activities that could expose construction workers and the public to previously unknown hazardous substances present in the soil. To reduce impacts associated with unknown hazardous wastes, future development would be required to prepare a project-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for any properties identified on any list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, if asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paints (LBP) are identified during site-specific hazardous materials inspections, abatement activities would be required to occur prior to demolition. The analysis in the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the General Plan policies, as well as continued adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements, implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. and dated May 1, 2025, was prepared for the proposed project; refer to Appendix F. Based on review of historical sources including aerial photographs and City directory listings, the project site was formerly utilized for livestock holding and a storage area of the trucks and trailers used in the transportation of livestock. During the site reconnaissance conducted as part of the Phase I ESA, a former cattle pen was observed in the southern portion of the project site along Walters Avenue. No evidence of dairy operations or agricultural use was observed on the project site. There was no visible evidence of former or existing aboveground or underground storage tanks on the project site.
Debris piles with various household debris, used tires, and building demolition waste were observed in the center of the project site. In addition, an irrigation well was identified in the northern portion of the project site.
The Phase I ESA acknowledges that, based on the age of existing debris piles onsite, there is potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACM) exposure during demolition activities. In accordance with State and Federal law, the project would be conditioned to require ACM surveys to be performed prior to demolition activities (SDC HAZ-1).
While the Phase I ESA indicated that the irrigation well in the northern portion of the project site does not represent an environmental concern in its current condition, an unused well can pose safety hazards or interfere with grading and construction activities. SDC HAZ-2 would be applied to the project to properly decommission the existing irrigation well in conformance with applicable regulatory standards.
The Phase I ESA also indicated that the project site is located within Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Radon Zone 2, indicating a moderate potential for radon. However, due to the absence of any proposed occupied subgrade areas, radon testing is not warranted; refer to Appendix F.
The following standardized SDCs will be required for the proposed project:
SDC HAZ-1: ACM Survey. Prior to any demolition, grading, or off-site disposal of debris, the project shall be conditioned to require that all discarded building materials be evaluated for the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) in accordance with applicable federal, 2107
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
state, and local regulations. If ACMs are identified, they shall be handled, removed, and disposed of by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor following all regulatory requirements.
SDC HAZ-2: Well Decommissioning. If the existing irrigation well will not be used as part of the redevelopment, it shall be properly decommissioned prior to grading activities. Well abandonment shall be performed in accordance with all applicable state and local regulatory requirements.
Conclusion: With implementation of SDC HAZ-1 and SDC HAZ-2, adherence to applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to ACM abatement and well decommissioning, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that are peculiar to the project site, and there are no new or more severe direct or cumulatively considerable impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the proposed project would not trigger additional environmental review. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONCLUSION
The analysis presented in Section 3 demonstrates that the proposed project meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and as such, no additional CEQA review, such as a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, is required for the project. Specifically:
• Upon approval of the project applicant’s density bonus waiver on minimum lot size, which is allowable due to the provision of very low-income residential units, the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the adopted General Plan (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183[a] and 15183[d]);
• The proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that are peculiar to the project or projectsite (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[b][1]);
• The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects beyond those disclosed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[b][2]); • The proposed project would not result in potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts beyond those disclosed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[b][3]); • There is no substantial new information that was unknown at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, and as such, the proposed project would not result in more severe adverse impacts than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[b][4]); Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, because implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts that are peculiar to the project site and the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR, no additional environmental review beyond this Section 15183 Exemption Report is required for the proposed project.
2108
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
5 REFERENCES
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc, (Alta). 2025. Geotechnical Investigation, 7500 Hellman Ave, Eastvale.
City of Eastvale. 2024a. Eastvale 2040 General Plan. Adopted March 27, 2024. https://www.eastvaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17340/638538605697900000.
City of Eastvale. 2024b. Eastvale 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Certified March 27, 2024. State Clearinghouse No. 2022080090.
https://www.eastvaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17162/638460168406500000.
CRM Tech. 2026. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report – Eastvale 3 Project at 7500 Hellman Avenue; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 144-070-016, -018, and -020; City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California.
CRM Tech. 2026. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report – Eastvale 3 Project at 7500 Hellman Avenue; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 144-070-016, -018, and -020; City of Eastvale, San Bernardino County, California.
GeoTek, Inc. 2024. 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.
Jennings Environmental, LLC. 2026. Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation, and MSHCP Consistency Analysis for the Eastvale 3 Project, in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California.
Riverside County Geographic Information System (GIS). 2026. Map My County Public Viewer. Accessed March 26, 2026. https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public.
Stantec (Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.). 2025. 7500 Hellman Avenue, Eastvale, California 92880 – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
6 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 Lead Agency
City of Eastvale
• Jamie K. Cerda, AICP, Principal Planner
6.2 Consultant
Michael Baker International
• Bob Stark, AICP, Principal-In-Charge
• Alicia Gonzalez, Project Manager
• Haley Walker, Environmental Planner
• Vianne Militar, Environmental Planner
2109
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
APPENDIX A
PROJECT SITE PLAN
2110
2111
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT
2112
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF
EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Warmington Residential
3090 Pullman St.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Prepared by:
Jennings Environmental, LLC
35414 Acacia Ave.
Yucaipa, CA 92399
909-534-4547
February 2026
2113
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 2
Contents
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................4
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................................................4
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................4
2.0 – METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................4
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................................4
2.2 SOILS ....................................................................................................................................................5
2.3 BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE-LEVEL SURVEY AND PROTOCOL SURVEYS........................................5
2.4 JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES .................................................................................................................6
2.5 WESTERN RIVERSIDE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN.........................................6
2.6 VEGETATION ........................................................................................................................................6
2.7 WILDLIFE ..............................................................................................................................................7 SECTION 3.0 – RESULTS .................................................................................................................................7
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS.............................................................................................................7
3.1.1 SOILS .............................................................................................................................................7
3.1.2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES BACKGROUND......................................................................................8
3.1.3 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT...................................................................................................8
3.1.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS .............................................................................................................8
3.1.5 MSHCP ..........................................................................................................................................9
3.1.6 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS .................................................................................................................10
3.2 FIELD STUDY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................10
3.2.1 HABITAT ......................................................................................................................................10
3.2.2 WILDLIFE .....................................................................................................................................10
3.2.3 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ............................................................................................................10
3.2.4 NESTING BIRDS ...........................................................................................................................10
3.2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ...........................................................................................................11
3.2.6 WETLANDS ..................................................................................................................................12
3.3 MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................12
3.3.1 PUBLIC QUASI-PUBLIC LANDS (PQP) AND COVERED ROADS .....................................................12
3.3.2 SUBUNIT AREA/CELL CRITERIA ...................................................................................................12
3.3.3 NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES ...........................................................................................13 2114
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 3
3.3.4 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES .......................................................................13
3.3.5 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS.......................................................................13
3.3.6 INFORMATION ON OTHER SPECIES ............................................................................................15
3.3.7 URBAN/ WILDLANDS INTERFACE................................................................................................16
3.3.7 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (VOLUME I, APPENDIX C).......................................................17 SECTION 4.0 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................18 Section 5 – REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................21 Appendix A - Figures....................................................................................................................................22 Appendix B - Photos.....................................................................................................................................25 Appendix C – Regulatory Framework ..........................................................................................................28 Appendix D – Tables ....................................................................................................................................35 2115
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 4
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
Jennings Environmental, LLC (Jennings) was retained by Warmington Residential, Inc. to conduct a literature review and site survey for the proposed Eastvale 3 Housing Development (Project), in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California. The survey identified vegetation communities, the potential for the occurrence of special status species, or habitats that could support special status wildlife species, and recorded all plants and animals observed or detected within the Project boundary. This biological resources assessment is designed to address the potential effects of the proposed project on designated critical habitats and/or any species currently listed or formally proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or species designated as sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS).
Information contained in this document is in accordance with accepted scientific and technical standards that are consistent with the requirements of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW. Additionally, the site was surveyed for any drainage features that would meet the definition of the Waters of the US (WOUS), Waters of the State (WOS), or CDFW jurisdiction. Additionally, the project is located within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). As such, this report also contains the results of the consistency analysis performed for the project.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is generally located within Section 34, Township 2 South, Range 7 West, and is depicted on the Corona North U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic maps. More specifically the project is located within APNs 144-070-016, -017, -018, and -020, within the city of Eastvale, Riverside County, California. The Project site is located just northeast of the intersection of Walters Street and Hellman Ave. The site is surrounded by mix of vacant parcels, developed residential parcels, and the Rondo Elementary School of Discovery (Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A).
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is to develop the site with approximately 35 single family homes. The Project proposes to sub-divide the parcels into 35 individual lots. Additional improvements include the development of a water quality basin, roads, and associated infrastructure (electrical, water, sewer, etc.).
2.0 – METHODOLOGY
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to performing the field survey, existing documentation relevant to the Project site was reviewed.
The most recent records were reviewed for the following quadrangle containing and surrounding the Project site: Corona North, Guasti, Ontario, and Prado Dam, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. The Guasti, Ontario, and Prado Dam quads were included in this search due to the site’s proximity to their boarders.
These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federal- or state-listed endangered or 2116
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 5
threatened species, California Species of Concern (SSC), or otherwise special status species or habitats that may occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. These sources include:
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) managed by CDFW (CDFW 2026) • USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2026)
• California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2026), issuer of the California Rare Plant Rank. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) threatened and endangered species occurrence GIS overlay; • National Wetlands Inventory Maps (NWI) {USFWS, 2026}
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey; • USGS National Map;
• Calwater Watershed Maps
• Environmental Protection Agency My Waters Maps
• USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Maps
• MSHCP Information Map, Version 2.0
2.2 SOILS
Before conducting the surveys, soil maps for Riverside County were referenced online to determine the types of soil found within the Project site. Soils were determined in accordance with categories set forth by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service and by referencing the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2026).
2.3 BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE-LEVEL SURVEY AND PROTOCOL SURVEYS Jennings biologist, Gene Jennings, conducted the general reconnaissance survey within the Project site to identify the potential for the occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities, or habitats that could support special status wildlife species. The surveys were conducted on foot, throughout the Project site between 0800 and 0900 hours on December 20, 2025. Weather conditions during the survey included cloudy skies, temperatures ranging from 55-56, with winds ranging from 0-1 miles per hour.
Photographs of the Project site were taken to document existing conditions (Appendix B).
Burrowing Owl Protocol Surveys
The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) survey area for burrowing owl. As such, protocol surveys were conducted using the MSHCP survey protocol for this species.
Surveys should be conducted during weather that is conducive to observing owls outside their burrows and detecting burrowing owl sign. Surveys will not be accepted if they are conducted during rain, high winds (> 20 mph), dense fog, or temperatures over 90 °F. Subsequent surveys should be conducted in the morning one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise or in the early evening two hours before sunset to one hour after sunset. Count and map all burrowing owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with owl sign. Record the location of all owls including numbers of pairs and juveniles and any behavior such as courtship and mating. Map the extent of all suitable habitat. It should be noted that owl sign may not be detectable if surveys are 2117
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 6
conducted within 5 days following rain. Absence of burrowing owl sign cannot be used to confirm absence of the species if the focused burrow survey is conducted within 5 days of rain.
2.4 JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas had been documented within the vicinity of the site. Similarly, the Soil maps from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2025) were reviewed to identify the soil series on-site and to check if they have been identified regionally as hydric soils. Upstream and downstream connectivity of waterways (if present) was reviewed in the field, on aerial imagery (NWI, 2026), and topographic maps to determine jurisdictional status.
A general assessment of jurisdictional waters regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW was conducted for the proposed Project area. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The State of California (State) regulates the discharge of material into waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the California Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7, §13000 et seq.). Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates all substantial diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. The initial assessment was conducted by a desktop survey through the USGS National Hydrography Dataset for hydrological connectivity. A discussion of the regulatory framework is provided in Appendix C.
2.5 WESTERN RIVERSIDE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN The MSHCP is intended to balance the demands of the growth of western Riverside County with the need to preserve open space and protect species of plants and animals that are threatened with extinction. The MSHCP addresses incidental take of “covered” species. Of the 146 species addressed in the Western Riverside County MSHCP, 118 are adequately conserved simply by implementing the conservation program. Incidental take of these 118 species is permitted by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The remaining 28 species are partially conserved. They would be adequately conserved when certain additional conservation requirements are implemented. The additional requirements are identified in the species-specific conservation objectives for those 28 species. The Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) is the governing body that administers the MSHCP. Their database (MSHCP Mapper, 2026) was researched prior to conducting the filed visit.
2.6 VEGETATION
All plant species observed within the Project site were recorded. Vegetation communities within the Project site were identified and qualitatively described. Plant communities were determined in accordance with the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant 2118
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 7
nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). A comprehensive list of the plant species observed during the survey is provided in Appendix D.
2.7 WILDLIFE
All wildlife and wildlife signs observed and detected, including tracks, scat, carcasses, burrows, excavations, and vocalizations, were recorded. Additional survey time was spent in those habitats most likely to be utilized by wildlife (native vegetation, wildlife trails, etc.) or in habitats with the potential to support state- and/or federally listed or otherwise special status species. Notes were made on the general habitat types, species observed, and the conditions of the Project site. A comprehensive list of the wildlife species observed during the survey is provided in Table 1 in Appendix D.
SECTION 3.0 – RESULTS
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS
According to the CNDDB, CNPSEI, and other relevant literature and databases, 82 sensitive species including 20 listed species, and 5 sensitive habitats, have been documented in the Corona North, Guasti, Ontario, and Prado Dam quads. This list of sensitive species and habitats includes any State and/or federally-listed threatened or endangered species, candidate for endangered, CDFW-designated Species of Special Concern (SSC), and otherwise Special Animals. “Special Animals” is a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of “species at risk” or “special status species.” The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need.
An analysis of the likelihood for the occurrence of all CNDDB-sensitive species documented in the Corona North, Guasti, Ontario, and Prado Dam quads is provided in Table 2, in Appendix D. This analysis takes into account species range as well as documentation within the vicinity of the project area and includes the habitat requirements for each species and the potential for their occurrence on the site, based on required habitat elements and range relative to the current site conditions. According to the databases, no USFWS-designated critical habitat occurs within or adjacent to the project site.
3.1.1 SOILS
After a review of the USDA Soil Conservation Service and by referencing the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2026), it was determined that the Project site is located within the Western Riverside Area, California area CA679. The Project site contains one (1) soil type:
Chino silt loam (Cb). This soil is somewhat poorly drained with a moderately high capacity to transmit water. This soil consists of alluvium derived from mixed sources, typically ranges in elevation from 20 to 3,100 feet above mean sea level (amsl), and is considered prime farmland if irrigated.
Chino silt loam is classified as a hydric soil.
2119
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 8
3.1.2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES BACKGROUND
Of the 82 species found within the Corona North, Guasti, Ontario, and Prado Dam quads, 20 have a special designation of either: federally listed or state listed. The discussion below provides the background information on those species that have the potential to occur within the Project site.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) – State Candidate Endangered and Species of Special Concern The burrowing owl (BUOW) is a state candidate for endangered status and a state and federal Species of Special Concern (SSC). This owl is a mottled, brownish, sand-colored, dove-sized raptor, with large, yellow eyes, a rounded head lacking ear tufts, white eyebrows, and long legs compared to other owl species. It is a ground-dwelling owl typically found in arid prairies, fields, and open areas where vegetation is sparse and low to the ground. The BUOW is heavily dependent upon the presence of mammal burrows, with ground squirrel burrows being a common choice, in its habitat to provide shelter from predators, and inclement weather, and to provide a nesting place. They are also known to make use of human-created structures, such as cement culverts and pipes, for burrows.
BUOW spends a great deal of time standing on dirt mounds at the entrance to a burrow or perched on a fence post or other low to the ground perch from which they hunt for prey. BUOW frequently hunt by hovering in place above the ground and dropping on their prey from above. They feed primarily on insects such as grasshoppers, June beetles, and moths, but will also take small rodents, birds, and reptiles. They are active during the day and night but are considered a crepuscular owl; generally observed in the early morning hours or at twilight. The breeding season for BUOW is February 1 through August 31. Up to 11, but typically 7 to 9, eggs are laid in a burrow, abandoned pipe, or other subterranean hollows where incubation is complete in 28-30 days. Young BUOW fledges in 44 days. The BUOW is considered a migratory species in portions of its range, which includes western North America from Canada to Mexico, and east to Texas and Louisiana. BUOW populations in California are considered to be sedentary or locally migratory.
Throughout its range, the BUOW is vulnerable to habitat loss, predation, vehicular collisions, and destruction of burrow sites and the poisoning of ground squirrels (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Zarn 1974, Remsen 1978). BUOW has disappeared from significant portions of their range in the last 15 years and, overall, nearly 60% of the breeding groups of owls known to have existed in California during the 1980s had disappeared by the early 1990s (Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993). The BUOW is a migratory bird protected by the international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and by State law under the California Fish and Game Code (CDFG Code #3513 & #3503.5).
3.1.3 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
The site is not located within or adjacent to any USFWS-designated Critical Habitat. No further action is required.
3.1.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Aerial imagery of the site was examined and compared with the surrounding USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps to identify drainage features within the survey area as indicated from 2120
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 9
topographic changes, blue-line features, or visible drainage patterns. No obvious signs of jurisdictional features were observed during the literature review.
3.1.5 MSHCP
Prior to the field visit the Regional Conservation Authority’s website and databases were searched. This includes the MSHCP plan itself and any relevant protocol survey requirements. The database also includes a mapping program that contains site-specific information related to criteria cell location, special survey areas for plants and animals, and vegetation mapping.
A summary of the MSHCP Conservation Goals and Policies as they relate to this Project is provided below in Table 1.
Table 1: MSHCP Conservation Goals for Project Area
Conservation Goals
Within
/Adjacent
Not Within
/Adjacent
Proposed Constrained Linkages: None X
Core Areas: None X
Linkages: None X
Constrained Linkage: X
Habitat Block: X
Core: None X
Criteria Cell: X
Pre-existing conservation Area X
Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pool Habitat X
Narrow Endemic Plant Survey Area X
Urban/Wildlife Interface X
Mammal Survey Area X
Amphibian Survey Area X
Burrowing Owl Survey Area X
2121
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 10
3.1.6 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
According to the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, the Project site is not mapped within an area for wildlife movement. Therefore, the proposed Project will not have an impact on any current wildlife corridors.
3.2 FIELD STUDY RESULTS
3.2.1 HABITAT
The habitat on-site consists of a mix of bare ground and non-native ruderal vegetation. The site is routinely disturbed by disking, mowing and weed abatement. Table 1 in Appendix D contains a list of all plants found on-site. Surrounding land uses include residential developments, vacant land, and commercial developments.
3.2.2 WILDLIFE
Species observed or otherwise detected on or in the vicinity of the project site during the surveys included; mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). A complete list of all wildlife observed is included in Table 1 of Appendix D.
3.2.3 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
No State and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species or other sensitive species were observed on-site during surveys.
Burrowing Owl
The result of the survey was that no evidence of BUOW including pellets, feathers, or whitewash was found within the Project area or buffer. No suitably sized burrows or burrow surrogates were observed on the subject parcel and no-host burrowers were observed during the survey. However, given the fact that the site is laid fallow for portions of the year, the site does contain low quality habitat for this species.
As such, protocol surveys were conducted as required under the Western Riverside MSHCP. The findings of those surveys are discussed below in Section 3.3.4.
3.2.4 NESTING BIRDS
Portions of the Project site and the immediate surrounding area do provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. There are mature trees in the adjacent neighborhoods, and the open spaces provide suitable habitat for other ground nesting species (i.e. killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)). As such the Project site is subject to the following nesting bird regulations. Recommendations are included in Section 4. 2122
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 11
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. This Act implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The Act has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were amended, such as with Mexico in 1976 and Canada in 1995. The Act prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
California Fish and Game Code
The Project site is also subject to Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3503 states, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto”. And Section 3503.5 states, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-ofprey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto”.
3.2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
The Project site does not contain any drainages on-site. There is no evidence of water flows (bed and bank, ponding, sedimentation, soil cracks, cuts, scour, etc.). Therefore, there are no jurisdictional features on-site. However, the Project does propose a connection to an existing drainage course (Drainage 1) as part of the detention basin in the northwest corner of the Project site. This existing drainage course is jurisdictional to the Regional Water Quality Borad and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. As such, any impact to the existing drainage course will require a permit from each agency.
Waters of the United States and Waters of the State
The USACE has the authority to permit the discharge of dredged or fill material in Waters of the U.S. under Section 404 CWA. While the Regional Water Quality Board has authority over the discharge of dredged or fill material in Waters of the State under Section 401 CWA as well as the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Project area was surveyed with 100 percent visual coverage, and no drainage features were present on site. As such, the subject parcel does not contain any wetlands, Waters of the U.S., or Waters of the State.
Fish and Game Code Section 1602 - State Lake and/or Streambed The CDFW asserts jurisdiction over any drainage feature that contains a definable bed and bank or associated riparian vegetation. The Project area was surveyed with 100 percent visual coverage, and no definable bed or bank features exist on the project site. There is an outlet structure that deposits water onto the site from the surrounding parcels, however, it appears that the amount of water that is discharged does not stay within a defined location or channel. It is either absorbed into the soil or lost to sheet flow within the parcel. As such, the subject parcel does not contain any areas under CDFW jurisdiction.
2123
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 12
3.2.6 WETLANDS
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps did not identify portions within the Project site as a Riverine/Riparian system. The site does not contain hydric vegetation, or wetland hydrology. The site does contain Hydric Soils, however, in order to be classified as a wetland all three criteria must be present within the project site. As such, there are no wetlands currently present on site.
3.3 MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The Project is located within The Eastvale Area Plan of the MSHCP. The target conservation acreage range for The Eastvale Area Plan is 1,040 – 1,185 acres; it is composed of approximately 895 acres of existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands and 145 – 290 acres of Additional Reserve Lands.
The MSHCP Conservation Area comprises a variety of existing and proposed Cores, Linkages, Constrained Linkages, and Noncontiguous Habitat Blocks (referred to herein generally as "Cores and Linkages"). The Cores and Linkages within the Eastvale Area Plan include:
• Contains a small portion of Existing Linkage Core A
3.3.1 PUBLIC QUASI-PUBLIC LANDS (PQP) AND COVERED ROADS Pursuant to Sections 3.2.1 PQP Lands are a Subset of MSHCP Conservation Area lands totaling approximately 347,000 acres of lands known to be in public/private ownership and expected to be managed for open space value and/or in a manner that contributes to the Conservation of Covered Species (including lands contained in existing reserves), as generally depicted in Figure 3-1 of the MSHCP, Volume I. Section 7.2.1 Existing Roads within Existing PQP Lands are existing roadways within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands, including interstates, freeways, State highways, city and county maintained roadways, as well as local roads, which are not city, or county maintained that provide property access.
This latter category of other maintained roadways is generally maintained by the adjacent property owners, either individually or collectively. Table 7-1, of the MSHCP, provides an estimate summarizing the extent of these various types of existing roadways which are permitted to remain within Public/QuasiPublic Lands.
The Project site is not located within or adjacent to any PQP Lands and will not impact a covered road. ➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis
3.3.2 SUBUNIT AREA/CELL CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 3.3.12, Subunits are areas within an area plan that contain target conservation acreages along with a description of the planning species, biological issues, and considerations. The Project site is not located within a subunit area or cell criteria. ➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis 2124
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 13
3.3.3 NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES
Pursuant to Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, focused surveys for narrow endemic plant species are required for properties within the mapped areas if the appropriate habitat is present. The survey area maps have been reviewed and assessed, and the proposed project is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area based on Figure 6-1 of the MSHCP.
➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis
3.3.4 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES
Based on Section 6.3.2 and Figures 6-2 (Criteria Area Species Survey Areas), 6-3 (Amphibian Species Survey Areas), 6-4 (BUOW Survey Areas), and 6-5 (Mammal Species Survey Areas) of the MSHCP and the MSHCP Mapping Program, the site is located in an area where additional surveys are needed for BUOW. No limitations significantly affected the results and conclusions given herein. Surveys were conducted during the appropriate season to observe the target species, in good weather conditions, by a qualified biologist who followed all pertinent protocols. Table 1 below details the conditions during the surveys and the results of each survey.
Table 1 – Non-Breeding Season BUOW Survey Results
Date Sunrise/Sunset Survey Time Weather Temperature
oF
Observations
Habitat Assessment, Part A, and 1 Survey of Part B
December 22,
2025
6:53 AM /
4:45 PM 0730 – 0830 Cloudy, 0 – 1 MPH wind
55 – 56 No BUOW Observed
Part B Surveys 2-4
January 29,
2026
6:49 AM /
5:16 PM 0700 – 0800 Clear, 0 – 2 MPH Wind
60 – 61 No BUOW Observed
January 31,
2026
6:48 AM /
5:18 PM 0730 – 0800 Clear, No Wind 62 – 63 No BUOW Observed February 9,
2026
6:39 AM /
5:30 PM 0700 – 0730 Clear, Light Wind, 0 – 2 MPH
59 – 60 No BUOW Observed
Based on the results of this Protocol survey, BUOW are absent from the site and no impacts to BUOW are anticipated to occur. Prior to construction, pre-construction surveys are warranted or recommended.
➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis
3.3.5 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS
The MSHCP describes the protection of Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools within the MSHCP Plan Area as important to the conservation of certain amphibian, avian, fish, invertebrate and plant species. 2125
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 14
The MSHCP describes guidelines to ensure that the biological functions and values for species inside the MSHCP Conservation Area are maintained, as outlined in Volume 1, Section 6.1.2.
Riparian/ Riverine
Pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Riparian/Riverine areas are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent vegetation, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from nearby freshwater sources, or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. Riverine habitat includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained in natural or artificial channels periodically or continuously containing flowing water or which forms a connecting link between the two bodies of standing water. Riverine habitat is bounded on the landward side by upland, by the channel bank (including natural and man-made levees), or by wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, mosses, or lichens. In braided streams, the system is bounded by the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs. Springs discharging into a channel are considered part of the riverine habitat. The term riparian is used to define the type of wildlife habitat found along the banks of a river, stream, lake, or other body of water. Riparian habitats are ecologically diverse and can be found in many types of environments including grasslands, wetlands, and forests.
The Project site does not contain any areas that meet the definition of Riparian/Riverine. ➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis Vernal Pools
Pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Vernal Pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics should consider (1) the length of time the area exhibits upland and wetland characteristics, and (2) the manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. Evidence concerning the persistence of an area's wetness can be obtained from its history, vegetation, soils, and drainage characteristics, uses to which it has been subjected, and weather and hydrologic records.
The Project site does not contain the appropriate soils, vegetation, or hydrology to allow for vernal pools. ➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis Fairy Shrimp
The MSHCP contains coverage for three species of fairy shrimp (Riverside, vernal pool, and Santa Rosa fairy shrimps). As mentioned in the Vernal Pool discussion, the site does not contain vernal pools. Vernal pools are a required constituent element for all three fairy shrimp species in the MSHCP. Nor does the site contain any area of ponded water or suitable soils. As such, they are considered absent from the Project site.
2126
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 15
➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis Riparian Birds
The MSCHP includes coverage for many riparian birds, including least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo. As mentioned above in the Riparian/Riverine section, the site does not contain any riparian or riverine habitats which are a required constituent element for the riparian bird species. As such, these species are considered absent from the Project site. ➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis
3.3.6 INFORMATION ON OTHER SPECIES
Delhi sands flower-loving fly
The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is found at low numbers and is narrowly distributed within the Plan Area.
This species is restricted by the distribution and availability of open Habitats within the fine, sandy Delhi series soils. USFWS has identified three main population areas are known to currently or to have at one time existed in the Plan Area. One is located in the northwestern corner of the Plan Area, a second is located in the Jurupa Hills, and the third is located in the Agua Mansa Industrial Center area. Because the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly requires a specific Habitat type, this species will require site-specific considerations, protection and enhancement of this limited Habitat type, and species-specific management to maintain the Habitat and populations.
The Project site does not contain the appropriate soils for this species and is not within or near known areas for this species.
➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis Species Not Adequately Conserved
As described in Section 2.1.4, of the 146 Covered Species addressed in the MSHCP, 118 species are considered to be adequately conserved. The remaining 28 Covered Species will be considered to be adequately conserved when certain conservation requirements are met as identified in the speciesspecific conservation objectives for those species. For 16 of the 28 species, particular species-specific conservation objectives, which are identified in Table 9-3, must be satisfied to shift those particular species to the list of Covered Species Adequately Conserved. For the remaining 12 species, a Memorandum of Understanding must be executed with the Forest Service that addresses management for these species on Forest Service Land in order to shift these species to the list of Covered Species Adequately Conserved.
The Project site does not contain the appropriate habitats for any of these species. There is no occurrence potential for any of these species to occur within the Project site. ➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis 2127
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 16
3.3.7 URBAN/ WILDLANDS INTERFACE
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP presents guidelines to minimize the indirect effects of projects in proximity to the MSCHP Conservation areas. This section provides mitigation measures for impacts associated with Drainage, Toxics, Lighting, Noise, Invasives, Barriers, and Grading/Land Development.
The site is in the vicinity of existing PQP Lands (0.77 miles south). As such the following discussion for Urban/Wildlands interface is provided.
Drainage
The Project’s stormwater should be directed to a stormwater basin on the project site. The basin shall be designed in accordance with all federal, state, regional, and local standards and regulations concerning water quality. These measures will assure that the project stormwater discharges are no greater in volume and velocity than current undeveloped conditions and that the water leaving the site complies with all applicable water quality standards.
Toxics
According to the MSHCP, measures shall be incorporated to ensure that application of chemicals do not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. During the construction of the project, construction activities have the potential to cause release of toxics that could impact the MSHCP Conservation Area.
To address these potential short-term impacts, the project is required to stage construction operations as far away from PQP Lands to the maximum extent feasible. These mitigation measures will be imposed by the County of Riverside.
Lighting
The proposed Project is not anticipated to significantly increase lighting and glare. All light sources will be designed with internal baffles to direct the lighting towards the ground and the developed areas and have a zero-side angle cut off to the horizon. All lighting will be consistent with all required Light Ordinances and the MSHCP.
Noise
The proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant increase in noise. All noise levels will be in compliance with County’s Standards.
➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis Invasives
The proposed Project will have landscaping around the site however, it will not plant invasive species in accordance with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.
➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis Barriers
2128
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 17
The proposed Projectsite is already fenced. As such, the proposed Project can do nothing to further secure the desired area.
➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis Grading/Land Development
The proposed Project site is already highly disturbed and will be graded as a result of the Project..
However, the proposed Project does not propose any grading or land development within PQP Lands. ➢ No further discussion on this subject is made in this analysis
3.3.7 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (VOLUME I, APPENDIX C)
Appendix C of the MSHCP details Best Management Practices (BMPs) is required for specific impacts to specific species. However, the project does not impact any of the covered species or habitats described in the MSHCP or any federally or state-listed species. As such, there are only two BMPs that could qualify as required for this project:
13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).
14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with an orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas.
Additionally, in accordance with the MSHCP the Counties and Cities have agreed to following long-term obligations, which are required for all Projects.
A. Adopt and maintain ordinances or resolutions as necessary, and amend their General Plans as appropriate, to implement the requirements and to fulfill the purposes of the Permits, the MSHCP and the IA for private and public Development projects. Such requirements include: (1) the collection of Local Development Mitigation Fees and other relevant fees as set forth in Section 8.5 of this document; (2) compliance with the HANS process or equivalent process to ensure application of the Criteria and thus, satisfaction of the local acquisition obligation; (3) compliance with the policies for the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, set forth in Section 6.1.2 of this document; (4) compliance with the policies for the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species set forth in Section 6.1.3 of this document; (5) compliance with survey requirements as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of this document; (6) require Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines compliance as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of this document; and (7) compliance with the Best Management Practices and the siting and design criteria as set forth in Section 7.0 and Appendix C of this document. The County and the Cities shall transmit to the RCA and the 2129
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 18
Wildlife Agencies relevant documents showing adoption and/or execution of the Implementation Mechanisms and any subsequent amendments thereto.
B. Transmit any collected Local Development Mitigation Fees, other appropriate fees and associated interest as described in Section 8.5 of this document to the RCA at least quarterly.
C. Contribute to Plan implementation and Reserve Assembly as determined appropriate by the affected Permittee for County and City public projects, including but not limited to any one or any combination of the following: 1) acquisition of replacement Habitat at a 1:1 ratio that is Biologically Equivalent or Superior to the property being disturbed; or 2) payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fees as established for commercial and industrial Development. Such contribution shall occur prior to impacts to Covered Species and their Habitats.
D. Participate as a member agency in the RCA as set forth in Section 6.6.2 of this document.
E. Notify the RCA, through the Joint Project/Acquisition Review Process set forth in Section 6.6.2 of this document, of proposed Discretionary Projects within the Criteria Area and participate in any further requirements imposed by that section.
F. Take all necessary and appropriate actions, following applicable land use permit enforcement procedures and practices, to enforce the terms of project approvals for public and private projects, including compliance with the MSHCP, the Permits and the IA.
G. Carry out all other applicable requirements of the MSHCP, the IA and the Permits.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing within the MSHCP or the IA shall be construed to require any local government to provide funding, or any other form of compensation, beyond the fees collection, dedicated lands required pursuant to the IA and the MSHCP or other mitigation agreed to by the appropriate Parties, consistent with the terms and conditions of the MSHCP.
H. Manage MSHCP Conservation Area property or conservation easements owned or leased by the County or respective City pursuant to Sections 5.0 and 8.0 of this document.
I. Participate as a member of the RMOC as set forth in Section 6.6.4 of this document.
As such, the Project will be required to implement these standard procedures.
SECTION 4.0 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the literature review and personal observations made in the project site and immediate vicinity, no State and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species are documented/or expected to occur within the Project site. Additionally, no plant species with the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2 were observed on-site or documented/expected to occur on-site. No other sensitive species were observed within the project area or buffer area.
Jurisdictional Delineation
There are no streams, channels, washes, or swales that meet the definitions of Section 1600 of the State of California Fish and Game Code (FGC) under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, Section 401 (“Waters of the 2130
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 19
State” ) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or “Waters of the United States” (WoUS) as defined by Section 404 of the CWA under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) within the subject parcel. Therefore, no permit from any regulatory agency will be required.
MSHCP Consistency
The site is not mapped within a criteria cell or subunit. The Project is also consistent with the MSHCP policies found in Section 6 which include Riparian/Riverine Areas/ Vernal Pools; Narrow Endemic Plant Species; Urban/Wildlands Interface; and Surveys for Special Status Species. The site is not located within an area mapped for Narrow Endemic, Criteria Area Species, Special Status Species, Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pools, and Urban/Wildlife Interface. The site is within an area for burrowing owl surveys, the results of which were negative. Therefore, the Project is consistent with MSCHP policies and conditions.
Nesting Birds
Since there is some habitat within the immediate surrounding area that is suitable for nesting birds in general, the following mitigation measure should be implemented if any future construction is proposed:
To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common, migratory, and special status) regardless of the time of year during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist retained by the Project applicant will conduct pre‐construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) within 3 days prior to Project‐related disturbance within the entire Project site and a 300-foot buffer around the Project site at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows and cavities. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the qualified avian biologist shall establish a disturbancefree buffer until additional surveys can be completed prior to the commencement of ground disturbing Project activities. If an active nest is found, the qualified avian biologist will set appropriate no‐work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity, and duration of the disturbance. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the qualified avian biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The qualified avian biologist shall not risk failure of the nest to determine the exact location or status and shall make every effort to limit the nest to potential predation as a result of the survey/monitoring efforts (e.g., limit number of surveyors, limit time spent at/near the nest, scan the site for potential nest predators before approaching, immediately depart nest area if indicators of stress or agitation are displayed). The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird. The qualified avian biologist shall use their best professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate. The nests and buffer zones shall be field-checked daily weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no‐work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.
Burrowing Owls
2131
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 20
The Project site does contain low quality habitat for this species. As such protocol surveys were completed and were found to be negative. To prevent any potential impacts to this species, pre-construction surveys are required prior to any ground disturbance. The following mitigation measure should be implemented.
A Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days prior to any ground disturbance activities. Surveys shall be completed following the recommendationsand guidelines provided within the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside MSHCP (RCA, 2006). Surveys should be conducted during weather that is conducive to observing owls outside their burrows and detecting burrowing owl sign. Surveys will not be accepted if they are conducted during rain, high winds (> 20 mph), dense fog, or temperatures over 90 °F. Surveys should be conducted in the morning one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise or in the early evening two hours before sunset to one hour after sunset.
Count and map all burrowing owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with owl sign. Record the location of all owls including numbers of pairs and juveniles and any behavior such as courtship and mating. Map the extent of all suitable habitat. It should be noted that owl sign may not be detectable if surveys are conducted within 5 days following rain.
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished herein, and in the attached exhibits present data and information required for this analysis to the best of my ability, and the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This report was prepared in accordance with professional requirements and standards. Fieldwork conducted for this assessment was performed by me. I certify that I have not signed a non-disclosure or consultant confidentiality agreement with the project proponent and that I have no financial interest in the project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 909-534-4547 should you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
Gene Jennings
Principal/Regulatory Specialist
Appendices:
Appendix A – Figures
Appendix B – Site Photos
Appendix C – Regulatory Framework
Appendix D – Tables
2132
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 21
Section 5 – REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (editors) 2012 The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, and M.W. Schwartz. 1999 Terrestrial Plant Ecology, Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Menlo Park, CA.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
2025 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind Version 3.1.0. Database Query.
Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. [Accessed February 2026] California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Memo from C.F. Raysbrook, Interim Director to Biologist, Environmental Services Division, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012.
California Department of Transportation. Water Quality Planning Tool. http://svctenvims.dot.ca.gov/wqpt/wqpt.aspx (Accessed February 2026) California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
2025 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org; [Accessed February 2026].
Sawyer, J.O., Jr., T. Keeler-Wolf, J. Evens
2009 A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2025 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions [Online Edition]. Website https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [Accessed February 2026].
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1999, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Hydric Soils List [Online Edition]. Website
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.html [Accessed February 2026].
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Volume 1 – The Plan (2003). https://www.wrc-rca.org/Permit_Docs/MSHCP/MSHCP-Volume%201.pdf Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions https://www.wrc-rca.org/species/survey_protocols/burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf 2133
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 22
Appendix A - Figures
2134
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 23
2135
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 24
2136
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 25
Appendix B - Photos
2137
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 26
Photo 1 –
Northwest
corner of
parcel, facing
east.
Photo 2 –
Northwest
corner of
parcel, facing
southeast.
2138
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 27
Photo 3 –
Northwest
corner of
parcel, facing
south.
Photo 4 –
Northwest
corner of
parcel, facing
southeast.
2139
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 28
Appendix C – Regulatory Framework
2140
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 29
1.1 FEDERAL JURISDICTION
1.1.1 United States Army Corps of Engineers
Activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California are regulated by agencies at the federal, state, and regional levels. At the federal level, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Program regulates activities within wetlands and waters of the US pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA).
At the state level, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities within the bed, bank, and associated habitat of a stream under the Fish and Game Code §§ 1600– 1616. The California State Water Resources Board (SWRB) delegates authority at the regional level to Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) that are responsible for regulating discharge into waters of the US under Section 401 of the federal CWA and waters of the State under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act.
The CWA was implemented to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Waters of the United States (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 328 Section 328.3). “Waters of the US” are defined as follows:
§ 328.3 Definitions.
For the purpose of this regulation these terms are defined as follows:
(a) Waters of the United States means:
(1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; (2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section;
(3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section:
(i) That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; or
(ii) That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3)(i) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; or 2141
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 30
(iii) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section when the wetlands either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(5) Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
(i) That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3)(i) of this section; or (ii) That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) The following are not ‘‘waters of the United States’’ even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section:
(1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act; (2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities.
Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA;
(3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water; (4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased;
(5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing; (6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons;
(7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
(8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.
(c) In this section, the following definitions apply:
2142
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 31
(1) Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
(2) Adjacent means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like are ‘‘adjacent wetlands.’’
(3) High tide line means the line of intersection of the land with the water’s surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide. The high tide line may be determined, in the absence of actual data, by a line of oil or scum along shore objects, a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell or debris on the foreshore or berm, other physical markings or characteristics, vegetation lines, tidal gages, or other suitable means that delineate the general height reached by a rising tide. The line encompasses spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency but does not include storm surges in which there is a departure from the normal or predicted reach of the tide due to the piling up of water against a coast by strong winds such at those accompanying a hurricane or other intense storm.
(4) Ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
(5) Tidal waters means those waters that rise and fall in a predictable and measurable rhythm or cycle due to the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun. Tidal waters end where the rise and fall of the water surface can no longer be practically measured in a predictable rhythm due to masking by hydrologic, wind, or other effects.
(6) Significantly affect means a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. To determine whether waters, either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, have a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the
functions identified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section will be assessed and the factors identified in paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section will be considered:
(i) Functions to be assessed:
2143
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 32
(A) Contribution of flow;
(B) Trapping, transformation, filtering, and transport of materials (including nutrients, sediment, and other
pollutants);
(C) Retention and attenuation of floodwaters and runoff; (D) Modulation of temperature in waters identified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
(E) Provision of habitat and food resources for aquatic species located in waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(ii) Factors to be considered:
(A) The distance from a water identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(B) Hydrologic factors, such as the frequency, duration, magnitude, timing, and rate of hydrologic connections,
including shallow subsurface flow;
(C) The size, density, or number of waters that have been determined to be similarly situated;
(D) Landscape position and geomorphology; an
(E) Climatological variables such as temperature, rainfall, and snowpack.
1.2 STATE JURISDICTION
The State of California (State) regulates discharge of material into waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA as well as the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne; California Water Code, Division 7, §13000 et seq.). Waters of the State are defined by Porter-Cologne as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (Water Code Section 13050(e)). Waters of the State broadly includes all waters within the State’s boundaries (public or private), including waters in both natural and artificial channels.
1.2.1 Regional Water Quality Control Board
Under Porter-Cologne, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the local Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) regulate the discharge of waste into waters of the State.
Discharges of waste include “fill, any material resulting from human activity, or any other ‘discharge’ that may directly or indirectly impact ‘waters of the state.’” Porter-Cologne reserves the right for the State to regulate activities that could affect the quantity and/or quality of surface and/or groundwaters, including isolated wetlands, within the State. Wetlands were defined as waters of the State if they demonstrated both wetland hydrology and hydric soils. Waters of the State determined to be jurisdictional for these purposes require, if impacted, waste discharge requirements (WDRs).
2144
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 33
When an activity results in fill or discharge directly below the OHWM of jurisdictional waters of the United States (federal jurisdiction), including wetlands, a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required. If a proposed project is not subject to CWA Section 401 certification but involves activities that may result in a discharge to waters of the State, the project may still be regulated under Porter-Cologne and may be subject to waste discharge requirements. In cases where waters apply to both CWA and Porter-Cologne, RWQCB may consolidate permitting requirements to one permit.
1.2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife.
CDFW defines a “stream” (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 1.72). The jurisdiction of CDFW may include areas in or near intermittent streams, ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams that are indicated on USGS maps, watercourses that may contain subsurface flows, or within the flood plain of a water body.
CDFW’s definition of “lake” includes “natural lakes or man-made reservoirs.” CDFW limits of jurisdiction typically include the maximum extents of the uppermost bank-to-bank distance and/or the outermost extent of riparian vegetation dripline, whichever measurement is greater.
In a CDFW guidance of stream processes and forms in dryland watersheds (Vyverberg 2010), streams are identified as having one or more channels that may all be active or receive water only during some high flow event. Subordinate features, such as low flow channels, active channels, banks associated with secondary channels, floodplains, and stream-associated vegetation, may occur within the bounds of a single, larger channel. The water course is defined by the topography or elevations of land that confine a stream to a definite course when its waters rise to their highest level. A watercourse is defined as a stream with boundaries defined by the maximal extent or expression on the landscape even though flow may otherwise be intermittent or ephemeral.
Artificial waterways such as ditches (including roadside ditches), canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other artificially created water conveyance systems also may be under the jurisdiction of CDFW. CDFW may claim jurisdiction over these features based on the presence of habitat characteristics suitable to support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, and/or streamdependent terrestrial wildlife. As with natural waterways, the limit of CDFW jurisdiction of 2145
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 34
artificial waterways includes the uppermost bank-to-bank distance and/or the outermost extent of riparian vegetation dripline, whichever measurement is greater.
CDFW does not have jurisdiction over wetlands but has jurisdiction to protect against a net loss of wetlands. CDFW supports the wetland criteria recognized by USFWS; one or more indicators of wetland conditions must exist for wetlands conditions to be considered present. The following is the USFWS accepted definition of a wetland:
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes:
(1) at least periodically, the lands supports hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated withwater or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Cowardin et al. 1979).
In A Clarification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wetland Definition (Tiner 1989), the USFWS definition was further clarified “that in order for any area to be classified as wetland by the Service, the area must be periodically saturated or covered by shallow water, whether wetland vegetation and/or hydric soils are present or not; this hydrologic requirement is addressed in the first sentence of the definition.” When considering whether an action would result in a net loss of wetlands, CDFW will extend jurisdiction to USFWS-defined wetland conditions where such conditions exist within the riparian vegetation that is associated with a stream or lake and does not depend on whether those features meet the three-parameter USACE methodology of wetland determination. If impacts to wetlands under the jurisdiction of CDFW are unavoidable, a mitigation plan will be implemented in coordination with CDFW to support the CDFW policy of “no net loss” of wetland habitat.
2146
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 35
Appendix D – Tables
2147
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT, CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Jennings Environmental P a g e | 36
Table 1. Species Observed On-Site
Common Name Scientific Name
Plants
Cheeseweed Malva parviflora
Alfalfa Medicago sativa
Short-pod mustard Hirschfeldia incana
Lambs quarters Chenopodium album
Lemon gum Corymbia citriodora
Tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca
Tumbleweed Salsola tragus
Telegraph weed Heterotheca grandiflora
Jimson weed Datura stramonium
Birds
Common raven Corvus corax
American kestrel Falco sparverius
American robin Turdus migratorius
House finch Haemorhous mexicanus
House sparrow Passer domesticus
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya
American pipit Anthus rubescens
2148
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 37
Table 2 – CNDDB Potential to Occur for the Corona North, Ontario, Guasti, and Prado Dam Quadrangles Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Abronia villosa var.
aurita
chaparral sandverbena None, None G5T2?, S2,
1B.1
Chaparral, coastal scrub,
desert dunes. Sandy
areas. -60-1570 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Actinemys pallida southwestern
pond turtle
Proposed
Threatened,
None
G2, SNR,
CDFW-SSC
Slow-moving streams,
rivers, lakes, ponds, and
wetlands from sea level to
6,500 feet in Southern
California and Baja
California
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird
None,
Threatened
G3, S2,
CDFW-SSC
Highly colonial species,
most numerous in Central
Valley and vicinity.
Largely endemic to
California. Requires open
water, protected nesting
substrate, and foraging
area with insect prey
within a few km of the
colony.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
southern
California rufouscrowned sparrowNone, None G5T3, S4,
CDFW-WL
Resident in Southern
California coastal sage
scrub and sparse mixed
chaparral. Frequents
relatively steep, often
rocky hillsides with grass
and forb patches.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2149
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 38
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Ammodramus
savannarum
grasshopper
sparrow
None, None G5, S3,
CDFW-SSC
Dense grasslands on
rolling hills, lowland
plains, in valleys and on
hillsides on lower
mountain slopes. Favors
native grasslands with a
mix of grasses, forbs and
scattered shrubs. Loosely
colonial when nesting.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Anniella stebbinsi
Southern
California legless
lizard
None, None G3, S3,
CDFW-SSC
Generally south of the
Transverse Range,
extending to
northwestern Baja
California. Occurs in
sandy or loose loamy
soils under sparse
vegetation. Disjunct
populations in the
Tehachapi and Piute
Mountains in Kern
County. Variety of
habitats; generally in
moist, loose soil. They
prefer soils with a high
moisture content.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None, None G4, S3,
CDFW-SSC
Deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands
and forests. Most
common in open, dry
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2150
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 39
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
habitats with rocky areas
for roosting. Roosts must
protect bats from high
temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance
of roosting sites.
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle None, None G5, S3,
CDFW-FP
Rolling foothills,
mountain areas, sagejuniper flats, and desert.
Cliff-walled canyons
provide nesting habitat in
most parts of range; also,
large trees in open areas.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy
snake None, None G5T2, S2, CDFW-SSC
Patchily distributed from
the eastern portion of San
Francisco Bay, southern
San Joaquin Valley, and
the Coast, Transverse,
and Peninsular ranges,
south to Baja California.
Generalist reported from
a range of scrub and
grassland habitats, often
with loose or sandy soils.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Artemisiospiza belli
belli Bell's sparrow None, None
G5T2T3,
S3, CDFWWL
Nests in chaparral
dominated by fairly dense
stands of chamise. Found
in coastal sage scrub in
south of range. Nest
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2151
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 40
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
located on the ground
beneath a shrub or in a
shrub 6-18 inches above
ground. Territories about
50 yds apart.
Asio otus long-eared owl None, None G5, S3?,
CDFW-SSC
Riparian bottomlands
grown to tall willows and
cottonwoods; also, belts
of live oak paralleling
stream courses. Require
adjacent open land,
productive of mice and
the presence of old nests
of crows, hawks, or
magpies for breeding.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
orange-throated
whiptail None, None G5, S2S3, CDFW-WL
Inhabits low-elevation
coastal scrub, chaparral,
and valley-foothill
hardwood habitats.
Prefers washes and other
sandy areas with patches
of brush and rocks.
Perennial plants
necessary for its major
food: termites.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Astragalus
brauntonii
Braunton's milkvetchEndangered,
None
G2, S2,
1B.1
Chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill
grassland. Recent burns
or disturbed areas;
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2152
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 41
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
usually on sandstone with
carbonate layers. Soil
specialist; requires
shallow soils to defeat
pocket gophers and open
areas, preferably on
hilltops, saddles or bowls
between hills. 3-640 m.
Astur cooperii Cooper's hawk None, None G5, S4,
CDFW-WL
Woodland, chiefly of
open, interrupted or
marginal type. Nest sites
mainly in riparian growths
of deciduous trees, as in
canyon bottoms on river
flood-plains; also, live
oaks.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
None,
Candidate
Endangered
G4, S2,
CDFW-SSC
Open, dry annual or
perennial grasslands,
deserts, and scrublands
characterized by lowgrowing vegetation.
Subterranean nester,
dependent upon
burrowing mammals,
most notably, the
California ground
squirrel.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Atriplex coulteri Coulter's
saltbush None, None G3, S2, 1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub,
coastal dunes, coastal
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
2153
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 42
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Ocean bluffs,
ridgetops, as well as
alkaline low places.
Alkaline or clay soils. 2-
460 m.
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberry Endangered,
Endangered
G1, S1,
1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
riparian scrub. On steep,
N-facing slopes or in low
grade sandy washes. 90-
1590 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Bombus crotchii Crotch's bumble
bee
None,
Candidate
Endangered
G2, S2
Coastal California east to
the Sierra-Cascade crest
and south into Mexico.
Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia,
Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and
Eriogonum.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Bombus
pensylvanicus
American
bumble bee None, None G3G4, S2
Long-tongued; forages on
a wide variety of flowers
including vetches (Vicia),
clovers (Trifolium),
thistles (Cirsium),
sunflowers (Helianthus),
etc. Nests above ground
under long grass or
underground. Queens
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2154
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 43
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
overwinter in rotten wood
or underground.
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk None,
Threatened G5, S4
Breeds in grasslands with
scattered trees, junipersage flats, riparian areas,
savannahs, and
agricultural or ranch
lands with groves or lines
of trees. Requires
adjacent suitable foraging
areas such as grasslands,
or alfalfa or grain fields
supporting rodent
populations.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
California Walnut
Woodland
California Walnut
Woodland None, None G2, S2.1 Cismontane woodland This habitat type is absent from the Project site.
Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily None, None G4, S4, 4.2
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
valley and foothill
grassland, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest. Occurs
on rocky and sandy sites,
usually of granitic or
alluvial material. Can be
very common after fire.
60-2500 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily None, None G3G4T3, S3, 1B.2
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
valley and foothill
grassland. Dry, rocky
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
2155
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 44
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
calcareous slopes and
rock outcrops. 60-1575
m.
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Calystegia felix lucky morningglory None, None G1, S1, 1B.1
Meadows and seeps,
riparian scrub.
Sometimes alkaline,
alluvial. 9-205 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Camissoniopsis
lewisii
Lewis' eveningprimrose None, None G4, S4, 3
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal dunes, Coastal
scrub, Valley and foothill
grassland
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
coastal cactus
wren
None, None G5T3Q, S2,
CDFW-SSC
Southern California
coastal sage scrub.
Wrens require tall opuntia
cactus for nesting and
roosting.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis smooth tarplant None, None G3G4T2, S2, 1B.1 Valley and foothill
grassland, chenopod
scrub, meadows and
seeps, playas, riparian
woodland. Alkali
meadow, alkali scrub;
also in disturbed places.
5-1170 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Chaetodipus fallax
fallax
northwestern San
Diego pocket
mouse
None, None G5T3T4,
S3S4
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
grasslands, sagebrush,
etc. in western San Diego,
Riverside, San
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2156
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 45
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Bernardino, and Los
Angeles Counties,
inclusive of Orange
County. Sandy,
herbaceous areas,
usually in association
with rocks or coarse
gravel.
Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry's
spineflower None, None G3T2, S2, 1B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill
grassland. Dry slopes and
flats; sometimes at
interface of 2 vegetation
types, such as chaparral
and oak woodland. Dry,
sandy soils. 90-1220 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Cladium
californicum
California sawgrass
None, None G4, S2,
2B.2
Meadows and seeps,
marshes and swamps
(alkaline or freshwater).
Freshwater or alkaline
moist habitats. -40-2150
m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellowbilled cuckooThreatened,
Endangered G5T2T3, S1
Riparian forest nester,
along the broad, lower
flood-bottoms of larger
river systems. Nests in
riparian jungles of willow,
often mixed with
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2157
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 46
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
cottonwoods, with lower
story of blackberry,
nettles, or wild grape.
Coleonyx
variegatus abbotti
San Diego
banded gecko None, None
G5T5,
S1S2,
CDFW-SSC
Coastal and cismontane
Southern California.
Found in granite or rocky
outcrops in coastal scrub
and chaparral habitats.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Convolvulus
simulans
small-flowered
morning-glory None, None G4, S4, 4.2
Chaparral (openings),
Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Coturnicops
noveboracensis yellow rail None, None G4, S2, CDFW-SSC
Summer resident in
eastern Sierra Nevada in
Mono County. Freshwater
marshlands.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Crotalus ruber red-diamond
rattlesnake None, None G4, S3, CDFW-SSC
Chaparral, woodland,
grassland, and desert
areas from coastal San
Diego County to the
eastern slopes of the
mountains. Occurs in
rocky areas and dense
vegetation. Needs rodent
burrows, cracks in rocks
or surface cover objects.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Deinandra
paniculata
paniculate
tarplant None, None G4, S4, 4.2
Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland, Vernal
pools
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
2158
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 47
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Diplectrona
californica
California
diplectronan
caddisfly
None, None G2, S1 Aquatic
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Dipodomys
merriami parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
Endangered,
Endangered
G5T1, S1,
CDFW-SSC
Alluvial scrub vegetation
on sandy loam substrates
characteristic of alluvial
fans and flood plains.
Needs early to
intermediate seral stages.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephens'
kangaroo rat
Threatened,
Threatened G2, S3
Primarily annual and
perennial grasslands, but
also occurs in coastal
scrub and sagebrush with
sparse canopy cover.
Prefers buckwheat,
chamise, brome grass
and filaree. Will burrow
into firm soil.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-horned
spineflower
Endangered,
Endangered
G1, S1,
1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub
(alluvial fan sage scrub).
Flood deposited terraces
and washes; associates
include Encelia, Dalea,
Lepidospartum, etc.
Sandy soils. 200-765 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2159
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 48
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed
dudleya None, None G2, S2, 1B.2
Chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill
grassland. In heavy, often
clayey soils or grassy
slopes. 1-910 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite None, None G5, S3S4,
CDFW-FP
Rolling foothills and valley
margins with scattered
oaks and river
bottomlands or marshes
next to deciduous
woodland. Open
grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging
close to isolated, densetopped trees for nesting
and perching.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Empidonax traillii
extimus
southwestern
willow flycatcher
Endangered,
Endangered G5T2, S3 Riparian woodlands in Southern California.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
Santa Ana River
woollystar
Endangered,
Endangered
G4T1, S1,
1B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral.
In sandy soils on river
floodplains or terraced
fluvial deposits. 180-705
m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat None, None
G4G5T4,
S3S4,
CDFW-SSC
Many open, semi-arid to
arid habitats, including
conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2160
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 49
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
scrub, grasslands,
chaparral, etc. Roosts in
crevices in cliff faces,
high buildings, trees and
tunnels.
Gila orcuttii arroyo chub None, None G1, S2,
CDFW-SSC
Native to streams from
Malibu Creek to San Luis
Rey River basin.
Introduced into streams
in Santa Clara, Ventura,
Santa Ynez, Mojave and
San Diego river basins.
Slow water stream
sections with mud or
sand bottoms. Feeds
heavily on aquatic
vegetation and
associated invertebrates.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Gonidea angulata western ridged
mussel None, None G3, S2
Primarily creeks and
rivers and less often
lakes. Originally in most
of state, now extirpated
from Central and
Southern California.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula mesa horkelia None, None G4T1, S1, 1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub.
Sandy or gravelly sites.
15-1645 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2161
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 50
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Icteria virens yellow-breasted
chat None, None G5, S4, CDFW-SSC
Summer resident;
inhabits riparian thickets
of willow and other
brushy tangles near
watercourses. Nests in
low, dense riparian,
consisting of willow,
blackberry, wild grape;
forages and nests within
10 ft of ground.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Juglans californica
Southern
California black
walnut
None, None G4, S4, 4.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Riparian woodland
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Juncus acutus ssp.
leopoldii
southwestern
spiny rush None, None G5T5, S4, 4.2
Coastal dunes (mesic),
Coastal scrub, Marshes
and swamps (coastal
salt), Meadows and seeps
(alkaline seeps)
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow
bat None, None G4G5, S3, CDFW-SSC
Found in valley foothill
riparian, desert riparian,
desert wash, and palm
oasis habitats. Roosts in
trees, particularly palms.
Forages over water and
among trees.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail
None,
Threatened
G3T1, S2,
CDFW-FP
Inhabits freshwater
marshes, wet meadows
and shallow margins of
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
2162
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 51
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
saltwater marshes
bordering larger bays.
Needs water depths of
about 1 inch that do not
fluctuate during the year
and dense vegetation for
nesting habitat.
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass
None, None G5T3, S3,
4.3 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
Dry soils, shrubland. 4-
1435 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Lilium humboldtii
ssp. ocellatum
ocellated
Humboldt lily None, None G4T4?, S4?, 4.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Lower montane
coniferous forest,
Riparian woodland
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Microseris douglasii
ssp. platycarpha
small-flowered
microseris None, None G4T4, S4, 4.2
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland, Vernal
pools
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Monardella
australis ssp.
jokerstii
Jokerst's
monardella None, None G4T1?, S1?, 1B.1
Lower montane
coniferous forest,
chapparal. Steep scree or
talus slopes between
breccia. Secondary
alluvial benches along
drainages and washes.
210-1740 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2163
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 52
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Muhlenbergia
californica California muhly None, None G4, S4, 4.3
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
lower montane
coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps.
Usually found near
streams or seeps. 100-
2000 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Muhlenbergia utilis aparejo grass None, None G4, S2S3,
2B.2
Meadows and seeps,
marshes and swamps,
chaparral, coastal scrub,
cismontane woodland.
Sometimes alkaline,
sometimes serpentinite.
25-2325 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate vernal
pool navarretia None, None G2, S2, 1B.2
Coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal
pools, meadows and
seeps. Alkaline soils in
grassland, or in vernal
pools. Mesic, alkaline
sites. 3-1235 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Neolarra alba white cuckoo bee None, None GH, SH
Known only from
localities in Southern
California.
Cleptoparasitic in the
nests of perdita bees.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert
woodrat None, None
G5T3T4,
S3S4,
CDFW-SSC
Coastal scrub of Southern
California from San Diego
County to San Luis
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
2164
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 53
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Obispo County. Moderate
to dense canopies
preferred. They are
particularly abundant in
rock outcrops, rocky
cliffs, and slopes.
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed freetailed bat None, None G5, S3,
CDFW-SSC
Variety of arid areas in
Southern California; pinejuniper woodlands, desert
scrub, palm oasis, desert
wash, desert riparian, etc.
Rocky areas with high
cliffs.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Nyctinomops
macrotis big free-tailed bat None, None G5, S3, CDFW-SSC Low-lying arid areas in
Southern California. Need
high cliffs or rocky
outcrops for roosting
sites. Feeds principally on
large moths.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop.
10 steelhead -
southern
California DPS
Endangered,
Endangered G5T1Q, S1
Federal listing refers to
populations from Santa
Maria River south to
southern extent of range
(San Mateo Creek in San
Diego County). Southern
steelhead likely have
greater physiological
tolerances to warmer
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2165
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 54
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
water and more variable
conditions.
Pantosteus
santaanae
Santa Ana sucker Threatened,
None
G1, S1,
CDFW-SSC
Endemic to Los Angeles
Basin south coastal
streams. Habitat
generalists, but prefer
sand-rubble-boulder
bottoms, cool, clear
water, and algae.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse None, None
G5T2,
S1S2,
CDFW-SSC
Lower elevation
grasslands and coastal
sage communities in and
around the Los Angeles
Basin. Open ground with
fine, sandy soils. May not
dig extensive burrows,
hiding under weeds and
dead leaves instead.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Phacelia stellaris Brand's star
phacelia None, None G1, S1, 1B.1
Coastal scrub, coastal
dunes. Open areas. 3-370
m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard None, None G4, S4, CDFW-SSC
Frequents a wide variety
of habitats, most
common in lowlands
along sandy washes with
scattered low bushes.
Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2166
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 55
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
of loose soil for burial,
and abundant supply of
ants and other insects.
Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Threatened,
None
G4G5T3Q,
S2, CDFWSSC
Obligate, permanent
resident of coastal sage
scrub below 2500 ft in
Southern California. Low,
coastal sage scrub in arid
washes, on mesas and
slopes. Not all areas
classified as coastal sage
scrub are occupied.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbittobacco None, None G4, S2,
2B.2
Riparian woodland,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, chaparral.
Sandy, gravelly sites. 35-
515 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly
Endangered,
None G1T1, S1,
Found only in areas of the
Delhi Sands formation in
southwestern San
Bernardino and
northwestern Riverside
counties. Requires fine,
sandy soils, often with
wholly or partly
consolidated dunes and
sparse vegetation.
Oviposition req. shade.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2167
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 56
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Riversidian Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub
None, None G1, S1.1 Coastal scrub This habitat type is absent from the Project site.
Romneya coulteri Coulter's matilija
poppy
None, None G4, S4, 4.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Setophaga petechia yellow warbler None, None G5, S3,
CDFW-SSC
Riparian plant
associations in close
proximity to water. Also
nests in montane
shrubbery in open conifer
forests in Cascades and
Sierra Nevada. Frequently
found nesting and
foraging in willow shrubs
and thickets, and in other
riparian plants including
cottonwoods, sycamores,
ash, and alders.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom None, None G4, S2, 2B.2
Playas, chaparral, coastal
scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest,
Mojavean desert scrub.
Alkali springs and
marshes. 3-2380 m.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Southern California
Arroyo Chub/Santa
Ana Sucker Stream
Southern
California Arroyo None, None GNR, SNR Inland Waters This habitat type is absent from the Project site. 2168
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 57
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Chub/Santa Ana
Sucker Stream
Southern
Cottonwood Willow
Riparian Forest
Southern
Cottonwood
Willow Riparian
Forest
None, None G3, S3.2 Riparian forest This habitat type is absent from the Project site.
Southern Sycamore
Alder Riparian
Woodland
Southern
Sycamore Alder
Riparian
Woodland
None, None G4, S4, Riparian woodland This habitat type is absent from the Project site.
Southern Willow
Scrub
Southern Willow
Scrub None, None G3, S2.1 Riparian scrub This habitat type is absent from the Project site.
Spea hammondii western
spadefoot
Proposed
Threatened,
None
G2G3,
S3S4,
CDFW-SSC
Occurs primarily in
grassland habitats, but
can be found in valleyfoothill hardwood
woodlands. Vernal pools
are essential for breeding
and egg-laying.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster
None, None G2, S2,
1B.2
Meadows and seeps,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous
forest, marshes and
swamps, valley and
foothill grassland.
Vernally mesic grassland
or near ditches, streams
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2169
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 58
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
and springs; disturbed
areas. 3-2045 m.
Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake None, None G4, S3S4, CDFW-SSC
Coastal California from
vicinity of Salinas to
northwest Baja California.
From sea to about 7,000
ft elevation. Highly
aquatic, found in or near
permanent fresh water.
Often along streams with
rocky beds and riparian
growth.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Thamnophis sirtalis
pop. 1
south coast
gartersnake None, None
G5T1T2,
S1S2,
CDFW-SSC
Southern California
coastal plain from
Ventura County to San
Diego County, and from
sea level to about 850 m.
Marsh and upland
habitats near permanent
water with good strips of
riparian vegetation.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Thysanocarpus
rigidus rigid fringepod None, None G2, S2, 1B.2
Pinyon and juniper
woodland. Dry, rocky
slopes and ridges of oak
and pine woodland in arid
mountain ranges. 425-
2165.
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Endangered,
Endangered G5T2, S3 Summer resident of Southern California in low Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
2170
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 59
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
riparian in vicinity of water
or in dry river bottoms;
below 2000 ft. Nests
placed along margins of
bushes or on twigs
projecting into pathways,
usually willow, Baccharis,
mesquite.
this species is considered
absent from the Project site.
2171
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION, AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE EASTVALE 3 PROJECT,
CITY OF EASTVALE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jennings Environmental P a g e | 60
Coding and Terms
E = Endangered T = Threatened C = Candidate FP = Fully Protected SSC = Species of Special Concern R = Rare
State Species of Special Concern: An administrative designation given to vertebrate species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited acreages, and/or continuing threats. Raptor and owls are protected under section 3502.5 of the California Fish and Game code: “It is unlawful to take, possess or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird.”
State Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State's initial effort in the 1960's to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.
Global Rankings (Species or Natural Community Level):
G1 = Critically Imperiled – At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.
G2 = Imperiled – At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.
G3 = Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.
G4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
G5 = Secure – Common; widespread and abundant.
? = Uncertainty in the exact status of an element (could move up or down one direction from current rank) Subspecies Level: Taxa which are subspecies or varieties receive a taxon rank (T-rank) attached to their G-rank. Where the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species, the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies. For example: the Point Reyes mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa ssp. phaea is ranked G5T2. The G-rank refers to the whole species range i.e., Aplodontia rufa. The T-rank refers only to the global condition of ssp. phaea.
State Ranking:
S1 = Critically Imperiled – Critically imperiled in the State because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State.
S2 = Imperiled – Imperiled in the State because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the State.
S3 = Vulnerable – Vulnerable in the State due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the State.
S4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare in the State; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
S5 = Secure – Common, widespread, and abundant in the State.
California Rare Plant Rankings (CNPS List):
1A = Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2A = Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere. 2B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. 3 = Plants about which more information is needed; a review list. 4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.
Threat Ranks:
.1 = Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 = Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) 2172
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
APPENDIX C
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
2173
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
EASTVALE 3 PROJECT AT 7500 HELLMAN AVENUE
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 144-070-016,-017, -018, and -020 City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
City of Eastvale
Community Development Department, Planning Division
12363 Limonite Avenue, Suite 910
Eastvale, CA 91752
Prepared for:
Warmington Residential, Southern California Division
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Daniel Ballester, Principal Investigator
February 12, 2026
Revised March 23, 3036
CRM TECH Contract No. 4355A
2174
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Eastvale 3 Project at 7500 Hellman Avenue, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 144-070-016, -017, -018, and -020, City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California Authors: Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Elizabeth Beckner, Archaeologist/Report Writer
Hunter O’Donnell, Archaeologist
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: February 12, 2026; revised March 23, 3036
For Submittal to: City of Eastvale
Community Development Department, Planning Division
12363 Limonite Avenue, Suite 910
Eastvale, CA 91752
(951) 334-3253
Prepared for: Brian Taylor
Warmington Residential, Southern California Division
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(805) 305-3651
USGS Quadrangle: Corona North, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle; T2S R7W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Rancho Jurupa land grant)
Project Size: 3.22 acres
Keywords: San Bernardino Valley region; Phase I cultural resources survey; No Impact on “historical resources” under CEQA
2175
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Between November 2025 and February 2026, at the request of Warmington Residential, Southern California Division, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on 3.22 acres of vacant urban land in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 144-070-016, -017, -018, and -020, located at 7500 Hellman Avenue, north of Walter Street, in a portion of the Rancho Jurupa land grant lying within what would be Section 34 of Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted in the United States Geological Survey Corona North, California, 7.5’ quadrangle.
The study is a part of the environmental review process for the proposed subdivision of the property for the development of 35 single-family homes. The City of Eastvale, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of this study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the project would cause a substantial adverse change to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area. To identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resourcesrecordssearch, initiated a Sacred Lands File search, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey.
Throughout the course of these research procedures, the current study encountered no “historical resources” that may be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Eastvale a conclusion of No Impact regarding “historical resources.” No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are discovered during earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
2176
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING.............................................................................................................................................. 4 Current Natural Setting..................................................................................................................... 4 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5 Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5 Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5 Historic Context............................................................................................................................ 7 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 7 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 7 Sacred Lands File Search.................................................................................................................. 8 Historical Background Research....................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey...................................................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS AND FINDINGS................................................................................................................ 8 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8 Sacred Lands File Search................................................................................................................ 10 Historical Background Research..................................................................................................... 10 Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 13 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................................... 14 Statutory and Regulatory Guidelines.............................................................................................. 14 Summary of Findings...................................................................................................................... 14 Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................................. 15 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications............................................................................................ 18 APPENDIX 2: Native American Sacred Lands File Search Results.................................................. 22 APPENDIX 3: Previous Cultural Resources Studies near the Project Area ...................................... 26
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity....................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Project area ............................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 3. Satellite image of the project area ......................................................................................... 3 Figure 4. Overview of the project area ................................................................................................. 4 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies........................................................................................ 9 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1853-1884......................................................................... 12 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1894-1899......................................................................... 12 Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1939 .................................................................................. 12 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1954......................................................................... 13 Figure 10. The project area and vicinity in 1966-1967....................................................................... 13 2177
1 INTRODUCTION
Between November 2025 and February 2026, at the request of Warmington Residential, Southern California Division, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on 3.22 acres of vacant urban land in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The subject property of the study consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 144-070-016, -017, -018, and -020, located at 7500 Hellman Avenue, north of Walter Street, in a portion of the Rancho Jurupa land grant lying within what would be Section 34 of Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Corona North, California, 7.5’ quadrangle (Figures 2 , 3 ).
The study is a part of the environmental review process for the proposed subdivision of the property for the development of 35 single-family homes. The City of Eastvale, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000 et seq.). The purpose of this study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the project would cause a substantial adverse change to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, initiated a Sacred Lands File search, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. Based on USGS San Bernardino and Santa Ana, Calif., 120’x60’ quadrangles (USGS 1969; 1979).
2178
2 Figure 2. Project area. Based on USGS Corona North and Prado Dam, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles (USGS 1981a; 1981b). 2179
3 Figure 3. Satellite image of the project area. Based on Google Earth imagery. 2180
4 SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Eastvale is located in the southern portion of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, where the natural landscape is characterized by an east-west trending series of steep mountain ranges and valleys (Jenkins 1980). The area lies near the southwestern rim of the San Bernardino Valley, on the gentle slope of an alluvial fan extending south from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the Santa Ana River, the main natural waterway in the valley. The Mediterranean climate of the region is typical of inland southern California lowlands, featuring hot, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The average annual rainfall in the region is approximately 12 inches, most of which typically occurs between November and March.
The L-shaped project area is situated on the western edge of the Eastvale city limits, wrapping around the northern and eastern sides of a formerly rural residential property at the northeastern corner of Hellman Avenue and Walters Street. It is surrounded by suburban residential neighborhoods on the west, north, and east, with the Rondo Elementary School of Discovery across Walters Street to the south. Elevations within the project boundaries range approximately from 573 feet to 582 feet above mean sea level, and the terrain is relatively level with a slight incline towards the north. Vegetation observed on the property includes grasses throughout, with large California pepper trees in the center of the project area. Also present on the property are several debris mounds with various types of modern trash (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Overview of the project area, view to the west. (Photograph taken on December 17, 2025) 2181
5 CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The earliest evidence of human occupation in inland southern California was discovered below the surface of an alluvial fan in the northern portion of the Lakeview Mountains in Riverside County, overlooking the San Jacinto Valley, with radiocarbon dates clustering around 9,500 B.P. (Horne and McDougall 2008). Another site found near the shoreline of Lake Elsinore, close to the confluence of Temescal Wash and the San Jacinto River, yielded radiocarbon dates between 8,000 and 9,000 B.P. (Grenda 1997). Additional sites with isolated Archaic dart points, bifaces, and other associated lithic artifacts from the same age range have been found in the nearby Cajon Pass area, typically atop knolls with good viewsheds (Basgall and True 1985; Goodman and McDonald 2001; Goodman 2002; Milburn et al. 2008).
The cultural history of southern California has been summarized into numerous chronologies, including the works of Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), Warren (1984), and others. The prehistory of the inland region specifically has been addressed by O’Connell et al. (1974), McDonald, et al. (1987), Keller and McCarthy (1989), Grenda (1993), Goldberg (2001), and Horne and McDougall (2008). Although the beginning and ending dates of different cultural horizons vary in different parts of the region, the general framework of the prehistory of inland southern California can be divided into three primary periods:
• Paleoindian Period (ca. 18,000-9,000 B.P.): Native peoples of this period created fluted spearhead bases designed to be hafted to wooden shafts. The distinctive method of thinning bifaces and spearhead preforms by removing long, linear flakes leaves diagnostic Paleoindian markers at tool-making sites. Other artifacts associated with the Paleoindian toolkit include choppers, cutting tools, retouched flakes, and perforators. Sites from this period are very sparse across the landscape and most are deeply buried.
• Archaic Period (ca. 9,000-1,500 B.P.): Archaic sites are characterized by abundant lithic scatters of considerable size with many biface thinning flakes, bifacial preforms broken during manufacture, and well-made groundstone bowls and basin metates. As a consequence of making dart points, many biface thinning waste flakes were generated at individual production stations, which is a diagnostic feature of Archaic sites.
• Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 1,500 B.P.-contact): Sites from this period typically contain small lithic scatters from the manufacture of small arrow points, expedient groundstone tools such as tabular metates and unshaped manos, wooden mortars with stone pestles, acorn or mesquite bean granaries, ceramic vessels, shell beads suggestive of extensive trading networks, and steatite implements such as pipes and arrow shaft straighteners.
Ethnohistoric Context
The City of Eastvale is situated near the eastern edge of the traditional territory of the Gabrielino, a Takic-speaking people who were considered among the most populous and powerful ethnic group in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978:538). The Gabrielino’s territory spanned from San Clemente Island along the coast to the present-day San Bernardino-Riverside area and south into southern Orange County, and their influence spread as far as the San Joaquin Valley, the Colorado 2182
6 River, and Baja California. The leading ethnographic sources on Gabrielino culture and history include Bean and Smith (1978), Miller (1991), and McCawley (1996). The following summary is based mainly on these sources.
Prior to European contact, native subsistence practices were defined by the varying surrounding landscape and primarily based on the cultivating and gathering of wild foods, hunting, and fishing, exploiting nearly all of the resources available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. In inland areas, the predominant food sources included acorns, piñon nuts, other seeds, roots, wild fruits/berries, and wild onions. Medicinal and ceremonial plants such as yerba buena, elderberry, and sage were typically cultivated near villages. Common game animals included deer, antelope, rabbits, wood rats, fish, and waterfowl. Coastal Gabrielino utilized marine resources and had an advanced maritime navigation technology with an emphasis on the ti’at, the plank canoe used by only a handful of groups in North America (Gamble 2002).
Both inland and coastal Gabrielino populations had a variety of technological skills that they used to acquire subsistence, shelter, and medicine or to create ornaments and decorations. Common tools included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from locally sourced material as well as those procured through trade or travel. They also used wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers, as well as baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking. However, much of this material cultural, elaborately decorated, does not survive in the archaeological record. As usual, the main items found archaeologically relate to subsistence activities.
The intricacies of Gabrielino social organization are not well known, although evidence suggests the existence of a moiety system in which various clans belonged to one or the other of two main social/ cultural divisions. There also seems to have existed at least three hierarchically ordered social classes, topped with an elite consisting of the chiefs, their immediate families, and the very rich.
Some individuals owned land, and property boundaries were marked by the owner’s personalized symbol. Villages were politically autonomous, composed of nonlocalized lineages, each with its own leader. The dominant lineage’s leader was usually the village chief, whose office was generally hereditary through the male line. Often several villages were allied under the leadership of a single chief. The villages did engage in warfare against one another, resulting in what some consider to be a state of enmity between coastal and inland Gabrielino groups.
As early as 1542, the Gabrielino were in contact with the Spanish during the historic expedition of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, but it was not until 1769 that the Spaniards took steps to colonize Gabrielino territory. Shortly afterwards, most of the Gabrielino people were incorporated into Mission San Gabriel and other missions in southern California. Due to forced labor, dietary deficiencies, introduced diseases, and forceful reduction, Gabrielino population dwindled rapidly. By 1900, they had almost ceased to exist as a culturally identifiable group (Bean and Smith 1978:540).
In recent decades, however, there has been a renaissance of Native American activism and cultural revitalization among groups of Gabrielino descendants, including the reconstruction and utilization of ti’at and incorporating the ethnographic names Kizh and Tongva into official documentation (Stickel 2016).
2183
7 Historic Context
The present-day northwestern Riverside County received its earliest European visitors during the early and mid-1770s, shortly after the beginning of Spanish colonization of Alta California in 1769 (Beck and Haase 1974:15). In the early 19th century, the area was known as Rancho Jurupa, one of Mission San Gabriel’s principal land holdings (Gunther 1984:259). Despite these early contacts, no Europeans are known to have settled in the area until after the Mexican authorities, upon gaining independence from Spain, began to dismantle the mission system in Alta California in 1834. During the next 12 years, the former mission ranchos were surrendered to the Mexican government and subsequently divided and granted to various prominent citizens of the province. In 1838, Juan Bandini, then administrator of Mission San Gabriel, secured Rancho Jurupa for himself and became the first non-Indian to settle in the area when he built an adobe home on a bluff overlooking the Santa Ana River (ibid.).
In 1870, the Riverside Colony was founded on a portion of Rancho Jurupa and became the first major settlement in northwestern Riverside County. A few years later, the successful introduction of the navel orange in Riverside led to the rapid spread of citrus cultivation throughout southern California and propelled the budding town to the forefront of the thriving citrus industry. To the southwest of Riverside, the town of Corona, originally named South Riverside, was founded in 1886, during a land boom that swept through much of southern California. Closer to Eastvale, the town of Norco, whose name was coined from “North Corona,” was founded in 1923, after the failure of a 1910-1911 subdivision scheme in the same area (Gunther 1984:354). Found to be unsuitable for citrus cultivation, Norco instead centered its growth on a country club, a golf course, and a 50-acre lake named Norconian that the promoters of the town built near a hot sulphur well (ibid.).
A late boomer in the region, Eastvale came into being as a community only in the early 2000s, in response to the ever-increasing demand for affordable housing in southern California. It was among several new communities emerging from two expansive agricultural preserves, Chino and Mira Loma, that were dominated by large dairy farms until the preserve designations were removed (County of Riverside 2003; San Bernardino County Sentinel 2013). Almost fully urbanized as a typical “bedroom community,” Eastvale boasted a population of 53,668 in 2010, the year when the city was incorporated (USCB n.d.). The name of the city derives from the Eastvale School District, which has served the area since 1893 (Gunther 1984:170). The origin of the school district’s name, however, “has not yet been revealed” (ibid.).
RESEARCH METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
As the project location lies along the Riverside-San Bernardino county line, the records search for this study was conducted at the designated repositories for both counties, namely the South Central Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University for Riverside County and the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, for San Bernardino County. The portion of the records search at the SCCIC was completed by CRM TECH archaeologist Eulices Lopez on December 18, 2025, and the portion at the SCIC was completed by CRM TECH archaeologist Dierdre Encarnación on January 13, 2026. 2184
8 The records search entailed a systematic examination of the SCIC’s and SCCIC’s digital maps, records, and databases for previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports within a one-mile radius of the project area. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks or Points of Historical Interest as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory.
SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
On December 2, 2025, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File. The response from the NAHC is summarized below and attached to this report in Appendix 2.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH archaeologist Elizabeth Beckner. Sources consulted during the research included published literature in local history, historical maps of the Eastvale area, and aerial/satellite photographs of the project vicinity. Among the maps consulted for this study were U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1876-1881 and USGS topographic maps dated 1902-1981, which are available at the websites of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the USGS. The aerial and satellite photographs, taken in 1938-2025, are available at the Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online website, through the Google Earth software, and from the Geospatial Collection of the University of California (Santa Barbara) Library.
FIELD SURVEY
On December 17, CRM TECH archaeologist Melissa Portilla carried out the field survey of the project area. The survey was completed at an intensive level by walking a series of parallel east-west transects spaced 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart and inspecting all exposed ground surfaces for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older). Visibility of the native soils was poor (0-5%) in most of the project area because the ground was obscured by dense vegetation. In the areas with some exposed soils, mainly underneath the trees, visibility was fair (5-10%), although much of the ground was covered in a layer of dead vegetation. Considering the history of past disturbances to the ground surface within the project area, the level of visibility was deemed to be acceptable for the purpose of this study.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
According to SCIC and SCCIC records, the project area was covered by a previous cultural resources study completed in 2018 (Brunzell and Orozco 2018; RI-10501 in Figure 5). That study was conducted on the same parcels as the current project area and included a records search and a pedestrian field survey that also utilized 15-meter transects (ibid.:4-5). No cultural resources were 2185
9 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity, listed by SCIC and SCCIC file numbers. Locations of historical/archaeological resources are not shown as a protective measure. 2186
10 identified on the property during the 2018 study (ibid.:6). Since that study is now seven years old, it is considered out-of-date for statutory compliance purposes today.
Outside of project boundaries but within the one-mile scope of the records search, SCIC and SCCIC records indicate more than 50 additional studies carried out on various tracts of land and linear features between 1975 and 2020 (Figure 5; see Appendix 3 for further information). These and other similar studies nearby resulted in the identification of 31 historical/archaeological resources within the records search scope, including 3 prehistoric (i.e., Native American) archaeological sites and 28 historic-period resources, as listed in Table 1. None of these localities was found within the project boundaries, although three of them, 33-016681/36-013627, 33-020285, and 33-020286, were recorded on properties adjacent to the project area.
33-016681/36-013627 represents an early 20th century power transmission line known as the Southern Sierras Power Company “O” Line, which extended from the San Bernardino area into Orange County (Dice 2007). A segment of its right-of-way lies just outside the northern project boundary. When it was first recorded in 2007, this resource was determined not to be a significant resource because of the loss of historic integrity (ibid.:15). 33-020285 was recorded in 2011 as a 1950s dairy property with a residence and a milking parlor (Yates 2011a). Located across Walters Street from the project location, it has since been removed. 33-020286 consists of the residential property at the corner of Hellman Avenue and Walters Street, which contained four buildings when it was recorded in 2011, including the Minimal Traditional-style main residence built in 1953, a modern modular home, a tractor garage, and a rectangular building of unknown use (Yates 2011b).
The existing record offers no indication whether it was evaluated for significance at the time.
None of the other 28 known cultural resources was found in the immediate vicinity of the project area, the nearest ones being several hundred feet away. The three prehistoric sites among them all consisted of groundstone and chipped-stone artifacts. One of them is known to have been removed by construction activities, and another was partially damaged. The historic-period resources consisted predominantly of residential buildings and dairy farms, some of which have been destroyed to make way for residential development projects. Other features recorded at the historicperiod localities included irrigation works and structural remains.
SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the NAHC reports in a letter dated December 10, 2025, that the Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity (see Appendix 2). Noting that the lack of specific information in the Sacred Lands File does not necessarily indicate the absence of such resources, however, the NAHC recommended that local Native American groups be consulted for further information and provided a referral list of 48 individuals associated with 24 local Native American groups. The NAHC’s reply is attached in Appendix 2 for reference by the City of Eastvale in future government-to-government consultations with the pertinent tribal groups, if necessary.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical maps and aerial photographs consulted during this study suggest that the project area is relatively low in sensitivity for potentially significant cultural resources from the historic period. 2187
11 Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Scope of the Records Search Resource Number Date Recorded Description
33-006669 1983 Residential building, ca. 1915
33-013346 2004 Residential building, 1940; no longer extant 33-013347 2004 Dairy complex, ca. 1958; no longer extant 33-013348 2004 Residential building, ca. 1958; no longer extant 33-013775 2004 Residential building, two sheds, and multiple dairy outbuildings, ca. 1911-1915; no longer extant
33-013776 2004 Residential building and milking house, early 1950s; no longer extant
33-013783 2004 Residential building, ca. early 1950s
33-016681/CA-RIV-013014H 2018, 2016, 2007 Power transmission line, late 1920s; also 36-013627/CA-SBR012613H in San Bernardino County 33-020263 2011 Numerous buildings and pole barns, ca. 1955-1965; no longer extant
33-020264 2011
Dairy property: dairy parlor, two residential buildings with detached garages, and ancillary buildings, ca. 1950-1955; no longer extant
33-020265 2011 Residential & agricultural buildings, ca. 1961; no longer extant 33-020285 2011 Dairy property: residential building and milking parlor with cow stalls, ca. 1950; no longer extant
33-020286 2011 Property with residential building (ca. 1953), modern modular home, and ancillary buildings
33-020287 2011 Two residential buildings, ca. 1945; no longer extant 33-029412 2020 Three residential buildings on one parcel, 1932-1950 33-029413 2020 Residential building, 1966
33-029414 2020 Residential building, 1966
36-002845/CA-SBR-002845 2008, 1985,
1983, 1980, 1978
Prehistoric site with mano, lithic scatters, metate fragments, and chipped stone
36-005244/CA-SBR-005244 1983 Prehistoric site with manos and metates; site destroyed during leveling for construction of dairy
36-005274/CA-SBR-005274 1984 Prehistoric site: mortars, pestles, projectile points; site damaged by trenching during well construction
36-013408 2007 McClean Ranch/Arthur Farms, ca. 1942-1953 36-013410 2007 Historic-period structures, 1957
36-013412/CA-SBR-012573H 2007 Fuqua Ditch, ca. 1870-1880s 36-013627/CA-SBR-012613H 2019, 2017,
2012, 2011, 2007
Power transmission line, late 1920s; also 33-016681/CA-RIV013014H in Riverside County 36-019872 2015, 2009 Clark Ranch, ca. 1940s
36-020641 2005 Residential building, ca. 1927
36-020642 2005 Residential building, ca. 1930s
36-020643 2005 Residential building, ca. 1930s
36-020644 2005 Residential building, ca. 1930s
36-020645 2005 Dairy barn, ca. 1950s
36-028586 2012 Two residential buildings, equestrian center, and composting facility, ca. 1936-1963
36-033117 2019 Concrete pads, ca. 1938-1959
Prior to 1900, no notable human-made features were known to be present within or adjacent to the project boundaries except roadways, including the forerunner of Hellman Avenue, which was in place by the late 1890s (Figures 6, 7). During the late 19th and early to mid-20th century, land use in the project vicinity was dominated by agriculture, with cultivated fields and orchards occupying most of the land and scattered buildings lining the grid of roads (Figures 8-10; NETR 1938-1959; 2188
12 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1853-1884.
Source: GLO 1876; 1881.
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1894-1899.
Source: USGS 1902.
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1939. Source:
USGS 1942.
Pacific Air Industries 1953). By the late 1930s,
two other linear features joined Hellman
Avenue along the various boundaries of the
project area: the transmission line previously
recorded as Site 33-016681/36-013627 and the
unpaved forerunner of Walters Street (Figure 8).
During the post-WWII boom, rural development
accelerated in the surrounding area (NETR
1948-1980; Pacific Air Industries 1953; Figures
9, 10). In particular, dairy farms proliferated to
the north and northwest of the project location
as dairy farmers displaced by suburban
expansion in the Los Angeles Basin arrived in
the Chino Basin in search of fresh pasture
(ibid.).
Within the project boundaries, it was not until
1980 that the land began to be developed, with
the southeastern portion being graded and a
metal holding pen and ramp constructed along
Walters Street (NETR 1980). By 1985, the
majority of the project area had been graded
(NETR 1985). In the 1990s, the eastern portion
2189
13 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1954.
Source: USGS 1954.
Figure 10. The project area and vicinity in 1966-1967.
Source: USGS 1967.
of the property was used for the storage of large trucks and shipping containers, and a building was constructed in the center of that area by 1998 (NETR 1994; 1998). The dairy farms in the surrounding land flourished until the early to mid-2000s, when tracts of single-family homes began to dominate the landscape (NETR 1998-2005). Meanwhile, much of the project continued to be use as a storage area until 2021 (NETR 1994-2022; Google Earth 1994-2022).
By 2022, the property had been cleared of all the trucks and shipping containers, leaving an asphalt drive, a concrete walkway, the pen and ramp, the building, and some debris around the trees in the center of the project area (Google Earth 2022). The building was demolished shortly after that, and the rubble from the demolition remained on the property (Google Earth 2023-2025). Since then, while there has been an increased amount of refuse collected in piles near the center of the project area, little change has occurred elsewhere on the property (ibid.).
FIELD SURVEY
The field survey produced negative results for any potential “historical resources” from either the prehistoric or the historic period. During the survey, the holding pen and ramp, asphalt drive, concrete walkway, rubble from the building, and piles of refuse were found to remain extant on the property. The ramp and platform are made of rusting, aged metal and concrete, similar to those used for equestrian mounting. To the east of the ramp and platform is the holding pen made of rusting metal pipes, wire, and sheet metal. East of the holding pen is the asphalt drive and concrete walkway, which run north from the main access gate at Walters Street. Between the asphalt drive and walkway there is a low-lying concrete wall that is approximately two feet high. As discussed 2190
14 above, all of these features and items are known to be modern in origin, and none of them is of any historical or archaeological interest.
DISCUSSION
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY GUIDELINES
CEQA establishes that “a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC §21084.1). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.” As defined by PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.” More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c))
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In summary of the research results outlined above, no potential “historical resources” were previously recorded within the project area, and none was found during the present survey. In addition, the Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources in the vicinity, and no notable cultural features were known to be present in the project area throughout the historic period. Furthermore, the extensively disturbed surface and near-surface soils in the project area do not appear to be particularly sensitive for buries archaeological deposits from the prehistoric or early historic period. Based on these findings, and in light of the criteria listed above, the present study concludes that no “historical resources” exist within the project area. 2191
15 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Eastvale a conclusion of No Impact regarding “historical resources.” No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. Accordingly, the proposed project may be cleared to proceed in compliance with CEQA provisions on cultural resources under the following standard condition as formulated by the City of Eastvale:
If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall cease and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find(s). If the discovery proves to be significant under the California Environment Quality Act, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted and shall be reported to the City.
REFERENCES
Basgall, Mark E., and D.L. True
1985 Archaeological Investigations in Crowder Canyon, 1973-1984: Excavations at Sites SBR421B, SBR-421C, SBR-421D, and SBR-713, San Bernardino County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California; pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Brunzell, David, and Joseph Orozco
2018 Cultural Resources Assessment: Eastvale Self Storage Project, Eastvale, Riverside County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Chartkoff, Joseph L., and Kerry Kona Chartkoff
1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
County of Riverside
2003 Board of Supervisors Resolution 2003-72: Diminishment of Mira Loma Agricultural Preserve No. 5. On file, Clerk of the Board, Riverside.
Dice, Michael
2007 California Historical Resources Inventory record form, Site 30-179857/33-016681/36- 013627. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton, and South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Gamble, Lynn H.
2002 Archaeological Evidence for the Origin of the Plank Canoe in North America. American Antiquity 67(2):301-315.
GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1876 Plat Map: Township No. 3 North, Range No. 8 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian; surveyed in 1853-1884.
2192
16 1881 Plat Map: Township No. 2 South, Range No. 7 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian; surveyed in 1875.
Goldberg, Susan K. (ed.)
2001 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project: Final Report of Archaeological Investigations. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Goodman, John D., II
2002 Archaeological Survey of the Charter Communications Cable Project, Mountaintop Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, California. San Bernardino National Forest Technical Report 05-12-BB-102.
Goodman, John D., II, and M. McDonald
2001 Archaeological Survey of the Southern California Trials Association Event Area, Little Pine Flats, Mountaintop Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, California. San Bernardino National Forest Technical Report 05-12-BB-106.
Google Earth
1994-2025 Aerial/satellite photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005- 2007, 2009, and 2011-2025. Available through Google Earth software.
Grenda, Donn
1993 Archaeological Treatment Plan for CA-RIV-2798/H, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. 1997 Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore. Statistical Research Technical Series 59. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Jane Davies Gunther, Riverside.
Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall
2008 CA-RIV-6069: Early Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the San Jacinto Valley, Western Riverside County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Jenkins, Olaf P.
1980 Geomorphic Provinces Map of California. California Geology 32(2):40-41.
Keller, Jean S., and Daniel F. McCarthy
1989 Data Recovery at the Cole Canyon Site (CA-RIV-1139), Riverside County, California.
Pacific Coast Archeological Society Quarterly 25.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California, and Ballena Press, Novato, California.
McDonald, Meg, Philip J. Wilke, and Andrea Kauss
1987 McCue: An Elko Site in Riverside County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9(1):46-73.
Milburn, Doug, U.K. Doan, and John D. Goodman II
2008 Archaeological Investigation at Baldy Mesa-Cajon Divide for the Baldy Mesa OffHighway-Vehicle Recreation Trails Project, San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino County, California. San Bernardino National Forest Technical Report 05-12-53-091.
Miller, Bruce W.
1991 The Gabrielino. Sand River Press, Los Osos, California. 2193
17 NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research Online) 1938-2022 Aerial/satellite photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1967, 1980, 1985, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022. http://www.historicaerials.com.
O’Connell, James F., Philip J. Wilke, Thomas F. King, and Carol L. Mix (eds.) 1974 Perris Reservoir Archaeology: Late Prehistoric Demographic Change in Southeastern California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Pacific Air Industries
1953 Flight AXM-1953B, Frame 7K-51. Retrieved from the University of California (Santa Barbara) Library, Geospatial Collection. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.
San Bernardino County Sentinel, The
2013 As Development in Ag Preserve Stalls, County Seeking to Sustain Dairies. March 25. http://sbsentinel.com/2013/03/as-development-in-ag-preserve-stalls-county-seeking-to-sustaindairies/.
Stickel, E. Gary
2016 Why the Original Indian Tribe of the Greater Los Angeles Area Is Called Kizh Not Tongva. Kizh Tribal Press, San Gabriel, California.
USCB (United States Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce) n.d. State and County Quick Facts: Eastvale, California. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states/06/0621230.html.
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1902 Map: Corona, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1894 and 1899. 1942 Map: Corona, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photos taken in 1939. 1954 Map: Corona North, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photos taken in 1952, field-checked in 1954.
1967 Map: Corona North, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photos taken in 1966, field-checked in 1967.
1969 Map: San Bernardino, Calif. (120’x60’, 1:250,000); 1958 edition revised. 1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (120’x60’, 1:250,000); 1959 edition revised. 1981a Map: Corona North, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1967 edition photorevised in 1978. 1981b Map: Prado Dam, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1967 edition photorevised in 1978.
Warren, Claude N.
1984 The Desert Region. In Michael J. Moratto (ed.): California Archaeology; pp. 339-430.
Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Yates, Tim
2011a California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, Site 33-020285. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. 2011b California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, Site 33-020286. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. 2194
18 APPENDIX 1:
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, HISTORY/ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.
Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, University of California, Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China. 2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, University of California, Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, University of California, Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.
Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991. 2195
19 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, ARCHAEOLOGY
Daniel Ballester, M.S., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist) Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California. 1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California, Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 2021 An Introduction to Geoarchaeology: How Understanding Basic Soils, Sediments, and Landforms Can Make You a Better Archaeologist; Society for American Archaeology online seminar.
2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University, San Bernardino.
2002 Historic Archaeology Workshop; presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base, at CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
Professional Experience
2025- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2002-2025 Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California.
2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California. 2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Field Director, co-author, and contributor to numerous cultural management reports since 2002.
Memberships
Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology. 2196
20 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Elizabeth L. Beckner, Ph.D.
Education
2024 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 2017 M.A., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 2016 B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 2014 A.A., Anthropology, Chaffey College, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Professional Experience
2025- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California. 2025 Lecturer, California State University, San Bernardino. 2019- Adjunct Instructor, Chaffey College, Rancho Cucamonga, California. 2019 Archaeologist, Dudek, Pasadena, California
2017-2019 Teaching Assistant, University of California, Riverside. 2018 Archaeologist, Proyecto Sacbé Cobá-Yaxuna (Sacbé Cobá-Yaxuna Project), Cobá, Quintana Roo, Mexico.
2016-2017 Field Assistant, Proyecto de Interacción Política del Centro de Yucatán (Political Interaction Project of Central Yucatan), Yaxuna, Yucatan, Mexico. 2015-2017 Information Officer, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
Publication
2023 T.W. Stanton, Traci Ardren, Nicolas C. Barth, Juan C. Fernandez Diaz, Steph J.
Miller, Karl A. Taube, Patrick Rohrer, Elizabeth Beckner, and Aline Magnoni:
Roads, Temples, and the Community Boundaries of Cobá, Quintana Roo. In T.H.
Guderjan and J.P. Mathews (eds.): Construction of Maya Space: Causeways, Walls, and Open Areas from Ancient to Modern Times; pp. 71-98. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Melissa A. Portilla, B.A.
Education
2023 A.A. (cum laude), Anthropology, Fullerton College. 2019 B.A., Ancient History: Classics, University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Professional Experience
2023- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California. 2023-2024 Project Archaeologist, Psomas, Pasadena, California. 2020 Collections Assistant, Museum of Us, San Diego, California. 2197
21 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Deirdre Encarnación, M.A.
Education
2003 M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, California. 2000 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Biology, with honors; San Diego State University, California.
2021 Certificate of Specialization, Kumeyaay Studies, Cuyamaca College/KCC. 2001 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University. 2000 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.
Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2023- Director of Education, Salaam USA, San Diego, California. 2016- Archaeological/cultural consultant, Friends of Maha’ulepu, Koloa, Hawaii. 2001-2003 Part-time Lecturer, San Diego State University, California. 2001 Research Assistant for Dr. Lynn Gamble, San Diego State University. 2001 Archaeological Collection Catalog, SDSU Foundation.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/NATIVE AMERICAN LIAISON
Eulices Lopez, B.S.
Education
2015 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 2013 A.A., Anthropology, East Los Angeles College, Monterey Park, California.
Professional Experience
2024- Project Archaeologist/Native American Liaison, CRM TECH, Colton, California. 2017-2024 Deputy Coordinator, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 2017-2024 Director Assistant, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 2017-2024 Curator Facilitator, Archaeological Curation Unit, University of California, Riverside. 2014-2015 Information Officer, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 2013 Lithic Analyst Assistant, Anthropology Department, East Los Angeles College, Monterey Park, California.
2012 Hominid Cast Fossils Cataloger, Anthropology Department, East Los Angeles College, Monterey Park, California.
2198
22 APPENDIX 2
NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED LANDS FILE
SEARCH RESULTS
2199
23 2200
24 Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
12/10/2025
Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address Cultural Affiliation
Counties
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 Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Indians
F Tribal Operations, 84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
(760) 398-4722 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
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 Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Cahuilla Band of Indians F Erica Schenk, Chairperson 52701 CA Highway 371 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 590-0942 (951) 763-2808 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Cahuilla Band of Indians F Anthony Madrigal, Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Cahuilla Band of Indians F BobbyRay Esparza, Cultural
Director
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe F Jonathan Koteen, President P.O.Box 1899 Yuma, AZ, 85365
(760) 919-3600 [email protected] Quechan Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe F Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85365
(760) 919-3631 [email protected] Quechan Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
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 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
N Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
(844) 390-0787 [email protected] Gabrieleno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
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 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
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 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
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] Gabrielino Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation N Sandonne Goad,
Chairperson
13191 Crossroads Parkway North,
Suite 375
City of Industry, CA, 91746
(951) 807-0479 [email protected] Gabrielino Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe N Sam Dunlap, Cultural
Resource Director
P.O. Box 3919
Seal Beach, CA, 90740
(909) 262-9351 [email protected] Gabrielino Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe N Charles Alvarez, Chairperson 23454 Vanowen Street West Hills, CA, 91307
(310) 403-6048 [email protected] Gabrielino Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians
N Sonia Johnston, Chairperson P.O. Box 25628
Santa Ana, CA, 92799
[email protected] Juaneno Orange, Riverside, San Diego 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 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A
N Nathan Banda, Chairman 31411-A La Matanza Street
San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675
(949) 426-8804 [email protected] Juaneno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A
N Shannon Wingfield, Secretary 31411-A La Matanza Street San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675
(949) 488-3484 Juaneno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A
N Heidi Lucero, THPO/MLD 31411-A La Matanza Street
San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675
(562) 879-2884 [email protected] Juaneno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians F Wesley Ruise, Tribal Chairman
22000 Highway 76
Pauma Valley, CA, 92061
(760) 742-3771 [email protected] Luiseno Orange, Riverside, San Diego 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
Cupeno
Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
F Lena Broderick, Executive
Assistant to Tribal Chairman
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5110 [email protected] Cahuilla
Serrano
Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego,
Ventura
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
F Bernadette Ann Brierty, Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 663-2842 [email protected] Cahuilla
Serrano
Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego,
Ventura
2201
25 Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
F Charles Martin, MBMI
Chairman
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5110 [email protected] Cahuilla
Serrano
Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego,
Ventura
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
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego
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
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego
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
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego
Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians F Lucia Majel, Pauma Cultural Resource Project Manager
P.O. Box 369
Pauma Valley, CA, 92061
(760) 742-1289 [email protected] Luiseno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura
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 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, Ventura
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 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, Ventura
Ramona Band of Cahuilla F Joseph Hamilton,
Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
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 Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
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 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, Ventura
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 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, Ventura
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 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, Ventura
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 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, Ventura
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 Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
F Mercedes Estrada, Cultural
Director
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
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 Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
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
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
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
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
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 Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
F Alesia Reed, Cultural
Committee Chairwoman
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
F Abraham Becerra, Cultural
Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
F Gary Resvaloso, TM MLD P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 777-0365 [email protected] Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
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 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 3 Project at 7500 Hellman Avenue Project, Riverside County.
Record: PROJ-2025-006660
Report Type: List of Tribes
Counties: Riverside
NAHC Group: All
2202
26 APPENDIX 3
PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE RECORDS SEARCH
2203
27 Report
No. Other IDs Authors Year Title
RI-01505 NADB-R - 1081779;
Voided - MF-1589 LERCH, MICHAEL K. 1982
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE SANTA ANA REGIONAL
INTERCEPTOR, REACHES IV-D AND IV-E, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE
COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
RI-03590 NADB-R - 1085077;
Voided - MF-3862 HALE, ALICE 1997
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY, CHINO BASIN DESALINATION PROGRAM: WATER PIPELINES,
WELLS, AND RESERVOIR
RI-03889 NADB-R - 1084796;
Voided - MF-4247 DROVER, CHRISTOPHER 1993
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION: A CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE 748 ACRE EASTVALE PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
RI-04703 NADB-R - 1086070 WHITE, ROBERT S. and
LAURA S. WHITE 2004
A CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 31476, A
40.42-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
HELLMAN AVENUE AND WALTERS STREET, MIRA LOMA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY RI-04923 NADB-R - 1086285;
Submitter - BCB-04-519
HOOVER, ANNA M. and
JULIA FOX 2004
A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT AND HISTORICAL
EVALUATION: TRACT 31826, APNS 144-050-001 TO -005 AND 144-060-002, -003, AND -014, 106-ACRE PROPERTY, NORCO, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA RI-04924 NADB-R - 1086286;
Submitter - BCB-04-540
HOOVER, ANNA M. and
JULIA FOX 2004
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORIC EVALUATION REPORT: TRACT 31309, APNS 144-020-004, 144-020, 012, -013 AND 144-020-015, 110-ACRE PROPERTY, NORCO,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
RI-04926 NADB-R - 1086288;
Submitter - TB-03-R141
IRISH, LESLIE NAY,
KRISTIE R. BLEVINS,
ANNA M. HOOVER, and
HUGH M. WAGNER
2003 A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALENTOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT ON TR 30735, APNS 130-060-001 AND -015 TO -017, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA RI-04984
NADB-R - 1086346;
Submitter - 05-03-06-742;
Voided - RI-09355
MCKENNA ET AL. 2003
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT: A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED ENCLAVE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RI-05001
NADB-R - 1086363;
Submitter - 09-01-10-
609B
MCKENNA ET AL. 2001
A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION OF TRACT 29677, THE
OSTERKAMP PROPERTY, IN THE PRADO BASIN AREA OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
RI-05049 NADB-R - 1086411 MCKENNA ET AL. 2003
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT: A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED EASTVALE WATER AND SEWER MASTER
PLAN, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RI-05052 NADB-R - 1086414;
Submitter - 11-02-03-690 MCKENNA ET AL. 2003
A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED
EASTVALE WATER AND SEWER MASTER PLAN, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
RI-05396 NADB-R - 1086759;
Submitter - No. HII230 DICE, MICHAEL 2004 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, AMBERHILL MEADOWS TRACT 30480, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA RI-05400 NADB-R - 1086763 HOOVER, ANNA and
KRISTIE BELVINS 2005
A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD SEARH AND SURVEY REPORT FOR TRACT 32491, APNS 144-020-003, 43.87 ACRES, NORCO, COUNTY, OF RIVERSIDE, CA
RI-05662 NADB-R - 1087025;
Submitter - CA-1602 Erika Thal 2005 Letter Report: Proposed Cellular Tower Project(s) in Riverside County, California, Site Name/Number: CA-1602/ Farm Country 2204
28 RI-05815 NADB-R - 1087178;
Submitter - 05-64
POLLOCK, KATHERINE
H. and MICHAEL K.
LERCH
2005
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FO THREE ALTERNATE SITES FOR THE PROPOSED
KIMBALL SUBSTATION, RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES,
CALIFORNIA
RI-05951 NADB-R - 1087314;
Submitter - 1103
TANG, BAI, MICHAEL
HOGAN, CASEY TIBBET,
and DANIEL BALLESTER
2003
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 130-030-017, NEAR THE CITY OF NORCO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
RI-06461 NADB-R - 1087826;
Submitter - #1270
TANG, BAI, MICHAEL
HOGAN, CASEY TIBBET,
and DANIEL BALLESTER
2004 HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT, TENTATIVE TRACT NO.31622, NEAR THE CITY OF NORCO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA RI-06544 NADB-R - 1087911;
Submitter - #1884A
TANG, BAI, MICHAEL
HOGAN, DEIRDRE
ENCARNACION,
NICHOLAS HEARTH,
JOSH SMALLWOOD, and
TERRI JACQUEMAIN
2006
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT, THE RANCH AT EASTVALE, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 144-010-008, -009, AND -013, NEAR THE
CITY OF NORCO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RI-06548 NADB-R - 1087915;
Submitter - #1700A
TANG, BAI "TOM",
MICHAEL HOGAN,
DEIRDRE
ENCARNACION, and
ROBERT PORTER
2006
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 30791, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 144-060-012 AND -013, NEAR THE
CITY OF NORCO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RI-07097 Katherine H. Pollock 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Bravon 12kV Transmission Line, City of Chino, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.
RI-07098
Anna M. Hoover, MS RPA,
Hugh M. Wagner, and Mark
A. Roeder
2007
An Archaeological and Paleontological Mitigation-Monitoring Report for Tract 31826, APNA 144-050-001 Through -005, 144-060-002, -003 & -014 Norco, County of Riverside, California
RI-07729 Submitter - SP06-833,
AP1
Crull, Scott and Anna
Hoover 2008
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MITIGATION-MONITORING REPORT FOR TRACT 31643,
THE RIVERSTONE PROJECT, IN THE EASTVALE AREA OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA.
RI-07730 Crull, Scott and Anna M.
Hoover 2008
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MITIGATION-MONITORING REPORT FOR TRACT 31961,
THE RIVERWOOD PROJECT, EASTVALE AREA OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA.
RI-08763 Other - PO # 4500436812 Robin Hoffman, Timothy Yates, and Karen Crawford 2012 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Circle City Substation and Mira LomaJefferson Subtransmission Line Project RI-10501 Other - GOS1801 David Brunzell and Joseph
Orozco 2018 Cultural Resources Assessment Eastvale Self Storage Project Eastvale, Riverside County, California RI-10541 Other - PLN18-20008 Brian F. Smith 2018
Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Prado Residential Development (Project No.
PLN18-20008; TTM No. 35751; APN 144-060-041), City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California
RI-10923 Andrew J Garrison and
Brain F Smith 2019 A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study for the Eastvale Self Storage Project Eastvale, California RI-10946 David Brunzell 2020 Historical Resource Evaluation for Eastvale Self Storage Project, City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California
2205
29 SB-00253 NADB-R - 1060253;
Voided - 75-4.3A
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY MUSEUM
ASSOCIATION
1975 ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
SB-00254 NADB-R - 1060254;
Voided - 75-4.3B SUSS, TERRY D. 1975
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT REPORT: RESOURCES EVALUATION OF
CUCAMONGA CREEK AREA, REMINGTON AVENUE - CHINO - CORONA ROAD, U.S.G.S. CORONA NORTH, CALIF.
SB-00530 NADB-R - 1060530;
Voided - 77-8.1 HEARN, JOSEPH E. 1977
ARCHAEOLOGICAL - HISTORICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF
CHINO/CORONA ROAD HO6562 FROM CUCAMONGA AVENUE TO HELLMAN
AVENUE, CHINO AREA
SB-01029 NADB-R - 1061029;
Voided - 80-9.15
FOSTER, JOHN M. and
ROBERTA S.
GREENWOOD
1980
CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW FOR THE SERRANO SUBSTATION TO MIRA LOMA SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION ROUTE ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR RIGHTOF-WAY SB-01287 NADB-R - 1061287;
Voided - 82-7.3 LERCH, MICHAEL K. 1982
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE SANTA ANA REGIONAL
INTERCEPTOR, REACHES IV-D AND IV-E, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE
COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
SB-01358 NADB-R - 1061358;
Voided - 83-2.6
MACKO, MICHAEL E.,
EDWARD B. WEIL, JILL
WEISBORD, and JOHN
COOPER
1983 FINAL REPORT: MIRA LOMA-SERRANO 500 KV DC AND SERRANO-VILLA PARK 220 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SB-01492 NADB-R - 1061492;
Voided - 85-5.2A-B
LANGENWALTER II,
PAUL E. and JAMES
BROCK
1985 PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES: PRADO BASIN AND THE LOWER SANTA
ANA RIVER
SB-01855 NADB-R - 1061855;
Voided - 89-1.9 BROCK, JAMES 1989 HISTORIC RECORDS DATABASE: PRADO BASIN REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION FILES SB-01941 NADB-R - 1061941;
Voided - 89-6.10 HATHEWAY, ROGER G. 1989 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND SITE DOCUMENTATION, PRADO BASIN, CALIFORNIA SB-01942 NADB-R - 1061942;
Voided - 89-6.11
SWANSON, MARK T. and
ROGER G. HATHEWAY 1989 THE DAIRY INDUSTRY OF THE PRADO BASIN SB-02030 NADB-R - 1062030;
Voided - 89-6.13 KIELUSIAK, CAROL 1989 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT - SARI, REACHES IV D & E SB-02058 NADB-R - 1062058;
Voided - 90-1.5
GREENWOOD, ROBERTA
S. and JOHN S. FOSTER 1990 CONTEXT AND EVALUATION OF HISTORIC SITES IN THE PRADO BASIN SB-02400 NADB-R - 1062400
WHITNEY-DESAUTELS,
NANCY and REDERICK A.
SUNDBERG
1991
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT, CHINO BASIN
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CO-COMPOSTING PROJECT, CHINO, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SB-03686 NADB-R - 1063686 HALE, ALICE M. 1997
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT-SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY, CHINO BASIN DESALINATION PROGRAM: WATER PIPELINES, WELLS & RESERVOIR. 26PP
SB-03687 NADB-R - 1063687 LOVE, BRUCE and BAI
TANG 1997
IDENTIFICATION & EVALUATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES-CHINO BASIN
DESALINATION PROGRAM, FACILITIES REVISION PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO & RIVERSIDE COUNTIES. 26PP]
SB-04407 NADB-R - 1064407 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A 2003
A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16419, APPROXIMATELY 300 ACRES IN THE PRADO BASIN ARE OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 49PP
2206
30 SB-04756 NADB-R - 1064756 Pollock, Katherine H. 2006 Archaeological Survey of the New Chino-Kimball 66kV Transmission Line, City of Chino, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.
SB-04757 NADB-R - 1064757
BONNER, WAYNE H.,
AISLIN-KAY, MARNIE,
and ALYNNE LOUPE
2006
CULTURAL RESOUCE RECORDS SEARCH AND SITE VISIT RESULTS FOR CINGULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CANDIDATE ES-0121-02 (KLINEFELTER), 1.9 MILES NORTH OF I-40 ON HIGHWAY 95, NEEDLES, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 92363
SB-04850 NADB-R - 1064850 McKenna, Jeanette A. 2006 Addendum Studies, Eastside Master Plan Amendment and TTM 17058.
SB-05286 NADB-R - 1065286 MCKENNA, JEANETTE 2006
A PHASE 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION OF APPROXIMATELY 102 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE LEWIS OPERATING CORP. PROPERTY SOUTH OF
THE PINE AVENUE IN CHINO, SANBERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SB-06267 Agency Nbr - 1066267 Wetherbee, Matthew, Gavin Archaer, and Mark Deering 2008 Cultural Resource Inventory: Mill Creek Wetlands Recreation and Restoration Demonstration Project, City of Chino, County of San Bernardino, State of California.
SB-06268 NADB-R - 1066268 Wetherbee, Matthew and
Robert Larkin 2007 Cultural Resource Inventory: Mill Creek Recreation Plan Geotechnical Cone Penetration Test Locations and Access Routes, City of Chino, County of San Bernardino, State of California.
SB-07446 NADB-R - 1067446 Tang, Bai "Tom" 2013
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program, Monitoring Wells, Inland Empire Utilities Agency Peace II Project, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.
SB-07655 NADB-R - 1067655 Hoffman, Robin, Timothy
Yates, and Karen Crawford 2012 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed City Substation and Mira LomaJefferson Subtransmission Line Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California.
SB-07896 NADB-R - 1067896 Tang, Bai "Tom" and Terri
Jacquemain 2014 Historic Building Evaluation: John Jaques and Son Dairy, 8612-8724 Pine Avenue, City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California. 2207
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
APPENDIX D
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
2208
Corona Office
Phone: 951.509.7090
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL May 16, 2025
3090 Pullman Street Project No. 1-0602
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attention: Mr. Bret Ilich
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
7500 Hellman Avenue,
City of Eastvale, County of Riverside, California
References: See Appendix A
Dear Mr. Ilich:
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. (Alta) is pleased to present this Geotechnical Investigation for the vacant lot located at 7500 Hellman Avenue in the City of Eastvale, County of Riverside, California. This report is based on Alta’s recent subsurface investigation, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, a review of the referenced reports, and Alta’s staff’s experience with similar projects in this vicinity.
Alta’s review of the geotechnical data indicates that the proposed development is feasible, from a geotechnical perspective, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the grading and improvement plans and implemented during site development.
Included in this report are:
Discussion of the site geotechnical conditions.
Recommendations for remedial and site grading, including unsuitable soil removals. Geotechnical site construction recommendations.
Foundation design parameters.
2209
Project Number 1-0602 Page ii
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
If you have any questions or should you require any additional information, please contact the undersigned at (951) 509-7090. Alta appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical consulting services for your project.
Sincerely,
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. Reviewed By:
_______________________________
NATHAN M. LANKEY
Engineering Geology Associate
___________________________________
SCOTT A. GRAY/RGE 2857
Reg. Exp.: 12-31-26
Registered Geotechnical Engineer
President
_______________________________
LOGAN A. MARQUETTE
Civil Engineering Associate
________________________________
FRANK J. ECHENIQUE/CEG 2134
Reg. Exp.: 7-31-26
Engineering Geologist
Manager of Geologic Services
Distribution: (1) Addressee
NML:SAG 1-0602, May 16, 2025 (Geotechnical Investigation, 7500 Hellman Ave, Eastvale)
2210
Project Number 1-0602 Page iii
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Report Limitations ................................................................................................. 2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Site Location and Existing Conditions .................................................................... 2
2.2 Proposed Development ......................................................................................... 2
3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing .................................................. 2
3.2 Infiltration Testing ................................................................................................. 3
4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Geologic and Geomorphic Setting ......................................................................... 4
4.2 Stratigraphy ........................................................................................................... 4
4.2.1 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Map symbol Qyf) .......................................... 4
4.3 Geologic Structure ................................................................................................. 4
4.3.1 Tectonic Framework .................................................................................. 4
4.3.2 Regionally Mapped Active Faults ............................................................... 5
4.3.3 Geologic Structure ..................................................................................... 5
4.4 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 5
4.5 Earthquake Hazards ............................................................................................... 6
4.5.1 Local and Regional Faulting ....................................................................... 6
4.5.2 Seismicity ................................................................................................... 6
4.5.3 Surface Rupture ......................................................................................... 7
4.5.4 Liquefaction ............................................................................................... 7
4.5.5 Dry Sand Settlement .................................................................................. 9
5.0 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES AND ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 9
5.1 Materials Properties .............................................................................................. 9
5.1.1 Excavation Characteristics ......................................................................... 9
5.1.2 Compressibility .......................................................................................... 9
5.1.3 Moisture .................................................................................................... 9
5.1.4 Hydro-Consolidation ................................................................................ 10
5.1.5 Expansion Potential ................................................................................. 10
5.1.6 Earthwork Adjustments ........................................................................... 10
5.1.7 Chemical Analyses ................................................................................... 11
5.2 Engineering Analysis ............................................................................................ 11
5.2.1 Bearing Capacity and Lateral Earth Pressures .......................................... 11
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 12 2211
Project Number 1-0602 Page iv
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
6.1 General Earthwork Recommendations ................................................................ 12
6.1.1 Site Preparation ....................................................................................... 12
6.1.2 Unsuitable Soil Removals ......................................................................... 12
6.1.3 Over-excavation of Building Pads ............................................................ 13
6.2 General Earthwork Recommendations ................................................................ 13
6.2.1 Compaction Standards ............................................................................. 13
6.2.2 Groundwater/Seepage ............................................................................ 14
6.2.3 Documentation of Removals ................................................................... 14
6.2.4 Treatment of Removal Bottoms .............................................................. 14
6.2.5 Fill Placement .......................................................................................... 14
6.2.6 Moisture Content .................................................................................... 14
6.2.7 Mixing ...................................................................................................... 15
6.2.8 Import Soils .............................................................................................. 15
6.2.9 Utility Trenches ........................................................................................ 15
6.2.9.1 Excavation .......................................................................................................... 15
6.2.9.2 Backfill ............................................................................................................... 16
6.2.10 Backcut Stability ...................................................................................... 16
6.3 Storm Water Infiltration Systems ........................................................................ 17
6.4 Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................... 18
7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................... 18
7.1 Structural Design ................................................................................................. 18
7.1.1 Foundations ............................................................................................. 18
7.1.2 Post-Tensioned Slabs/Foundation Design Recommendations ................. 19
7.2 Moisture Barrier .................................................................................................. 20
7.3 Seismic Design ..................................................................................................... 21
7.4 Block Walls .......................................................................................................... 22
7.5 Footing Excavations ............................................................................................. 22
7.6 Retaining Walls .................................................................................................... 22
7.7 Exterior Slabs and Walkways ............................................................................... 24
7.7.1 Subgrade Compaction .............................................................................. 24
7.7.2 Subgrade Moisture .................................................................................. 24
7.7.3 Concrete Slab Thickness .......................................................................... 24
7.7.4 Concrete Slab Reinforcement .................................................................. 24
7.7.5 Control Joints ........................................................................................... 24
7.8 Concrete Design .................................................................................................. 25
7.9 Corrosion ............................................................................................................. 25
7.10 Site Drainage ....................................................................................................... 25
7.11 Pavement Design ................................................................................................. 26
8.0 LOT MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................... 27 2212
Project Number 1-0602 Page v
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
8.1 Lot Drainage ........................................................................................................ 27
8.2 Burrowing Animals .............................................................................................. 27
9.0 FUTURE PLAN REVIEWS ................................................................................................... 27
10.0 CLOSURE.......................................................................................................................... 28
10.1 Geotechnical Review ........................................................................................... 28
10.2 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
APPENDIX B: SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX C: LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX D: LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E: MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
APPENDIX F: EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX G: GRADING DETAILS
2213
Project Number 1-0602 Page 1
May 16, 2025
Corona Office
Phone: 951.509.7090
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents Alta’s findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development located at 7500 Hellman Avenue in the City of Eastvale, County of Riverside, California.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to examine the existing onsite geotechnical conditions and assess the impacts that the geotechnical conditions may have on the proposed development. This report is suitable for use in developing grading plans and engineer’s cost estimates.
1.2 Scope of Work
Alta’s Scope of Work for this geotechnical investigation included the following:
Reviewing the referenced reports and air photos (Appendix A). Site geologic mapping.
Excavating, logging, and sampling five (5) hollow-stem auger borings to a maximum depth of 51.5-feet below the existing ground surface (Appendix B).
Conducting laboratory testing on samples obtained during our investigation (Appendix C).
Conducting two (2) infiltration tests in two (2) additional borings at depths of 10.0-feet below the ground surface.
Evaluating engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering data, including laboratory data, to develop recommendations for site remedial grading including specialized grading techniques for unsuitable soil removals along the property boundary, import soil, foundations and utilities.
Preparing this report and accompanying exhibits.
2214
Project Number 1-0602 Page 2
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1.3 Report Limitations
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the field and laboratory information generated during this investigation, and a review of the referenced reports. The information contained in this report is intended to be used for development of grading plans and preliminary construction cost estimates.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Location and Existing Conditions
The irregular-shaped, approximately ±3.1-acre site is bounded to the north and east by existing residential developments, to the west by Hellman Avenue, and to the south by Walters Street. The site is currently vacant.
Historic aerial images are available as far back as 1938 and indicate the site was occupied by heavy vegetation throughout. By 1959, the vegetation was removed.
By 1994, multiple structures were constructed and trees planted in the northeastern portion of the site. By 2022, all structures were removed. The site has remained relatively unchanged since (Historic Aerials, 2025).
2.2 Proposed Development
It is our understanding that the site will be developed to support a residential project. We anticipate that conventional cut-and fill-grading techniques will be used to develop the site for the support of wood-frame and stucco construction with shallow foundations and reinforced concrete slabs-on-grade, and associated improvements.
3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
3.1 Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing
Alta conducted a subsurface investigation on April 17th, 2025, consisting of the excavation, logging, and select sampling of six (5) hollow-stem auger borings to a maximum depth of 51.5-feet below the existing ground surface. The locations of 2215
Project Number 1-0602 Page 3
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
the borings are shown on Plate 1 and the boring logs are presented in Appendix B.
Laboratory testing was performed on bulk and ring samples obtained during the field investigation. A brief description of the laboratory test procedures and the test results are presented in Appendix C.
3.2 Infiltration Testing
It is Alta’s understanding that the site may utilize infiltration systems for storm water disposal. Details of the systems are not known at this time.
Infiltration testing was undertaken using ten (10) foot-deep borings (P-1 and P-2) as shown on Plate 1. The testing was performed on April 18th, 2025 in general conformance with the County of Riverside Technical Guidance Document Standards. The test wells were presoaked for 24 hours, and then water level readings were recorded every 10 minutes until the readings stabilized.
The data was then adjusted to provide an infiltration rate utilizing the Porchet Method. The resulting infiltration rate is presented in Table 3-1. The results do not include a Factor of Safety. Recommendations for infiltration BMP design are presented in Section 6.3.
Table 3-1
Summary of Infiltration Testing
(No Factor of Safety)
Test Designation P-1 P-2
Approximate Depth of Test 10 ft 5 ft
Time Interval 10 minutes 10 minutes
Radius of Test Hole 4 inches 4 inches
Tested Infiltration Rate 1.7 (in/hr) 0.2 (in/hr)
2216
Project Number 1-0602 Page 4
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
4.1 Geologic and Geomorphic Setting
Regionally, the subject site is located in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, which characterizes the southwest portion of southern California where major right lateral major active fault zones predominately trend northwestsoutheast. The Peninsular Ranges province is composed of plutonic and metamorphic rock, with lesser amounts of Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rock, Quaternary drainage in-fills and sedimentary veneers.
4.2 Stratigraphy
Based on a review of Morton, 2003, and our subsurface investigation, the site is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits. This geologic unit is briefly described below.
4.2.1 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Map symbol Qyf)
The young alluvial fan deposits consisting of grayish brown to brown silty and sandy clay in a dry to moist, stiff to very stiff condition. Also, light grayish brown to yellowish brown clayey sand and sand in a moist to wet, medium dense to very dense condition was encountered. The unit was logged to a depth of 51.5 feet below the ground surface.
4.3 Geologic Structure
4.3.1 Tectonic Framework
Jennings (1985) defined eight structural provinces within California that have been classified by predominant regional fault trends and similar fold structure. These provinces are in turn divided into blocks and sub-blocks that are defined by “major Quaternary faults.” These blocks and subblocks exhibit similar structural features. Within this framework, the subject site is located within Structural Province I, which is controlled by the dominant northwest trend of the San Andreas Fault and is divided 2217
Project Number 1-0602 Page 5
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
into two blocks, the Coast Range Block and the Peninsular Range Block.
The Peninsular Range Block, on which this site is located, is characterized by a series of parallel, northwest trending faults that exhibit right lateral strike-slip movement. These faults are terminated by the Transverse Range block to the north and extend southward into the Baja Peninsula.
These northwest trending faults divide the Peninsular Range block into eight sub-blocks. The site is located in the northern portion of the Santa Ana Sub-block, one of the eight sub-blocks, which is bound on the east by the Elsinore fault zone and on the west by the Newport-Inglewood fault zone.
4.3.2 Regionally Mapped Active Faults
Several large, active fault systems including the Whittier- Elsinore, the Cucamonga, and the San Jacinto occur in the region surrounding the site.
These fault systems have been studied extensively and in a large part control the geologic structure of southern California.
4.3.3 Geologic Structure
Based upon our site investigation and literature review, the onsite alluvial sediments are of Holocene age, and are not folded or faulted.
4.4 Groundwater
Our subsurface investigation encountered groundwater at a depth of 40.1 feet below the ground surface on B-1. Groundwater data available from the nearest well (State Well # 339534N1176112W001) located across Hellman Avenue, west of the property indicates that the groundwater depth has been approximately 38- feet below the ground surface, from 2024 (WDL, 2025).
2218
Project Number 1-0602 Page 6
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
4.5 Earthquake Hazards
The subject site is located in southern California, which is a tectonically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting a site are dependent on the distance to the causative fault and the intensity and magnitude of the seismic event. The seismic hazard may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction and/or ground lurching.
4.5.1 Local and Regional Faulting
The site is located on the northeastern portion of the Riverside sub-block.
The closest known active faults and their distances to the site are presented on Table 4-1 below.
TABLE 4-1
Local and Regional Faulting
Fault Zone Distance to Fault Zone
Chino 3.7 miles
Elsinore 7.2 miles
San Jose 11.5 miles
Cucamonga 13.6 miles
Sierra Madre 13.9 miles
San Jacinto 19.2 miles
4.5.2 Seismicity
Ground shaking hazards caused by earthquakes along other active regional faults exist. The 2022 California Building Code requires usemodified spectral accelerations and velocities for most structural designs.
Seismic design parameters using soil profile types identified in the 2022 California Building Code are presented in Section 7.3.
2219
Project Number 1-0602 Page 7
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
4.5.3 Surface Rupture
Active faults are not known to exist within the project and a review of Special Publication 42 indicates the site is not within a California State designated earthquake fault zone. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface rupture on the subject site is very low.
4.5.4 Liquefaction
Seismic agitation of relatively loose saturated sands, silty sands, and some silts can result in a buildup of pore pressure. If the pore pressure exceeds the overburden stresses, a temporary quick condition known as liquefaction can occur. Liquefaction effects can manifest in several ways including: 1) loss of bearing; 2) lateral spread; 3) dynamic settlement; and 4) flow failure. Lateral spreading has typically been the most damaging mode of failure.
In general, the more recent that a sediment has been deposited, the more likely it will be susceptible to liquefaction. Other factors that must be considered are: groundwater, confining stresses, relative density, and the intensity and duration of seismically-induced ground shaking.
Alta performed a liquefaction analysis utilizing blow count data from our subsurface investigation to determine the liquefaction potential of the younger alluvium. A description of Alta's analysis and calculations are presented in Appendix D of this report. A groundwater level of 35 feet below existing ground surface was assumed. The results of our findings are discussed below under the headings of the specific types of liquefaction which can be manifested during seismic shaking.
Conclusions regarding liquefaction are presented in Section 6.4.
2220
Project Number 1-0602 Page 8
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Loss of Bearing:
Liquefaction can potentially cause bearing failure due to ground softening and near-failure in bearing. Upon the completion of removal and recompaction of the upper soils as recommended in Section 6.1.2, the potential for loss of bearing shall be minimal and within foundation tolerances.
Lateral Spreading:
The lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment can occur as a result of liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The most pervasive forms of lateral spreading typically involve sites located near a "free-face" (large slopes, channels, etc.), however, it has been noted that lateral spreading can occur on sites with gently sloping (1% or more) ground, such as the subject site.
Determination of the potential for lateral spread is based on the presence of continuous potentially liquefiable soil layers underneath the structures, the presence of lateral confinement, and various analyses such as empirical modeling. Bartlett, Hansen and Youd (2002) states that surface manifestation of lateral spread is typically limited to sites with liquefiable soils within 10 meters (32 feet) of grade, and that sites underlain by soils with (N1)60 values 15 and greater do not experience significant displacements from earthquakes with magnitudes less than 8.
Given the depth to groundwater/liquefiable soils, it is our opinion that the potential for lateral spread to occur onsite is considered nil.
Settlement:
Settlement due to seismic shaking can occur as a result of both liquefaction of saturated sediments or rearrangement of dry sand particles. Our liquefaction analysis was performed utilizing CPT data and laboratory test results to analyze the potential amount of settlement. A description of Alta's analysis and calculations are presented in Appendix D of this report. Dynamic settlement design recommendations are presented in Section 7.1.
Flow Failure:
Due to the relatively flat nature of the site, and the relatively horizontal deposition of the underlying deposits, the potential for flow failure onsite is considered minimal
2221
Project Number 1-0602 Page 9
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
4.5.5 Dry Sand Settlement
Dry sand settlement is the process of non-uniform settlement of the ground surface during a seismic event. A dry sand settlement analysis was performed utilizing blow count data obtained during our subsurface investigation. The results are presented in Appendix D. Based on our analysis and our removal/recompaction recommendations, the potential for dry sand settlement is anticipated to be low and within foundation design tolerances.
5.0 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Materials Properties
Presented herein is a general discussion of the engineering properties of the onsite materials that will be encountered during construction of the proposed project. Descriptions of the soil (Unified Soil Classification System) are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B.
5.1.1 Excavation Characteristics
Based on the data provided from the subsurface investigation, it is our opinion that the onsite materials possess favorable excavation characteristics such that conventional earth moving equipment can be utilized.
5.1.2 Compressibility
The upper portions of young alluvial fan deposits onsite are considered compressible and unsuitable to support the proposed improvements.
Recommended removal depths are presented in Section 6.1.2.
5.1.3 Moisture
The moisture content of the young alluvial fan deposits that will require removal and recompaction as discussed in Section 6.1.2 are typically under-optimum and will require moisture conditioning for compaction. 2222
Project Number 1-0602 Page 10
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
5.1.4 Hydro-Consolidation
Hydro-consolidation is the effect of introducing water into soil that is prone to collapse. Upon loading and initial wetting, the soil structure and apparent strength are altered resulting in almost immediate settlement.
That settlement can have adverse impacts on engineered structures, particularly in areas where it is manifested differentially. Differential settlements are typically associated with differential wetting, irregularities in the subsurface soil conditions, or irregular loading patterns.
Based on our laboratory testing (Appendix C), the potential for hydrocollapse in the underlying young alluvial fan deposits is minimal and shall be within foundation tolerances upon the completion of the recommended unsuitable soil removals.
5.1.5 Expansion Potential
Expansion index testing was performed on samples taken during our subsurface investigation. Based on the results, it is anticipated that the majority of materials onsite are “very low” to “low” in expansion potential (0≤EI≤50, Appendix C) when tested per ASTM D: 4829.
5.1.6 Earthwork Adjustments
The values presented in Table 5-1 are deemed appropriate for estimating purposes and may be used in an effort to balance earthwork quantities.
As is the case with every project, contingencies should be made to adjust the earthwork balance when grading is in-progress and actual conditions are better defined.
2223
Project Number 1-0602 Page 11
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 5-1
Earthwork Adjustment Factors
Geologic Unit Adjustment Factor Range Average
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits Shrink 22% to 26% 24%
5.1.7 Chemical Analyses
Chemical testing was performed on samples of material underlying the proposed site. Soluble sulfate test results indicate that the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils tested are classified as negligible (Category S0) per ACI 318-14.
Elevated chloride levels on the order of 775 ppm were detected in the upper soils in the vicinity of B-1. Based on the elevated chloride levels as presented in Appendix C, the onsite soils are classified as “corrosive” to buried metals and concrete (Caltrans, 2022). Additional discussions on corrosion are presented in Section 7.9. Corrosion tests results are presented in Appendix C.
5.2 Engineering Analysis
Presented below is a general discussion of the engineering analysis methods that were utilized to develop the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report.
5.2.1 Bearing Capacity and Lateral Earth Pressures
Ultimate bearing capacity values were obtained using the graphs and formula presented in NAVFAC DM-7.1. Allowable bearing was determined by applying a factor of safety of at least 3 to the ultimate bearing capacity. Static lateral earth pressures were calculated using Rankine methods for active and passive cases. If it is desired to use Coulomb forces, a separate analysis specific to the application can be conducted.
2224
Project Number 1-0602 Page 12
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on Alta’s findings during our subsurface investigation, the laboratory test results, and our staff’s previous experience in the area, it is Alta’s opinion that the development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical perspective. Presented below are Alta’s recommendations that should be incorporated into site development and construction plans.
6.1 General Earthwork Recommendations
All grading shall be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project geotechnical consultant in accordance with the recommendations contained herein and the City of Eastvale criteria.
6.1.1 Site Preparation
Vegetation, construction debris, and other deleterious materials are unsuitable as structural fill material and should be disposed of offsite prior to commencing grading/construction. Any septic tanks, seepage pits or wells should be abandoned as per the County of San Bernardino Department of Health Services.
6.1.2 Unsuitable Soil Removals
The upper portions of the young alluvial fan deposits near the surface are compressible and as such, are not suitable to support the proposed structures. As such, it is anticipated that, on average, the upper three (3) to five (5) feet of existing soils will require removal and recompaction, extending at a minimum 5 feet horizontally outside the structures. This recommended removal combined with the foundation recommendations presented in Section 7.1 should provide suitable support for the proposed structures.
The Project Geotechnical Consultant should observe the removal bottom prior to placing fill. If unsuitable soils such as undocumented artificial fill 2225
Project Number 1-0602 Page 13
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
are exposed upon the completion of the removals recommended above, additional removals may be required.
For streets, in general, a minimum removal and recompaction of the upper two (2) feet of soil is recommended, although deeper removals may be required if undocumented fill is exposed at that depth.
Material removed as part of the unsuitable soil removals can be used as engineered fill, provided it is free of deleterious materials.
6.1.3 Over-excavation of Building Pads
Footings for structures should be underlain by a minimum of two (2) feet of compacted fill. As such, for building pads where unsuitable soil removals do not provide the minimum depth of compacted fill, or where design grades and/or remedial grading activities create cut/fill transitions, the cut and shallow fill portions of the building pads should be over-excavated to provide the required depth of fill below the footings.
6.2 General Earthwork Recommendations
6.2.1 Compaction Standards
All fill and processed natural ground shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, as determined by ASTM Test Method:
D-1557. Fill material should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture or above, and as generally discussed in Alta’s Earthwork Specification Section presented in Appendix E. Compaction shall be achieved with the use of sheepsfoot rollers or similar kneading type equipment.
2226
Project Number 1-0602 Page 14
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
6.2.2 Groundwater/Seepage
It is anticipated that groundwater will not be encountered during construction. It is possible that perched water conditions could be encountered depending on the time of year construction occurs.
6.2.3 Documentation of Removals
All removal/over-excavation bottoms should be observed and approved by the project Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement.
Consideration should be given to surveying the removal bottoms and undercuts after approval by the geotechnical consultant and prior to the placement of fill. Staking should be provided in order to verify undercut locations and depths.
6.2.4 Treatment of Removal Bottoms
At the completion of removals/over-excavation, the exposed removal bottom should be ripped to a minimum depth of eight (8) inches, moisture-conditioned to above optimum moisture content and compacted in-place to the project standards.
6.2.5 Fill Placement
After removals, scarification, and compaction of in-place materials are completed, additional fill may be placed. Fill should be placed in eightinch bulk maximum lifts, moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content or above, compacted and tested as grading/construction progresses until final grades are attained.
6.2.6 Moisture Content
The moisture content of the upper in-situ soils is primarily below optimum, as shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. These soils will require moisture conditioning prior to placement as engineered fill. 2227
Project Number 1-0602 Page 15
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
6.2.7 Mixing
Mixing of materials may be necessary to prevent layering of different soil types and/or different moisture contents. Mixing should be accomplished prior to and as part of the compaction of each fill lift.
6.2.8 Import Soils
Import soils, if necessary, should consist of clean, low expansive, structural quality, compactable materials similar to the on-site soils and should be free of trash, debris or other objectionable materials. The project Geotechnical Consultant should be notified not less than 72 hours in advance of the locations of any soils proposed for import. Import sources should be sampled, tested, and approved by the project Geotechnical Consultant at the source prior to the importation of the soils to the site. The project Civil Engineer should include these requirements on plans and specifications for the project.
6.2.9 Utility Trenches
6.2.9.1 Excavation
Utility trenches should be supported, either by laying back excavations or shoring, in accordance with applicable OSHA standards. In general, existing site soils are classified as Soil Types "B" and “C” per OSHA standards. Upon completion of the recommended removals and re-compaction, the artificial fill will be classified as Soil Type "B". The Project
Geotechnical Consulting should be consulted if geologic conditions vary from what is presented in this report.
2228
Project Number 1-0602 Page 16
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
6.2.9.2 Backfill
Trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557.
Onsite soils will not be suitable for use as bedding material but will be suitable for use in backfill provided oversized materials are removed. No surcharge loads should be
imposed above excavations. This includes spoil piles, lumber, concrete trucks, or other construction materials and
equipment. Drainage above excavations should be directed away from the banks. Care should be taken to avoid
saturation of the soils. Compaction should be accomplished by mechanical means. Jetting of native soils will not be acceptable.
Under-slab trenches should also be compacted to project specifications. If select granular backfill (SE > 30) is used, compaction by flooding will be acceptable.
6.2.10 Backcut Stability
Temporary backcuts, if required during unsuitable soil removals, should be made no steeper than 1:1 without review and approval of the geotechnical consultant. Flatter backcuts may be necessary where geologic conditions dictate and where minimum width dimensions are to be maintained.
Care should be taken during remedial grading operations in order to minimize risk of failure. Should failure occur, complete removal of the disturbed material will be required.
2229
Project Number 1-0602 Page 17
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
In consideration of the inherent instability created by temporary construction backcuts for removals, it is imperative that grading schedules are coordinated to minimize the unsupported exposure time of these excavations. Once started, these excavations and subsequent fill operations should be maintained to completion without intervening delays imposed by avoidable circumstances. In cases where five-day workweeks comprise a normal schedule, grading should be planned to avoid exposing at-grade or near-grade excavations through a non-work weekend. Where improvements may be affected by temporary instability, either on or offsite, further restrictions such as slot cutting, extending workdays, implementing weekend schedules, and/or other requirements considered critical to serving specific circumstances may be imposed.
6.3 Storm Water Infiltration Systems
From a geotechnical perspective, allowing storm water to infiltrate the onsite soil in concentrated areas increases the potential for settlement, liquefaction, and water-related damage to structures/improvements, such as wet slabs or pumping subgrade, and should be avoided where possible. If infiltration systems are required on this site, care should be taken in designing systems that control the storm water as much as possible.
Preliminary infiltration testing was conducted at the site as part of this investigation, and the methodology is discussed in 3.2. The resulting infiltration rates for P-1 and P-2 was calculated to be 1.7 and 0.2-inches per hour, respectively. The results do not include a factor of safety.
The Project Geotechnical Consultant should review the final WQMP design prior to construction.
2230
Project Number 1-0602 Page 18
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
6.4 Boundary Conditions
Construction of retaining/screen walls along site boundaries will require additional geotechnical recommendations concerning unsuitable soil removals and foundation design parameters. Boundary conditions for the project should be reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant as the design progresses.
7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Structural Design
It is anticipated that multi-story, wood-frame residential structures with slab ongrade and shallow foundations will be constructed. Upon the completion of rough grading, finish grade samples should be collected and tested in order to provide specific recommendations as they relate to the individual building pads.
These test results and corresponding design recommendations should be presented in a final rough grading report. Final slab and foundation design recommendations should be made based upon specific structure sitings, loading conditions, and as-graded soil conditions.
It is anticipated that the majority of onsite soils will possess “very low” to “low” expansion potential when tested in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D: 4829. For budgeting purposes, the following foundation design requirements for a range of potential expansion characteristics are presented.
Due to the corrosive levels of chloride detected in the upper soils (Appendix C), it is recommended to utilize post-tensioned foundation systems with encapsulated anchors. Additional discussion is presented in Section 7.9,
7.1.1 Foundations
Foundations may be preliminary designed based on the values presented in Table 7-1 below.
2231
Project Number 1-0602 Page 19
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Table 7-1
Foundation Design Parameters*
Allowable Bearing 2000 lbs/ft2 assuming a minimum footing width and embedment of 12 inches.
Lateral Bearing 250 lbs/ft2 at a depth of 12 inches plus 250 lbs/ft2 for each additional 12 inches of embedment to a maximum of 2000
lbs/ft2
Sliding Coefficient 0.35
Differential Settlement Dynamic: 0.5-inches in 40 feet
Static: 1.0-inch in 40 feet
*These values may be increased as allowed by Code to resist transient loads such as wind or seismic. Building code and structural design considerations may govern depth and reinforcement requirements and should be evaluated.
7.1.2 Post-Tensioned Slabs/Foundation Design Recommendations Post-tensioned slabs for the project may be preliminarily designed utilizing the parameters presented in Tables 7-1 and 7-2. The parameters presented herein are based on methodology provided in the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground, Third Edition, by the Post-Tensioning Institute, in accordance with the 2022 CBC.
2232
Project Number 1-0602 Page 20
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 7-2
POST-TENSION SLAB DESIGN PARAMETERS
Category Expansion Potential Minimum
Embedment
Edge Lift Center Lift
Em (ft) Ym
(inch) Em (ft) Ym (inch)
I Very Low to Low 12 inches* 5.4 0.61 9.0 0.26
Slab Subgrade Moisture
Category I Minimum 110% of optimum moisture to a depth of 12 inches prior to pouring concrete
Embedment*
The minimum outer footing embedment presented herein are based on expansion indexes. The structural engineer should verify the minimum embedment based on the number of floors supported by the footings, the structural loading, and the requirements of the latest California Building Code. If mat slabs are utilized, alternate embedment depths can be provided.
Moisture Barrier
A moisture barrier should be provided in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 7.2 The parameters presented herein are based on procedures presented in the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-OnGround, Third Edition. No corrections for vertical barriers at the edge of the slab, or for adjacent vegetation have been assumed. The design parameters are based on a Constant Suction Value of 3.9 pF.
7.2 Moisture Barrier
A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below the slabs-ongrade in portions of the structure considered to be moisture sensitive and should be capable of effectively preventing the migration of water and reducing the transmission of water vapor to acceptable levels. Historically, a 10-mil plastic membrane, such as Visqueen, placed between one to four inches of clean sand, has been used for this purpose. The use of this system or other systems can be considered, at the discretion of the designer, provided the system reduces the vapor transmission rates to acceptable levels.
2233
Project Number 1-0602 Page 21
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
7.3 Seismic Design
The site classes were determined based on the referenced reports and published geologic maps in the area in general conformance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16.
Based on the density of the underlying soils, a Site Class of D (shear wave velocity of 259 m/s) was selected. The seismic design parameters were calculated using a program based on the USGS website and ASCE 7-16 procedures. The resulting values are presented in Table 7-3. These values are applicable providing the exceptions presented in Supplements 2 and 3 of ASCE 7-16 are utilized in the design of the structure. If the design does not include the exception methodology, then a site-specific analysis shall be conducted.
TABLE 7-4 Seismic Ground Motion Values
2022 CBC and ASCE 7-16
Parameter Value
Site Class D
Site Latitude 33.9531
Site Longitude -117.6099
Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SS 1.714
Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S1 0.600
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.7
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SMS 1.714 MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SM1 1.020 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDS 1.143 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SD1 0.680 Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.768
2234
Project Number 1-0602 Page 22
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
7.4 Block Walls
Block walls, if used, should be embedded a minimum of 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade. Construction joints (not more than 20 feet apart) should be included in the block wall construction. Side yard walls should be structurally separated from the rear yard wall.
7.5 Footing Excavations
Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be cleaned of all loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should observe the footing excavations prior to the placement of concrete to determine that the excavations are founded in suitably compacted material.
7.6 Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be founded on engineered fill and should be backfilled with granular soils that allow for drainage behind the wall. Foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 7-1, above. Unrestrained walls, free to horizontally move 0.0005H (for dense cohesionless backfill), may be designed to resist lateral pressures imposed by a fluid with a unit weight determined in accordance with the Table 7-5 below. The table also presents design parameters for restrained (at-rest) retaining walls.
These parameters may be used to design retaining walls that may be considered as restrained due to the method of construction or location (corner sections of unrestrained retaining walls).
TABLE 7-5
Equivalent Fluid Pressures for 90% Compacted Fill (Select Material) Backfill Active Pressure (psf/ft) At-Rest Pressure (psf/ft) Level 35 55
2235
Project Number 1-0602 Page 23
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Per the requirements of the 2022 CBC, the seismic force acting on the retaining walls with backfill exceeding 6-feet in height may be resolved utilizing the formula
15.5H2 lb/lineal ft (H=height of the wall). This force acts at approximately 0.6H above the base of the wall (inverted triangle). The seismic value can be converted as required by the retaining wall engineer. Retaining walls should be designed in general accordance with Section 1807A.2 of the 2022 CBC. Restrained retaining walls should be designed for “at-rest” conditions. The design loads presented in the above table are to be applied on the retaining wall in a horizontal fashion and as such friction between wall and retained soils should not be allowed in the retaining wall analyses. Additional allowances should be made in the retaining wall design to account for the influence of construction loads, temporary loads, and possible nearby structural footing loads.
Select backfill should be granular, structural quality backfill with a Sand Equivalent of 20 or better and an ASCE Expansion Index of 20 or less. The backfill must encompass the full active wedge area. The upper one foot of backfill should be comprised of native on-site soils (see Plate A). The wall design should include waterproofing (where appropriate) and backdrains or weep holes for relieving possible hydrostatic pressures. The backdrain should be comprised of a 4-inch perforated PVC pipe in a 1 ft. by 1 ft., ¾-inch gravel matrix, wrapped with a geofabric. The backdrain should be installed with a minimum gradient of 2 percent and should be outletted to an appropriate location. For subterranean walls this may include drainage by sump pumps.
No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are achieved.
It should be noted that the allowable bearing and lateral bearing values presented in Table 7-1 are based on level conditions at the toe. Modified design parameters can be presented for retaining walls with sloping condition at the toe.
Other conditions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 2236
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL DETAIL
NATIVE
BACKFILL
12 tN. MtN.
*OR AS MODIFIED
BY A SPECIFIC REPORT
DRAIN I.ATERALLY,
OR PROVIDE WEEP
HOLES AS REQUIRED
TO DMIN
PIPE: 4-INCH PERFORATED PVC, SCHEDULE 40, SDR35 OR APPROVED ALTERNATE MINIMUM 8 PERFORATIONS (1/4-IN. DIA.) PER LINEAL FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE
ROCK: MINIMUM VOLUME OF 1 CU. FT. OF 3/4_IN. MAX. ROCK PER. LINEAL FOOT
OF PIPE, OR APPROVED ALTERNATE
FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT "64
ALTA cALTFoRNTA eEorEcl{NrcAL, tNc,
'vER, tTto PI-ATE A
PATH: S\Drofllns\ALTA GEoTECHNICAI\GRAoING DETAIIS\PLATE A.dws 2237 Project Number 1-0602 Page 24
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
7.7 Exterior Slabs and Walkways
Exterior concrete slabs and walkways should be designed and constructed in consideration of the following recommendations.
7.7.1 Subgrade Compaction
The subgrade below exterior concrete slabs should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method: D 1557.
7.7.2 Subgrade Moisture
The subgrade below concrete slabs should be moisture conditioned to a minimum of 110 percent of optimum moisture (low expansion) prior to concrete placement.
7.7.3 Concrete Slab Thickness
Concrete flatwork and driveways should be designed utilizing four-inch minimum thickness.
7.7.4 Concrete Slab Reinforcement
Utilization of reinforcement for flatwork and driveways is subject to a cost/benefit analysis. Reinforcement will decrease the amount of cracking that may occur in flatwork, however, planning for occasional repairs may be more cost effective. Utilizing closely spaced control joints is likely more cost-effective than utilizing reinforcement. The majority of the soils onsite are classified as very low in expansion potential.
Consideration should be given to reinforcing flatwork with irregular (nonsquare/rectangular) shapes.
7.7.5 Control Joints
Weakened plane joints should be installed on walkways at intervals of approximately eight feet (maximum) or less. Exterior slabs should be designed to withstand shrinkage of the concrete.
2238
Project Number 1-0602 Page 25
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
7.8 Concrete Design
As stated in Section 5.1.7, negligible concentrations of sulfates were detected in the onsite soils. Therefore, the use of sulfate resistant concrete is not required per ACI 318-14 at this time. Post-grading conditions should be evaluated, and final recommendations made at that time.
7.9 Corrosion
Based on preliminary testing, the onsite soils are corrosive to buried metal objects. Consideration should be given to protecting buried metals from corrosion. Typical measures may include using non-corrosive backfill, protective coatings, wrapping, plastic pipes, or a combination of these methods. A corrosion engineer should be consulted if specific design recommendations are required by the improvement designer.
Per ACI 318-14, an exposure class of C1 would be applicable to metals encased in concrete (rebar in footings) due to being exposed to moisture from surrounding soils. Per Table 19.3.2.1 of ACI 318-14, the requirements for concrete with an exposure class of C1 are a minimum compressive strength of 2500 psi and a maximum water-soluble chloride ion content in concrete of 0.30 (percent by weight of cement).
7.10 Site Drainage
Positive drainage away from the proposed structures should be provided and maintained. Roof, pad and lot drainage should be collected and directed away from the structures toward approved disposal areas through drainage terraces, gutters, down drains, and other devices. Design fine grade elevations should be maintained through the life of the structure or if design fine grade elevations are altered, adequate area drains should be installed in order to provide rapid discharge of water, away from structures. Residents or Homeowner Associations should be made aware that they are responsible for maintenance and cleaning of 2239
Project Number 1-0602 Page 26
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
all drainage terraces, down drains, and other devices that have been installed to promote site and structure drainage.
7.11 Pavement Design
Pavement sections for the proposed streets shall be designed based on laboratory testing conducted on samples taken from the soil subgrade.
Preliminarily, based on an assumed R-Value of 30, the pavement may be designed utilizing the sections presented in Table 7-6. These sections should be verified upon the completion of grading, based on R-Value testing.
Table 7-6
Preliminary Pavement Sections
Traffic
Index
Pavement Section Options
OR
5.0 3-inch AC on 5.5-inch AB 4-inch AC on 4-inch AB
5.5 3-inch AC on 7-inch AB 4-inch AC on 5-inch AB
6.0 3.5-inch AC on 7.5-inch AB 4-inch AC on 6.5-inch AB AC-Asphalt Concrete
AB-Caltrans Class II Base
The underlying subgrade soil should be suitably moisture conditioned, processed and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density (ASTM: D 1557) to at least twelve (12) inches below subgrade. After subgrade compaction, the exposed grade should then be "proof"-rolled with heavy equipment to ensure the grade does not "pump" and is verified as non-yielding.
Aggregate base should consist of Class 2 (Caltrans) aggregate base and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method: D 1557.
Preparation for compaction operations and pavement construction operations should be accomplished in accordance with the current requirements of the City of Eastvale and under the observation and testing of the project geotechnical consultant.
2240
Project Number 1-0602 Page 27
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
8.0 LOT MAINTENANCE
Ongoing maintenance of the improvements is essential to the long-term performance of structures. As such, the owners must implement certain maintenance procedures. The attached " Maintenance and Improvement Considerations" presented in the Appendix E may be included as part of the sales packet to educate the owners in issues related to drainage, maintenance, backyard improvements, etc. The following recommendations should also be implemented.
8.1 Lot Drainage
Roof, pad and lot drainage should be collected and directed away from structures and slopes and toward approved disposal areas. Design fine grade elevations should be maintained through the life of the structure or if design fine grade elevations are altered, adequate area drains should be installed in order to provide rapid discharge of water, away from structures and slopes. Residents should be made aware that they are responsible for maintenance and cleaning of all drainage terraces, down drains, and other devices that have been installed to promote structure and slope stability.
8.2 Burrowing Animals
Residents or owners should undertake a program for the elimination of burrowing animals.
9.0 FUTURE PLAN REVIEWS
This report represents a geotechnical review of the site. As the project design for the project progresses, site specific geologic and geotechnical issues should be considered in the design and construction of the project. Consequently, future plan reviews may be necessary. These reviews may include reviews of:
Grading Plans
Foundation Plans
Utility Plans
2241
Project Number 1-0602 Page 28
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
These plans should be forwarded to the project Geotechnical Consultant for review.
10.0 CLOSURE
10.1 Geotechnical Review
For the purposes of this report, multiple working hypotheses were established for the project, utilizing the available data and the most probable model is used for the analysis. Future information collected during the proposed grading operations is intended to evaluate the hypothesis and as such, some of the assumptions summarized in this report may need to be changed. Some modifications of the grading recommendations may become necessary, should the conditions encountered in the field differ from the conditions hypothesized in this report.
Plans and sections of the project specifications should be reviewed by Alta to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations contained in this report. If the project description or final design varies from that described in herein, Alta must be consulted regarding the applicability of the recommendations contained herein and whether any changes are required. Alta accepts no liability for any use of its recommendations if the project description or final design varies and Alta is not consulted regarding the alterations.
10.2 Limitations
This report is based on the following: 1) the project as presented on the attached plan; 2) the information obtained from Alta's laboratory testing included herein; and 3) from the information presented in the referenced reports. The findings and recommendations are based on the results of the subsurface investigation, laboratory testing, and office analysis combined with an interpolation and extrapolation of conditions between and beyond the subsurface excavation locations. However, the materials adjacent to or beneath those observed may have different characteristics than those observed, and no precise 2242
Project Number 1-0602 Page 29
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
representations are made as to the quality or extent of the materials not observed. The results reflect an interpretation of the direct evidence obtained.
Work performed by Alta has been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. The methods used to develop the recommendations do not comprise an exact science and are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and proposed structures shall perform as planned. No other representation, either expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended.
The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that an appropriate level of field review will be provided by a geotechnical consultant who is familiar with the design and site geologic conditions. That field review shall be sufficient to confirm that geotechnical and geologic conditions exposed during grading are consistent with the geologic representations and corresponding recommendations presented in this report.
The conclusions and recommendations included in this report are applicable to the specific design of this project as discussed in this report. They have no applicability to any other project or to any other location and any and all subsequent users accept any and all liability resulting from any use or reuse of the data, opinions, and recommendations without the prior written consent of Alta.
Alta has no responsibility for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures, safety precautions, programs in connection with the construction, acts or omissions of the CONTRACTOR or any other person performing any of the construction, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the construction in accordance with the final design drawings and specifications. 2243
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
2244
Project Number 1-0602 Page A-1
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
APPENDIX A
Selected References
California Geological Survey, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.
California Geological Survey, 2000, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Ontario Quadrangle, Scale 1:24,000, Official Map Released November 17, 2000.
California Code of Regulations, 2022, California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2, Based on the 2021 International Building Code, Effective Date January 1, 2023.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2022, Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, published March, 2022.
California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library (WDL) Station Map, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/, accessed December, 2024.
Historic Aerials, 2024, www.historicaerials.com, by NETROnline, Copyright 2023, accessed December, 2024, online review of vintage air photos from 1938-2018.
Jennings, C. W., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and geologic maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201, 197 p.
Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000.
Jennings, C. W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and geologic map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, special publication 42, revised 1985, 24 p.
Morton, D. M., 2003, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Fontana 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-Fire Report OF-2003-418.
Romanoff, Melvin, 1989, Underground Corrosion, NBS Circular 579, Reprinted by NACE, Houston, TX, 1989.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2008, National Seismic Hazards Maps – Source Parameters, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm. 2245
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
APPENDIX B
Subsurface Investigation
2246
Project Number 1-0602 Page B-1
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
APPENDIX B
Subsurface Investigation
Alta's subsurface investigation consisted of excavating, logging, and sampling five (5) hollowstem auger borings. Details of the subsurface investigation are presented in Table B. The approximate location of the exploratory excavation is shown on the accompanying Plate 1 and the Geotechnical Logs are attached.
TABLE B
SURFACE INVESTIGATION DETAILS
Equipment Range of
Depths
Sampling Methods Sample Locations
Hollowstem auger Up to 51.5
feet
1. Bulk
2. Ring Samples
3. SPT Samples
1. Bulk-Select Depth
2. Every 2.5 to 5-feet
3. At depths below 30 feet.
2247
UNIFIED SOI L CLASSIFIICATION SYSTEM
Major Divisions lfl tr Description Major Divisions an tr Coarse
Grained
Soils
N4ore than
50%
retained on
No 200
steve
Gravel
and
Sravelly
Soils
han 50%
frachon
relained
on No, 4
'l
ts
*
,-l*
EIF
GW
Well-graded grcvels or gravel sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Fine
(lrained
isoils
l\lore than
Silts
And
Clays
LL,<50
n
ML
Inorganic silts and very fine sands,
rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands
or clavev silts with slioht olasticitv
GP
Poorly-graded gravels or gravel
sand mixture, little or no fines CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy
clays, silty clays, lean clays Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
OL
Organic silts and organic silt-clays
of low plasticity
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures
Silts
And
Clays
LL,<50
MF
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine or silty soils,
elastic silts Sand
and
Sandy
Soils
than 50%
fraclion
Passes
on No, 4
i'+.
3_'. JV!
Well-graded sands or gravelly
sands, little or no fines
on No 200
steve VH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
fat clays SP
Poorly-graded sands or gravelly
sands, little or no fines
SM Silty sands, sarrd-silt mixtures OF
Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity
sc Clayey sands, and-clay mixtures Highly Organic
Soils PT Peat and other highly organic soils
BoUNDARY CLASSIFICATIoN: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols PARTICLE SIZ:E LIMITS
U.S. STANDA,RD SiERIES SIEVE
200 40 10 4
CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS
3t4" 3,, ,t2"
LABORATORY TESTS
Symbol Tesl
DS
DSR
cc)N
SA
MAX
RV
EI
SE
AL
CHEM
HY
Direct Shear
Direct Shear
(Remolded)
Sieve Analysis
Maximum Density
Resistance (R) Value
Expansion Index
Sand Equivalent
Atterberg Limits
Chemical Analysis
Hydrometer Analysis
SOIL MOISTURE
SIZE PROPORTIONS
Trace - <5%
Few-5to10%
Some - 15 to 25%
Increasing \/isual Moisture Content
Silts
an0
Clays
Sand Gravel
Cobbles Boulders
Fine Medium Coarsi€r Fine Coarse
RELATIVE DENSITY
Sands and Gravels Blows/Foot (SPT)
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
<4
4-10
11-30
31 -50
>50
CON SI STENCY C IASSI FI CATI ON
Silts and Clays Criteria
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
stiff
Very Stiff
Thumb penetrates soil >1 in.
Thumb penetrates soil 1 in,
Thumb penetrates soil 1/4 in
Readily indented with thumbnail
Thumbnail will not indent soil
HARDNESS
KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS}
,n
/L>//J, ALTA CALIFORNTA GEOTECHNTCAL tNC.
/\
PI-ATE 2248 B
CL
ML
CL
SC
SP
SC
SP
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf): SILTY CLAY, pale
brown, dry, stiff, trace roots.
@ 2.0 ft. light gray, very stiff.
@5.0 ft. SANDY SILT, pale brown, dry, very stiff, carbonates. @9.6 ft SANDY CLAY, olive brown, iron oxides, slightly moist, very stiff, trace gravel, fine grained sand.
@15.0 ft. fine to coarse sand.
@20.0 ft. CLAYEY SAND, fine to medium grained, grayish brown, iron oxides, moist, medium dense, lenses of light grayish brown sand.
@25.0 ft. SAND, fine to medium grained, light grayish brown, iron oxides, moist, very dense, trace clay.
@30.0 ft. CLAYEY SAND, fine to medium grained, dark yellowish brown, iron oxides, moist, medium dense, trace gravel.
@35.0 ft. SAND, fine to coarse grained, dark yellowish brown, iron oxides, moist, very dense, trace clay, trace gravel.
Continued;
R
R
R
R
R
R
S
S
28 22
16 33
24 39,50 for
5"
7,7,11
28,22,44
81 90
87 34
105
102
102
108
23.2 18.3
17.6 21.2
20.4 6.9
19.8 6.0
140 lbs
7500 Hellman Ave
1 OF 2
30 in.
B-1
40 580
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 TYPE OF DRILL RIG
DRILLER SAT- MOISTURE CONT (%)
4/17/25
(%) URATION
DATE STARTED 4/17/25
580
575
570
565
560
555
550
545
540
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS
S SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE
SAMPLE TYPES:
SHEET
NOTE
LOGGED BY GROUP
J: JOINTING
B: BEDDING
S: SHEAR
C: CONTACT
F: FAULT
RS: RUPTURE SURFACE
1-0602
GROUNDWATER
SEEPAGE
(Feet)
PROJECT NO.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
GROUND ELEV.
8" Hollow Stem Auger
2R Drilling Inc. SYMBOL LITHOLOGY BLOWS
B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE ELEV DRY (pcf) DENSITY BORING DESIG.
DROP
DRIVE WT.
GW DEPTH (FT)
PROJECT NAME
DATE FINISHED NL DEPTH
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
P.N. 1-0602 PLATE B-12249
Continued;
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf): SAND, fine to coarse grained, grayish brown, iron oxides, wet, dense, trace gravel. @40.1 ft. Groundwater Encountered
@45.0 ft. trace clay.
@50.0 ft. medium dense.
TOTAL DEPTH : 51.5 FEET
GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED @ 40.08 FEET
NO CAVING OBSERVED
S
S
S
18,22,26
20,19,25
12,8,12
20.0 17.0
15.0 140 lbs
7500 Hellman Ave
2 OF 2
30 in.
B-1
40 580
45 50
TYPE OF DRILL RIG
DRILLER SAT- MOISTURE CONT (%)
4/17/25
(%) URATION
DATE STARTED 4/17/25
540
535
530
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS
S SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE
SAMPLE TYPES:
SHEET
NOTE
LOGGED BY GROUP
J: JOINTING
B: BEDDING
S: SHEAR
C: CONTACT
F: FAULT
RS: RUPTURE SURFACE
1-0602
GROUNDWATER
SEEPAGE
(Feet)
PROJECT NO.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
GROUND ELEV.
8" Hollow Stem Auger
2R Drilling Inc. SYMBOL LITHOLOGY BLOWS
B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE ELEV DRY (pcf) DENSITY BORING DESIG.
DROP
DRIVE WT.
GW DEPTH (FT)
PROJECT NAME
DATE FINISHED NL DEPTH
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
P.N. 1-0602 PLATE B-12250
CL
SC
CL
SC
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf): SILTY CLAY, pale
brown, dry, stiff, trace roots.
@2.0 ft. light gray, very stiff.
@5.0 ft. pale brown, slightly moist, carbonates.
@10.0 ft. CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained, olive brown, iron oxides, moist, medium dense, trace gravel.
@15.0 ft. SANDY CLAY, dark grayish brown, iron oxides, moist, very stiff, trace roots, fine grained sand.
@20.0 ft. brown, stiff.
@25.0 ft. CLAYEY SAND, fine grained, light grayish brown, iron oxides, moist, dense.
TOTAL DEPTH : 26 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING OBSERVED
R
R
R
R
R
R
66 26
27 21
12 34
32 76
77 95
85 119
91 89
15.5 11.5
11.1 23.8
46.7 30.6
140 lbs
7500 Hellman Ave
1 OF 1
30 in.
580 B-2
5 10
15 20
25 TYPE OF DRILL RIG
DRILLER SAT- MOISTURE CONT (%)
4/17/25
(%) URATION
DATE STARTED 4/17/25
580
575
570
565
560
555
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS
S SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE
SAMPLE TYPES:
SHEET
NOTE
LOGGED BY GROUP
J: JOINTING
B: BEDDING
S: SHEAR
C: CONTACT
F: FAULT
RS: RUPTURE SURFACE
1-0602
GROUNDWATER
SEEPAGE
(Feet)
PROJECT NO.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
GROUND ELEV.
8" Hollow Stem Auger
2R Drilling Inc. SYMBOL LITHOLOGY BLOWS
B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE ELEV DRY (pcf) DENSITY BORING DESIG.
DROP
DRIVE WT.
GW DEPTH (FT)
PROJECT NAME
DATE FINISHED NL DEPTH
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
P.N. 1-0602 PLATE B-22251
CL
ML
SP
CL
SC
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf): SILTY CLAY, pale
brown, dry, stiff, trace roots.
@2.0 ft. moist, very stiff, iron oxides, carbonates, some fine grained sand, trace roots.
@5.0 ft. SANDY SILT, brown, moist, very stiff, iron oxides, carbonates, fine grained sand.
@10.0 ft. olive brown, fine to medium grained sand.
@15.0 ft. SAND, fine to coarse grained, light yellowish brown, iron oxides, moist, very dense.
@20.0 ft. SANDY CLAY, grayish brown, iron oxides, moist, stiff, fine grained sand.
@25.0 ft. CLAYEY SAND, fine to medium grained, grayish brown, iron oxides, moist, medium dense.
TOTAL DEPTH : 26 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING OBSERVED
R
R
R
R
R
R
24 48
19 56
11 24
83 83
44 99
106
105
114
89 30.0
17.5 18.1
7.5 45.8
32.0 140 lbs
7500 Hellman Ave
1 OF 1
30 in.
580 B-3
5 10
15 20
25 TYPE OF DRILL RIG
DRILLER SAT- MOISTURE CONT (%)
4/17/25
(%) URATION
DATE STARTED 4/17/25
580
575
570
565
560
555
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS
S SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE
SAMPLE TYPES:
SHEET
NOTE
LOGGED BY GROUP
J: JOINTING
B: BEDDING
S: SHEAR
C: CONTACT
F: FAULT
RS: RUPTURE SURFACE
1-0602
GROUNDWATER
SEEPAGE
(Feet)
PROJECT NO.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
GROUND ELEV.
8" Hollow Stem Auger
2R Drilling Inc. SYMBOL LITHOLOGY BLOWS
B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE ELEV DRY (pcf) DENSITY BORING DESIG.
DROP
DRIVE WT.
GW DEPTH (FT)
PROJECT NAME
DATE FINISHED NL DEPTH
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
P.N. 1-0602 PLATE B-32252
CL
SM
CL
SP
SC
CL
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf): SILTY CLAY, light
brown, dry, stiff, trace roots.
@2.0 ft. light gray, very stiff, trace gravel.
@5.0 ft. SILTY SAND, very fine to fine grained, brown, slightly moist, dense, carbonates.
@10.0 ft. SANDY CLAY, light brown, moist, vey stiff, trace gravel, fine to coarse grained sand.
@15.0 ft. yellowish brown, iron oxides, fine to medium grained sand. @20.0 ft. dark grayish brown, manganese oxides, stiff, fine grained sand.
@25.0 ft. SAND, fine to coarse grained, grayish brown, moist, very dense, trace clay.
@30.0 ft. CLAYEY SAND, fine grained, dark gray, iron oxides, moist, loose, trace roots.
@35.0 ft. SANDY CLAY, dark gray, moist, firm. manganese oxides, fine grained sand.
Continued;
R
R
R
R
R
R
S
S
76 30
24 22
11 66
7,3,4
3,3,3
72 48
98 88
91 99
83 98
6.0 17.1
22.2 12.2
36.8 22.8
36.3 140 lbs
7500 Hellman Ave
1 OF 2
30 in.
580 B-4
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 TYPE OF DRILL RIG
DRILLER SAT- MOISTURE CONT (%)
4/17/25
(%) URATION
DATE STARTED 4/17/25
580
575
570
565
560
555
550
545
540
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS
S SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE
SAMPLE TYPES:
SHEET
NOTE
LOGGED BY GROUP
J: JOINTING
B: BEDDING
S: SHEAR
C: CONTACT
F: FAULT
RS: RUPTURE SURFACE
1-0602
GROUNDWATER
SEEPAGE
(Feet)
PROJECT NO.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
GROUND ELEV.
8" Hollow Stem Auger
2R Drilling Inc. SYMBOL LITHOLOGY BLOWS
B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE ELEV DRY (pcf) DENSITY BORING DESIG.
DROP
DRIVE WT.
GW DEPTH (FT)
PROJECT NAME
DATE FINISHED NL DEPTH
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
P.N. 1-0602 PLATE B-42253
CL
CL
Continued;
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf): SILTY CLAY, gray,
moist, firm, manganese oxides.
@45.0 ft. SANDY CLAY, gray, moist, firm, fine grained sand. @50.0 ft. light yellowish brown, iron oxides, moist, very stiff, fine to medium grained.
TOTAL DEPTH : 51.5 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING OBSERVED
S
S
S
1,2,3
1,3,5
10,11,12
35.0 28.0
140 lbs
7500 Hellman Ave
2 OF 2
30 in.
580 B-4
45 50
TYPE OF DRILL RIG
DRILLER SAT- MOISTURE CONT (%)
4/17/25
(%) URATION
DATE STARTED 4/17/25
540
535
530
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS
S SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE
SAMPLE TYPES:
SHEET
NOTE
LOGGED BY GROUP
J: JOINTING
B: BEDDING
S: SHEAR
C: CONTACT
F: FAULT
RS: RUPTURE SURFACE
1-0602
GROUNDWATER
SEEPAGE
(Feet)
PROJECT NO.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
GROUND ELEV.
8" Hollow Stem Auger
2R Drilling Inc. SYMBOL LITHOLOGY BLOWS
B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE ELEV DRY (pcf) DENSITY BORING DESIG.
DROP
DRIVE WT.
GW DEPTH (FT)
PROJECT NAME
DATE FINISHED NL DEPTH
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
P.N. 1-0602 PLATE B-42254
CL
CL
SP
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf): SILTY CLAY, pale
brown, dry, stiff, trace roots.
@2.0 ft. SANDY CLAY, light brown, slightly moist, very stiff, carbonates, trace roots, fine grained sand.
@5.0 ft. moist, trace gravel.
@10.0 ft. light yellowish brown.
@15.0 ft. light brown, stiff.
@20.0 ft. iron oxides, very stiff, trace roots.
@25.0 ft. SAND, fine grained, gray, iron oxides, moist, dense, trace clay, trace roots.
TOTAL DEPTH : 26 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING OBSERVED
R
R
R
R
R
R
27 21
44 13
24 43
87 88
59 22
92 89
97 95
14.8 26.1
13.4 28.5
15.8 6.1
140 lbs
7500 Hellman Ave
1 OF 1
30 in.
580 B-5
5 10
15 20
25 TYPE OF DRILL RIG
DRILLER SAT- MOISTURE CONT (%)
4/17/25
(%) URATION
DATE STARTED 4/17/25
580
575
570
565
560
555
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS
S SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE
SAMPLE TYPES:
SHEET
NOTE
LOGGED BY GROUP
J: JOINTING
B: BEDDING
S: SHEAR
C: CONTACT
F: FAULT
RS: RUPTURE SURFACE
1-0602
GROUNDWATER
SEEPAGE
(Feet)
PROJECT NO.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
GROUND ELEV.
8" Hollow Stem Auger
2R Drilling Inc. SYMBOL LITHOLOGY BLOWS
B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE ELEV DRY (pcf) DENSITY BORING DESIG.
DROP
DRIVE WT.
GW DEPTH (FT)
PROJECT NAME
DATE FINISHED NL DEPTH
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
P.N. 1-0602 PLATE B-52255
CL
SC
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf): SILTY CLAY, pale
brown, dry, stiff, trace roots.
@2.0 ft. light gray.
@5.0 ft. pale brown, slightly moist, carbonates.
@10.0 ft. CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained, olive brown, iron oxides, moist, medium dense, trace gravel.
TOTAL DEPTH : 10 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING OBSERVED
N/A
7500 Hellman Ave
1 OF 1
N/A
580 P-1
5 10
TYPE OF DRILL RIG
DRILLER SAT- MOISTURE CONT (%)
4/17/25
(%) URATION
DATE STARTED 4/17/25
580
575
570
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS
S SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE
SAMPLE TYPES:
SHEET
NOTE
LOGGED BY GROUP
J: JOINTING
B: BEDDING
S: SHEAR
C: CONTACT
F: FAULT
RS: RUPTURE SURFACE
1-0602
GROUNDWATER
SEEPAGE
(Feet)
PROJECT NO.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
GROUND ELEV.
8" Hollow Stem Auger
2R Drilling Inc. SYMBOL LITHOLOGY BLOWS
B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE ELEV DRY (pcf) DENSITY BORING DESIG.
DROP
DRIVE WT.
GW DEPTH (FT)
PROJECT NAME
DATE FINISHED NL DEPTH
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
P.N. 1-0602 PLATE B-62256
CL
CL
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf): SILTY CLAY, light
brown, dry, stiff, trace roots.
@2.0 ft. light gray, very stiff, trace gravel.
@4.8 ft. brown, slightly moist, carbonates.
@10.0 ft. SANDY CLAY, light brown, moist, very stiff, trace gravel, fine to coarse grained sand.
TOTAL DEPTH : 10 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING OBSERVED
N/A
7500 Hellman Ave
1 OF 1
N/A
580 P-2
5 10
TYPE OF DRILL RIG
DRILLER SAT- MOISTURE CONT (%)
4/17/25
(%) URATION
DATE STARTED 4/17/25
580
575
570
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS
S SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE
SAMPLE TYPES:
SHEET
NOTE
LOGGED BY GROUP
J: JOINTING
B: BEDDING
S: SHEAR
C: CONTACT
F: FAULT
RS: RUPTURE SURFACE
1-0602
GROUNDWATER
SEEPAGE
(Feet)
PROJECT NO.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
GROUND ELEV.
8" Hollow Stem Auger
2R Drilling Inc. SYMBOL LITHOLOGY BLOWS
B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE ELEV DRY (pcf) DENSITY BORING DESIG.
DROP
DRIVE WT.
GW DEPTH (FT)
PROJECT NAME
DATE FINISHED NL DEPTH
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
P.N. 1-0602 PLATE B-72257
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing
2258
Project Number 1-0602 Page C-1
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LABORATORY TESTING
The following laboratory tests were performed on a representative sample in accordance with the applicable latest standards or methods from the ASTM, California Building Code (CBC) and California Department of Transportation.
Classification
Soils were classified with respect to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in accordance with ASTM D-2487 and D-2488.
Particle Size Analysis
Modified hydrometer testing was conducted to aid in classification of the soil. The results of the particle size analysis are presented in Table C.
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of one representative bulk sample was evaluated in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The results are summarized in Table C.
Expansion Index Tests
One (1) expansion index tests were performed to evaluate the expansion potential of typical on-site soil. Testing was carried out in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D-4829.
The results are presented in Table C.
Chemical Analyses
Chemical testing was performed on one select samples by Alta. The results of these tests (sulfate content, resistivity, chloride content and pH) are presented on Table C. 2259
B-1 5 Sandy Silt (Qyf) ML 92.0 24.8 2 32 45 21 25 MinResist:903 Ohmcm pH:7.1,Chl:775ppm,So4:0.02%
B-3 5 Sandy Silt (Qyf) ML 8 33 37 22 SEE PLATE
C-1
B-4 2 Silty Sand (Qyf) SM 25 44 16 15 pH:6.6,Chl:235ppm,So4:0.01%
OTHER TESTS
REMARKS
BORING DEPTH
(FEET)
SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP
SYMBOL
DIRECT
SHEAR
EXPANSION
INDEX
UBC 18-2
MAXIMUM
DENSITY
(PCF)
TABLE C
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA
P.N. 1-0602
OPTIMUM
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
CONSOL
SILT
(0.075mm-0.005mm)
(%)
SAND
(4.76mm-0.075mm)
(%)
PLUS NO.4 SEIVE
(plus 4.76mm)
(%)
CLAY
(minus 0.005mm)
(%)
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
2260
-2.0
-1.0
0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
REMARKS: WATER ADDED AT 1.07 TSF
CONSOLIDATION CURVE PERCENT CHANGE IN HEIGHT
PLATE C-1
COMPRESSIVE STRESS IN TSF
group typical names density (pcf) symbolsieve (%)
17.5 moist. (%)
in situdry depth (ft.)
5.0B-3
satur. (%)
106
-200
ML Sandy Silt (Qyf)
boring in situ
83 59
Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.
P.N. 1-0602
2261
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
APPENDIX D
Maintenance and Improvement Considerations
2262
Project Number 1-0602 Page D-1
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
General
Owners purchasing property must assume a certain degree of responsibility for improvements and for maintaining conditions around their home. Of primary importance from a geotechnical standpoint are maintaining drainage patterns and minimizing the soil moisture variation below all improvements. Such design, construction and owner maintenance provisions may include:
Employing contractors for improvements who design and build in recognition of local building codes and specific site soils conditions.
Establishing and maintaining positive drainage away from all foundations, walkways, driveways, patios, and other improvements.
Avoiding the construction of planters adjacent to structural improvements.
Alternatively, planter sides/bottoms can be sealed with an impermeable membrane and drained away from the improvements via subdrains into approved disposal areas. Sealing and maintaining construction/control joints within concrete slabs and walkways to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils. Utilizing landscaping schemes with vegetation that requires minimal watering. Watering should be done in a uniform manner, as equally as possible on all sides of the foundation, keeping the soil "moist" but not allowing the soil to become saturated. Maintaining positive drainage away from structures and providing roof gutters on all structures with downspouts that are designed to carry roof runoff directly into area drains or discharged well away from the foundation areas. Avoiding the placement of trees closer to the proposed structures than a distance of one-half the mature height of the tree.
Observation of the soil conditions around the perimeter of the structure during extremely hot/dry or unusually wet weather conditions so that modifications can be made in irrigation programs to maintain relatively uniform moisture conditions.
2263
Project Number 1-0602 Page D-2
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Sulfates
Owners should be cautioned against the import and use of certain inorganic fertilizers, soil amendments, and/or other soils from offsite sources in the absence of specific information relating to their chemical composition. Some fertilizers have been known to leach sulfate compounds into soils and increase the sulfate concentrations to potentially detrimental levels.
Site Drainage
The owners should be made aware of the potential problems that may develop when drainage is altered through construction of hardscape improvements. Ponded water, drainage over the slope face, leaking irrigation systems, overwatering, or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation must be avoided. No water should be allowed to flow over the slopes. No alteration of pad gradients should be allowed that would prevent pad and roof runoff from being directed to approved disposal areas.
Drainage patterns have been established at the time of the fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. No alterations to these drainage patterns should be made unless designed by qualified professionals in compliance with local code requirements and site-specific soils conditions.
Slope Drainage
Residents should be made aware of the importance of maintaining and cleaning all interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, down drains, and any other drainage devices, which have been installed to promote slope stability.
Subsurface drainage pipe outlets may protrude through slope surfaces and/or wall faces. These pipes, in conjunction with the graded features, are essential to slope and wall stability and must be protected in-place. They should not be altered or damaged in any way.
Planting and Irrigation of Slopes
Seeding and planting of the slopes should be planned to achieve, as rapidly as possible, a well-established and deep-rooted vegetal cover requiring minimal watering. It is the responsibility of the landscape architect to provide such plants initially and of the residents to maintain such planting. Alteration of such a planting scheme is at the resident's risk.
The resident is responsible for proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of properly installed irrigation systems. Leaks should be fixed immediately. 2264
Project Number 1-0602 Page D-3
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap. Overwatering with consequent wasteful runoff and serious ground saturation must be avoided.
If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for seasonal and natural rainfall conditions.
Burrowing Animals
Residents must undertake a program to eliminate burrowing animals. This must be an ongoing program in order to promote slope stability.
Owner Improvement
Owner improvements (pools, spas, patio slabs, retaining walls, planters, etc.) should be designed to account for the terrain of the project, as well as expansive soil conditions and chemical characteristics. Design considerations on any given lot may need to include provisions for differential bearing materials, ascending/descending slope conditions, bedrock structure, perched (irrigation) water, special geologic surcharge loading conditions, expansive soil stresses, and long-term creep/settlement.
All owner improvements should be designed and constructed by qualified professionals utilizing appropriate design methodologies, which account for the on-site soils and geologic conditions.
Each lot and proposed improvement should be evaluated on an individual basis.
Setback Zones
Manufactured slopes maybe subject to long-term settlement and creep that can manifest itself in the form of both horizontal and vertical movement. These movements typically are produced as a result of weathering, erosion, gravity forces, and other natural phenomenon. A setback adjacent to slopes is required by most building codes, including the California Building Code. This zone is intended to locate and support the residential structures away from these slopes and onto soils that are not subject to the potential adverse effects of these natural phenomena.
The owner may wish to construct patios, walls, walkways, planters, swimming pools, spas, etc. within this zone. Such facilities may be sensitive to settlement and creep and should not be 2265
Project Number 1-0602 Page D-4
May 16, 2025
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
constructed within the setback zone unless properly engineered. It is suggested that plans for such improvements be designed by a professional engineer who is familiar with grading ordinances and design and construction requirements. In addition, we recommend that the designer and contractor familiarize themselves with the site specific geologic and geotechnical conditions on the specific lot.
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
APPENDIX E
Earthwork Specifications
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
APPENDIX F
Grading Details
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale
APPENDIX E
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT REPORT
2304
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT
EASTVALE 3 PROJECT AT 7500 HELLMAN AVENUE
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 144-070-016,-017, -018, and -020 City of Eastvale, San Bernardino County, California
For Submittal to:
City of Eastvale
Community Development Department, Planning Division
12363 Limonite Avenue, Suite 910
Eastvale, CA 91752
Prepared for:
Warmington Residential, Southern California Division
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Prepared by:
Ron Schmidtling, Principal Paleontologist
Elizabeth Beckner, Report Writer
CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
March 10, 2026
Approximately 3.22 acres
USGS Corona North, Calif., 7.5’ (1:24,000) quadrangle
T2S R7W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Rancho Jurupa land grant) CRM TECH Contract No. 4355P
2305
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Between November 2025 and March 2026, at the request of Warmington Residential, Southern California Division, CRM TECH performed a paleontological resource assessment on 3.22 acres of vacant urban land in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 144-070-016, -017, -018, and -020, located at 7500 Hellman Avenue, north of Walter Street, in a portion of the Rancho Jurupa land grant lying within what would be Section 34 of Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted in the United States Geological Survey Corona North, California,
7.5’ quadrangle.
The study is a part of the environmental review process for the proposed subdivision of the property for the development of 35 single-family homes. The City of Eastvale, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would potentially disrupt or adversely affect any significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources, as mandated by CEQA.
In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities, CRM TECH requested records searches from the appropriate repositories, conducted a literature search, and carried out a systematic field survey in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The results of these research procedures indicate that the extensively disturbed surface soils in the project area are low in paleontological sensitivity, but the subsurface sediments are considered to be high in paleontological sensitivity.
Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends that a paleontological resource impact mitigation program be developed and implemented during the project to prevent project impact on significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources or reduce such impact to a level less than significant. As the primary component of the mitigation program, paleontological monitoring should be required during all earth-moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet. Under this condition, CRM TECH further recommends that the project may be cleared to proceed in compliance with CEQA provisions on paleontological resources.
2306
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES................................................................................................ 4 Definition .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Significance Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 4 Paleontological Sensitivity................................................................................................................ 5 SETTING.............................................................................................................................................. 6 METHODS AND PROCEDURES....................................................................................................... 7 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 7 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 7 Field Survey...................................................................................................................................... 7 RESULTS AND FINDINGS................................................................................................................ 7 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 7 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 8 Field Survey...................................................................................................................................... 8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 10 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications............................................................................................ 12 APPENDIX 2: Records Search Results.............................................................................................. 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity....................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Project area ............................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 3. Satellite image of the project area ......................................................................................... 3 Figure 4. Overview of the project area ................................................................................................. 6 Figure 5. Geologic map of the project area........................................................................................... 9 2307
1 INTRODUCTION
Between November 2025 and March 2026, at the request of Warmington Residential, Southern California Division, CRM TECH performed a paleontological resource assessment on 3.22 acres of vacant urban land in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The subject property of the study consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 144-070-016, -017, -018, and -020, located at 7500 Hellman Avenue, north of Walter Street, in a portion of the Rancho Jurupa land grant lying within what would be Section 34 of Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Corona North, California, 7.5’ quadrangle (Figures 2, 3).
The study is a part of the environmental review process for the proposed subdivision of the property for the development of 35 single-family homes. The City of Eastvale, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000 et seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would potentially disrupt or adversely affect any significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources, as mandated by CEQA.
In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities, CRM TECH requested records searches from the appropriate repositories, conducted a literature search, and carried out a systematic field survey in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. Based on USGS San Bernardino and Santa Ana, Calif., 120’x60’ quadrangles, 1969/1979 edition.
2308
2 Figure 2. Project area. Based on USGS Corona North and Prado Dam, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles, 1981 edition. 2309
3 Figure 3. Satellite image of the project area.Based on Google Earth imagery. 2310
4 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following section presents an overview of common paleontological resource types, along with criteria used in assessing resource significance and paleontological sensitivity.
DEFINITION
Paleontological resources represent the remains of prehistoric life, exclusive of any human remains, and include the localities where fossils were collected as well as the sedimentary rock formations in which they were found. The defining character of fossils or fossil deposits is their geologic age, typically older than recorded human history and/or older than the middle Holocene Epoch, which dates to circa 5,000 radiocarbon years (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010:11).
Common fossil remains include marine and freshwater mollusk shells; the bones and teeth of fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals; leaf imprint assemblages; and petrified wood. Fossil traces, another type of paleontological resource, include internal and external molds (impressions) and casts created by these organisms. These items can serve as important guides to the age of the rocks and sediments in which they are contained and may prove useful in determining the temporal relationships between rock deposits from one area and those from another as well as the timing of geologic events. They can also provide information regarding evolutionary relationships, development trends, and environmental conditions.
Fossil resources generally occur only in areas of sedimentary rock (e.g., sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, claystone, or shale). Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils, particularly vertebrate fossils, are considered nonrenewable paleontological resources. Occasionally fossils may be exposed at the surface through the process of natural erosion or because of human disturbances; however, they generally lie buried beneath the surficial soils. Thus, the absence of fossils on the surface does not preclude the possibility of their being present within subsurface deposits, while the presence of fossils at the surface is often a good indication that more remains may be found in the subsurface.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
According to guidelines proposed by Eric Scott and Kathleen Springer (2003) of the San Bernardino County Museum, paleontological resources can be considered to be of significant scientific interest if they meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends exhibited among organisms, living or extinct;
2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein;
3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or the interactions between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas;