Eastvale City Council
September 9, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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.

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

PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale

APPENDIX A

PROJECT SITE PLAN

PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale

APPENDIX B

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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:

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:

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).

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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,

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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)

PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale

APPENDIX C

HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT

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

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

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.

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

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).

2 Figure 2. Project area. Based on USGS Corona North and Prado Dam, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles (USGS 1981a; 1981b).

3 Figure 3. Satellite image of the project area. Based on Google Earth imagery.

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)

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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;

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

22 APPENDIX 2

NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED LANDS FILE

SEARCH RESULTS

23

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

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

26 APPENDIX 3

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES

WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE RECORDS SEARCH

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

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

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

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.

PLN25-20102 – Eastvale 3 Project
City of Eastvale

APPENDIX D

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

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.

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)

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

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

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

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.

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

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)

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.