Moreno Valley City Council
February 17, 2026

The project site occurs almost completely within a predetermined Survey Area for the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), as shown in Attachment C, MSHCP Relationship Map. Updated focused
MSHCP burrowing owl surveys were conducted during the spring of 2024. Initial focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted by Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC. During the spring of 2020.

No burrowing owl or characteristic sign such as white-wash, feathers, tracks, or pellets were documented within or adjacent to the Project Site during the 2020 or 2024 focused survey efforts (Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2020b, Cadre Environmental 2024).

No suitable burrowing owl burrows larger than 4 inches in diameter potentially utilized for refugia and/or nesting were documented within and/or adjacent to the property during the 2024 focused surveys.

The Project Site is dominated by a 100% canopy of ruderal/nonnative vegetation as shown in Attachments D and E, Current Project Site Photographs and does not currently represent suitable foraging habitat.

An MSHCP preconstruction survey will be required at least 30-days immediately prior to the initiation of construction to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined in the MSHCP. If burrowing owls are detected onsite during the burrowing owl preconstruction survey, a burrowing owl relocation plan will be developed for the passive/active translocation of individuals as directed by the City of Moreno Valley and MSHCP wildlife agencies. Following completion of the burrowing owl preconstruction survey, and compliance with MSHCP species guidelines, if detected, the project will be consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
664
Bradshaw Collection Tentative Tract Map 37858
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report

SUBJECT
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys for the 4.81-Acre Tentative Tract Map 37858 Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, Western Riverside County, California This report presents the findings of focused Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys conducted for the 4.81-acre (0.19-acre offsite right-of-way), 5.00-acre total Bradshaw Collection Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37858 project site (“Project Site”) located within the City of Moreno Valley, western Riverside County, California (RCIP 2004), as shown in Attachment A, Regional Location Map.

The Project Site is located within United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ Series Sunnymead Quadrangle, Riverside County, Township 3 South, Range 3 West, Section

14. Specifically, the Project Site extends east of Bradshaw Circle and north of Cactus Avenue, as shown in Attachment A, Regional Location Map and Attachment B, Project Site Map.

The Project Site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Reche Canyon/Badlands Plan Area and is not located within a Criteria Area, Cell Group or linkage area. The Project Site is located within an MSHCP survey area for burrowing owl, as shown in Attachment C, MSHCP Relationship Map.

METHODS OF STUDY

APPROACH
Prior to initiating the focused survey efforts, a review of all available and relevant data on the biological characteristics, sensitive habitats, and species potentially present on or adjacent to the Project Site was conducted. Additionally, aerial photography, and USGS topographic map data were examined. After reviewing the available information, Cadre Environmental conducted a physical site assessment and initiated focused surveys.

Plant Community/Habitat Classification and Mapping
Plant communities were preliminarily mapped with the aid of an aerial photograph using the MSHCP uncollapsed vegetation communities classification system during the initial focused survey conducted on March 12th, 2024. When a vegetation community could not be accurately characterized using this classification system, an updated community classification code was developed to more accurately represent onsite habitat types.

Vegetation communities and Project Site photographs are shown in Attachment D, Vegetation Communities Map, and Attachment E and F, Current Project Site Photographs.
665
Bradshaw Collection Tentative Tract Map 37858
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report

General Wildlife Inventory
All animals identified during the focused surveys by sight, call, tracks, scat, or other characteristic sign were recorded onto a 1:200 scale orthorectified color aerial photograph or documented using a global positioning system (GPS). In addition to species actually detected, expected use of the site by other wildlife was derived from the analysis of habitats on the site, combined with known habitat preferences of regionally occurring wildlife species.

Vertebrate taxonomy followed in this report is according to the Center for North American Herpetology (2024 for amphibians and reptiles), the American Ornithologists’ Union (1988 and supplemental) for birds, and Baker et al. (2003) for mammals. Both common and scientific names are used during the first mention of a species; common names only are used in the remainder of the text.

Burrowing Owl Surveys
The Project Site is located almost completely within an MSHCP Survey Area for burrowing owl, as shown in Attachment C, MSHCP Relationship Map. Therefore, in accordance with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (2006), survey protocol consists of two steps, Step I – Habitat Assessment and Step II – Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls. Step II is comprised of two parts, Part A: Focused Burrow Surveys and Part B: Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys. Each step is briefly outlined below, followed by the methodology and results of each survey conducted within the Project Site.

Step I – Habitat Assessment
Step 1 of the MSHCP habitat assessment for burrowing owl consists of a walking survey to determine if suitable habitat is present onsite. Initial habitat assessments were conducted by Gonzales Environmental Consulting ,LLC on February 7th, 2020 (Gonzales Environmental Consulting ,LLC 2020a). An updated habitat assessment was conducted by Cadre Environmental on March 12th, 2024. Upon arrival at the Project Site, and prior to initiating the assessment survey, Cadre Environmental used binoculars to scan all suitable habitats on and adjacent to the property, including perch locations, to ascertain owl presence.

All suitable areas of the Project Site were surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically while recording/mapping areas that may represent suitable owl habitat onsite. Primary indicators of suitable burrowing owl habitat in western Riverside County include, but are not limited to, native and non-native grassland, interstitial grassland within shrub lands, shrub lands with low density shrub cover, golf courses, drainage ditches, earthen berms, unpaved airfields, pastureland, dairies, fallow fields, and agricultural use areas. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) or American badgers (Taxidea taxus), but they often utilize man-made structures, such as earthen berms, cement 666
Bradshaw Collection Tentative Tract Map 37858
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report

culverts, cement, asphalt, rock, or wood debris piles, or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Burrowing owls are often found within, under, or in close proximity to man-made structures.

According to the MSHCP guidelines, if suitable habitat is present the biologist should also walk the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the Project Site boundary. If permission to access the buffer area cannot be obtained, the biologist shall not trespass, but visually inspect adjacent habitats with binoculars. Results from the habitat assessment indicated that suitable burrowing owl burrows potentially utilized for refugia and/or nesting were documented within and immediately adjacent to the property including foraging habitat documented throughout the Project Site. Accordingly, if suitable habitat is documented onsite, both Step II surveys and the 30-day pre-construction surveys are required in order to comply with the MSHCP guidelines for the species.

Step II – Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls
Concurrent with the initial habitat assessment, a detailed focused burrow survey was conducted and included documentation of appropriately sized natural burrows or suitable man-made structures that may be utilized by burrowing owl - as part of the MSHCP protocol, which is described below under Part A. Focused Burrow Survey.

Part A: Focused Burrow Survey
A systematic survey for burrows, including burrowing owl sign, was conducted by walking across all suitable habitats mapped within the Project Site by Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC on February 7th, 2020 and Cadre Environmental on March 12th, 2024.

Pedestrian survey transects were spaced to allow 100% visual coverage of the ground surface. The distances between transect centerlines were no more than 20 meters (approximately 66 ft.) apart to the extent possible. Transect routes were also adjusted to account for topography and in general ground surface visibility. All observations of suitable burrows or dens, natural or man-made, or sightings of burrowing owl, were recorded and mapped during the survey.

Part B: Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
Four (4) focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted during the spring of 2024 on March 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th, 2024 from one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise as outlined in Table 1, Burrowing Owl Survey Schedule. Initial focused surveys were conducted by Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC on February 7th, 18th, 26th, March 1st, April 17th, May 17th, June 17th 2020 (Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC 2020b). During visual surveys, all potentially suitable burrow or structure entrances were investigated for signs of owl occupation, such as feathers, tracks, or pellets, and carefully observed to determine if burrowing owls utilize these features, when present. All burrows are monitored at a short distance from the entrance, and at a location that would not 667
Bradshaw Collection Tentative Tract Map 37858
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report

interfere with potential owl behavior, when present. In addition to monitoring potential burrow locations, all suitable habitats in the Project Site were walked along travel routes which allowed for visual assessments of all suitable habitats, as shown in Attachment G, Burrowing Owl Survey Area Map.

Table 1.

Burrowing Owl Survey Schedule
Survey Dates (Conditions) 2024
7:00am – 8:30am
Results
1 March 12th, 50°F to 52°F, winds 0-2 mph, no
rain
No burrowing owls
detected.
2 March 13th, 48°F to 54°F, winds 2-4 mph, no
rain
No burrowing owls
detected.
3 March 14th, 54°F to 55°F, winds 4-12 mph, no
rain
No burrowing owls
detected.
4 March 15th, 44°F to 51°F, winds 2-8 mph, no
rain
No burrowing owls
detected.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project Site is generally flat and primarily characterized as ruderal/disturbed and nonnative grassland habitats as illustrated in Attachment D, Vegetation Communities Map, Attachments E and F, Current Project Site Photographs, and outlined in Table 2, Project Site Vegetation Community Acreages.

Table 2
Project Site Vegetation Community Acreages
Vegetation Type
Acres
(onsite)
Acres
(offsite)
Acres
TOTAL
Ruderal/Disturbed 3.11 0.00 3.11
Non-native Grassland 1.65 0.10 1.75
Developed 0.05 0.09 0.14
TOTAL 4.81 0.19 5.00
Source: Cadre Environmental 2024.

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Ruderal/Disturbed
Ruderal/Disturbed habitat was documented in the northern region of the Project Site and adjacent to the existing roadways generally devoid of vegetation. Dominant species 668
Bradshaw Collection Tentative Tract Map 37858
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report

documented within this vegetation community include cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), white-stemmed filaree (Erodium moschatum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper).

Non-native Grassland
The southern region of the Project Site is characterized as non-native grassland. Species documented within this vegetation community include wild oat (Avena fatua), wall barley (Hordeum murinum), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis) and a single Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta).

Developed
The developed regions of the Project Site include the paved reach of Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle.

RESULTS
Burrowing Owl
No burrowing owl or characteristic sign such as white-wash, feathers, tracks, or pellets were documented within or adjacent to the Project Site during the 2020 or 2024 focused survey efforts (Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2020b, Cadre Environmental 2024). No suitable burrowing owl burrows larger than 4 inches in diameter potentially utilized for refugia and/or nesting were documented within and/or adjacent to the property during the 2024 focused surveys. The Project Site is dominated by a 100% canopy of ruderal/non-native vegetation as shown in Attachments D and E, Current Project Site Photographs and does not currently represent suitable foraging habitat.

An MSHCP preconstruction survey will be required at least 30-days immediately prior to the initiation of construction to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined in the MSHCP. If burrowing owls are detected onsite during the burrowing owl preconstruction survey, a burrowing owl relocation plan will be developed for the passive/active translocation of individuals as directed by the City of Moreno Valley and MSHCP wildlife agencies. Following completion of the burrowing owl preconstruction survey, and compliance with MSHCP species guidelines, if detected, the project will be consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
669
Bradshaw Collection Tentative Tract Map 37858
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report

General Faunal Species Observations
General wildlife species documented on site include but are not limited to northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae).

LITERATURE CITED AND SELECTED REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024a. Special Animals. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2024b. Sensitive Element Record Search for the Sunnymead Quadrangle.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. Accessed March 2024.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024c. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California Natural Resources Agency.

County of Riverside. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions – Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.

Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2020a. Habitat Assessment including the results of Focused Burrowing Owl Survey and Overview MSHCP Consistency Tentative Tract Map 37585.

Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2020b. Habitat Assessment and Focused Surveys for Burrowing Owl Tentative Tract Map 37585.

Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), March 2004.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024. Threatened and Endangered Species.

Pacific Southwest Region. Carlsbad Office. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20. htm Accessed March 2024.
670
Tentative Tract Map 37858 Bradshaw Collection
Survey Report Owl Burrowing Focused MSHCP
March 18 – 9 Page
th September 19 (Updated , 2024th
) , 2025

ATTACHMENTS
Regional Location Map - Attachment A
Map Project Site - B Attachment
Map MSHCP Relationship - C Attachment
Map Vegetation Communities - D Attachment
Project Site Photographs Current - E Attachment
Project Site Photographs Current - F Attachment
Map Area Survey Burrowing Owl - G Attachment
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present “ the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge statements, and .” and belief
March 18 Date: _____ __________ _____ Author: ________________________ th
, 2024
March 18 Date: ____ _____ _ __ _____ Fieldwork Performed By: _____________ th
, 2024
'& {/ V {/
&7
671
§¨¦10
·|þ}60
§¨¦215
·|þ}60
City of
Moreno Valley
not to scale
CADRE Environmental
Project Site
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
§¨¦10
Attachment A - Regional Location Map
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
Tentative Tract Map 37858 - City of Moreno Valley, California APNs 478-090-018, -024, -025
:ii Ave
'0
er
't)
0 0
3:

TERRA CE
..._
3rd St
>
E , Ill St< Cl
> 0
<
C
..,
E
..

Cl
II) CL
S nBem dno
Intl Alrp t
+

BRY N MAWR
Moreno
Nuevo Rd
PERRIS

EAS T HIGHLA NDS
II)
Cl
Cl
C
..,
...
0 Lug on I
Nuevo Rd
>
<
0 R di ds
Munl
Airport
+ <
Ave
ell
C
Men tone Blvd '-

M EN TONE
>
<
J:;
.,
NUEVO
0 c,

O CRAF TON
Yuc:ilp

II) DU NLA P ACR ES

EL CASCO
0 Ramona Expy
Q
>
<(
C
.,
C
" Coiftour Ava
672
~ 11!J
1 inch = 200 feet
CADRE
Environmental
Attachment B - Project Site Map
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
Tentative Tract Map 37858 - City of Moreno Valley, California # Photo Point & Direction
1 2
4 3
Cactus Avenue
Bradshaw Circle

OFFSITE IMPACT BOUNDARY

PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY
500ft (150m) Buffer 500ft (150m) Buffer
Moreno Beach Drive
m
673 -
1 inch = 200 feet
CADRE
Environmental
Attachment C - MSHCP Relationship Map
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
Tentative Tract Map 37858 - City of Moreno Valley, California Cactus Avenue
Bradshaw Circle

OFFSITE IMPACT BOUNDARY

PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY
500ft (150m) Buffer 500ft (150m) Buffer
Moreno Beach Drive
MSHCP Burrowing Owl
Survey Area
(red hatch)
m
674 -
1 inch = 80 feet
CADRE
Environmental
Attachment D - Vegetation Communities Map
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
Tentative Tract Map 37858 - City of Moreno Valley, California Cactus Avenue
Bradshaw Circle

OFFSITE IMPACT BOUNDARY

PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY
478-090-018
478-090-024
478-090-025
RW
Sources: Cadre Environmental 2024
Vegetation Communities
Non-native Grassland
Developed
NNG
DEV
RUD Ruderal/Disturbed
RUD
RUD
RUD
NNG
NNG
DEV
1JIIINtl
675
PHOTOGRAPH 1 - Southeast view of Project Site from
northwest corner.

PHOTOGRAPH 2 - Southwest view of Project Site from
northeast corner.

CADRE
Environmental
Refer to Attachment B - Project Site Map for Photographic Key Attachment E - Current Project Site Photographs
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
Tentative Tract Map 37858 - City of Moreno Valley, California 676 PHOTOGRAPH 3 - Northwest view of Project Site from
southeast corner near Cactus Avenue.

PHOTOGRAPH 4 - Northeast view of Project Site from
southwest corner near Cactus Avenue/Bradshaw Circle
Intersection.

CADRE
Environmental
Refer to Attachment B - Project Site Map for Photographic Key Attachment F - Current Project Site Photographs
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
Tentative Tract Map 37858 - City of Moreno Valley, California 677 1 inch = 200 feet
CADRE
Environmental
Attachment G - Burrowing Owl Survey Area Map
MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
Tentative Tract Map 37858 - City of Moreno Valley, California Cactus Avenue
Bradshaw Circle

PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY
Survey Transects
500ft (150m) Buffer 500ft (150m) Buffer
Moreno Beach Drive

OFFSITE IMPACT BOUNDARY
·- ---~ ·---
m
678 -

A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION

AND PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERVIEW FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37858,

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

RC HOBBS COMPANIES
Attn: Roger Hobbs, President
1428 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92866
Prepared by:

McKENNA et al.
6008 Friends Avenue
Whittier, California 90601-3724
(562) 696-3852
[email protected]
Author and Principal Investigator: Jeanette A. McKenna, MA/RPA/HonDL Job No. 01-20-03-2052
March 18, 2020
679
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. ii LIST OR TABLES ................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 1 LOCATION AND SETTING .................................................................................... 4 CULTURE HISTORY BACKGROUND ................................................................... 7 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 13 EVALUATION CRITERIA ....................................................................................... 14 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 16 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................. 19 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 19 Paleontological Resources .................................................................................. 20 Native American Consultation ............................................................................. 20 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 20 CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................... 21 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 22 APPENDICES:

A. Professional Qualifications ............................................................................. A-1 B. Archaeological Records Search ..................................................................... B-1 C. Native American Consultation ......................................................................... C-1 D. Paleontological Overview ................................................................................ D-1 E. Photographic Record ..................................................................................... E-1 F. Supplemental Research Data ........................................................................ F-1 680
ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

1. Tentative Tract Map No. 37858 .................................................................... 2

2. USGS Sunnymead Quadrangle (rev. 1980) Illustrating the Location of TTM 37858 ................................................................................ 3

3. General Location of the Project Area ........................................................... 4

4. A Portion of Map No. 1 – Bear Valley & Alessandro Development Co., Illustrating Block 133, Lot 6 (1890; SB Co. Map Book 11, Pg. 10 ................ 5

5. Parcel Map No. 8114 (1977) Illustrating the Subdivision of Lot 6, Block 133, BV&AD Co., by Perris No. 15, LP .............................................. 12

LIST OF TABLES
Page

1. Cultural Resources Studies Completed within One Mile of TTM No. 37858 ............................................................................................ 17

2. Cultural Resources Recorded within One Mile of TTM No. 37858 .............. 18

3. UTM Coordinates Defining the Project Area Boundaries ............................. 19 681

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 1

A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION

AND PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERVIEW FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37858,

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
by,
Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal
McKenna et al., Whittier CA

INTRODUCTION
This Phase I cultural resources investigation and paleontological overview for Tentative Tract Map. No. 37858, in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California, was conducted by McKenna et al. (Appendix A) at the request of Robert Beers, Jurupa Valley, representing RC Hobbs Companies of Orange, California. Jeanette A. McKenna (M.A., RPA), Principal Investigator for McKenna et al., supervised this project and was assisted by David Asplund (B.A.) and Breidy Quespi Vilcahuaman (M.A.). These investigations were conducted between January, 2020, and March, 2020, for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and local policies pertaining to the identification and treatment of potentially significant cultural resources (City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2006 – and currently being updated).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative Tract Map No. 37858 is located on the north side of Cactus Avenue, between Moreno Beach Drive and Quincey Street. The 4.81 acres is currently vacant and the proposed project involves the 38 single family residential lots averaging 45 feet by 72 feet in size. The main access to the development will be off Cactus Avenue via the existing Bradshaw Circle roadway (Figure 1). The tract map is designed to define the property boundaries. No specific residential plans have been developed or submitted for approval. The current zoning is “R5” and the proposed zoning is “R10.” This zone change will require a General Plan Amendment and, as such, also a level of consultation with local Native American representatives consistent and compliant with SB-18 and AB-52.

The City of Moreno Valley is acting as the Lead Agency for this consultation process. 682

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 2 Figure 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 37858.
'---
IJbscur-ed Area
0'"'J\,.~tw
AP"! 478-0iO-~
/Jbscure7:t·--4[
EB
C
OWNtR ELJZABElH
TSAI. (T AL
APN 478-090-021!1
683

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 3

LOCATION AND SETTING
The current project area is located in the western Riverside County, California, and within the City of Moreno Valley. More specifically, the property is located within Township 3 South, Range 3 West, and the northwest quarter of Section 14 (Figure 2). This area is located south of the 60 Freeway; east of Moreno Beach Drive; and on the north side of Cactus Drive (Figure 3).

Figure 2. USGS Sunnymead Quadrangle (rev. 1980) Illustrating the Location of TTM 37858.
684

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 4 Figure 3. General Location of the Project Area.
!
~1
I ' dj-••,
I
' g 1 <-., l
?81
"",
i~~T_ESI N
WY
-..J
~L_E__J ~ MESA TOP TR RWY SPRUCE
..----.--"° ~ ... l~--~...,...---...--,;;;.:;.~ :;:..:.;F.:,.----1-----'-'=--,,.,--+-:,,,=+-~=-~ - - - ------· AV -- ·1
WY
i I
I
- -· --i-- -· -· - --- - •
lg
\:;l
r
I
I
I __ COTTONWOOO
12 SANDRO B
;29500
esl
~ ! 13 V> j
685

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 5 The City of Moreno Valley is located in a northwestern extension of both the San Jacinto Valley and Perris Valley. It is bounded to the north and northwest by the Box Springs Mountains and to the southeast by the San Jacinto Mountains. Mt. Russell, part of the San Jacinto Mountains, is southeast of the current project area. The City is directly associated with the geology of the larger Perris Plain, extending west and northwest from the San Jacinto Mountains (Norris and Webb 1990:288). The Moreno Valley area, below the Box Springs Mountains, is described by Norris and Webb as:
“... a broad, nearly flat surface dotted with bedrock hills ... this plain has an average elevation of about 520 meters (1700 feet) ... The numerous bedrock hills that interrupt its surface have been described as residual knobs of resistant rock, which survived prolonged erosion (monadnocks). It has been suggested that a surface of low relief was developed on the crystalline bedrock, leaving behind the scattered monadnocks.”
The Moreno Valley is also equated with the geomorphologic Peninsula Ranges of Southern California (Norris and Webb 1990:288) with Cretaceous and pre-Cretaceous materials that include limestone, schist, and gneiss. Igneous rock includes the intrusive gabbros, quartz diorite, tonalite, and/or granodiorite. Post-Cretaceous rocks include crystallines, sandstones, siltstones, and conglomerates. Quaternary deposits include volcanics and coastal marine terraces (Norris and Webb 1990:281-283; see McKenna 2009:6).

Hot springs, in this case associated with the San Jacinto and Elsinore Fault Zones, were known and utilized by prehistoric and historic populations. Kneicht (1971) mapped this area of western Riverside County and identified the area of Pigeon Pass Road as consisting of MmD2 soils; MmC2; HcC; CkF2; and Rtf soils, interpreted as:

MmD2 Monserate Sandy Loam on 5-8
o slopes
MmC2 Monserate Sandy Loam on 8-15 o slopes
HcC Hanford Coarse Sany Loan on 2-8
o slopes
CkF2 Cieneba Rocky Sandy Loam on 15-20 o slopes
RtF Rocky Land (exposed granitic outcrops)
The recently prepared paleontological overview for the project area (McLeod 2020) identified the surficial deposits as consisting of younger Quaternary alluvial deposits derived from the hills to the north (Box Springs Mountains). These coarser younger deposits overlay the older Quaternary alluvial deposits, described as “finer-grained” and likely to be fossil bearing.

With respect to vegetation, this area of Southern California is located near the western boundary Sonoran desert (MacMahon 1987:34). Flora native to the Sonoran Desert include: Creosote Bush (Larrea tridentata), White Bur Sage (Ambrosia dumosa), Bur Sage 686

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 6 (Ambrosia deltoides), Big Galleta (Hilaria rigida), Indigo Bush (Psorothamnus schottii), Mormon Tea (Ephedra spp.), Pencil Cholla (Opuntia ramosissima), Velvet Mesquite (Prosopis velutina), Desert Sand Verbena (Abronia villosa), Desert Sunflower (Geraea canescens), Graythorn (Ziziphus obtusifolia), Beavertail Cactus (Opuntia basilaris), Blue Palo Verde (Cercidium floridum),
Ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), Golden Cholla (Opuntia echinocarpa), Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus acanthodes), Desert Ironwood (Olneya tesota), Teddybear Cholla (Opuntia bigelovii), Hedgehog Cactus (Echinocereus engelmannii), Desert Agave (Agave deserti), Trixis (Trixis californica), Chuparosa (Beloperone californica), Desert Lavender (Hyptis emoryi), Sweetbush (Bebbia juncea), Buckhorn Cholla (Opuntia acanthocarpa), Cane Cholla (Opunita spinosior), Jumping Cholla (Opuntia fulgida), Prickly Pear Cactus (Opuntia phaeacantha), Desert Christmas Cactus (Opuntia leptocaulis), Night-blooming Cereus (Cereus greggii), Fishhook Cactus (Mammilaria microcarpa), Fishhook Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus wislizenii), Organ Pipe Cactus (Cereus thurberi), and Senita (Cereus schottii).

Also associated with the Desert are the Whitehorn Acacia (Acacia constricta), Fairy Duster (Calliabdra eriphylla), Limber Bush (Jatropha cardiophylla), Jojoba (Simmondisa chinenis), Ratany (Krameria pavifolia), Desert Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Paperflower (Psilostrophe cooperi), Desert Willow Chilopsis linearis), Desert Broom (Baccharis sarothroides), Dock (Rumex hymenosepalus), Canyon Ragweed (Ambrosia ambrosioides), Desert Hackberry (Celtis pallida), Mexican Jumping Bean (Sapium biloculare), Elephant Tree (Bursera microphylla), Boojum Tree (Fouquieria columnaris), Maguey (Agave shawii), Cardon (Cereus pringelei), Ball Moss (Tillandsia recurvata), the Mexican Palo Verde (Parkinsonia aculeata), and Crucifixion Thorn (Canotia holacantha).

Mammals include coyotes (Canis latrans), badgers (Taxidea taxus), Black-tailed Jack Rabbit (Lepus californicus), Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis), Round-tailed Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus tereticanudus), Rock Squirrel (Spermophilus variegatus), White-tailed Antelope Squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), Harris’ Antelope Squirrel (Ammospermophilus harrissii), Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis), Merriam’s Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami), Desert Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys deserti), Ord’s Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys ordii), Banner-tailed Kangaroo Rat (Dipodymys spectabilis), Desert Pocket Mouse (Perognathus penicillatus), Rock Pocket Mouse (Perognathus intermedius), Bailey’s Pocket Mouse (Perognathus baileyi), Long-tailed Pocket Mouse (Perognathus formosus), Silky Pocket Mouse (Perognathus flavus), Deer Mouse (Permyscus maniculatus), Cactus Mouse (Permyscus eremicus), Canyon Mouse (Permyscus crinitus), Derest Woodrat (Neotoma lepida), White-tailed Woodrat (Neotoma albigula), Botta’s Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae), and Mexican Long-nosed Bat (Leptonycteris nivalis).

Various spiders, scorpions, ants, grasshoppers, toads, lizards, and snakes are also known in the Sonoran Desert (MacMahon 1987:73-76). Birds include sparrows, quail, roadrunners, thrashers, owl, dove, gnatcatchers, flycatchers, warblers, mockingbirds, wrens, ravens, vultures, and kestrels.
687

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 7 Limited historic agricultural activities, grazing, and some mining activities in the nearby hills have impacted much of the native vegetation in this area. Although the Box Springs Mountain Reserve has aided in protecting some of the native vegetation, the current project area has yielded no evidence of native vegetation - the native flora has been replaced by introduced vegetation, primarily grasses and a few trees.

CULTURE HISTORY BACKGROUND
The Sonoran Desert is known to have been occupied during both the prehistoric and historic periods. As such, the resources were exploited and, in some cases, the terrain was altered or impacted by the human occupations. The current project area is located within an area of Riverside County that borders the traditional and ethnographic boundaries of the Luiseño Native American populations (Bean and Shipek 1978).

The Luiseño are more directly associated with coastal and inland areas of present-day Orange and southern Riverside counties and their inland cultural characteristics being similar to those of the Cahuilla, a population generally associated with areas northeast of the San Jacinto Mountains. Evidence of nearby Native American populations may also be represented, including those of the Pass Cahuilla, Serrano, and Gabrielino.

The Luiseño are described as hunters and gatherers who also lived in semi-sedentary villages, practiced a complex form of territoriality and exploitation, and are known throughout Southern California for their rock art (Shepard 1998). Exchange between the Luiseno and Cahuilla has been documented. In context, the project area is considered a Luiseño area, though evidence of a Cahuilla presence may be identified (Robinson and Risher 1996:102-103).

Moreno Valley can be tentatively associated with numerous Native American villages and/or settlements (Barrows 1900; Hooper 1920; Kroeber 1925 and 1976; Curtis 1926; Strong 1929; Bean and Saubel 1972; and Bean 1978). The Luiseño relied on intermittent drainages and springs for fresh water sources and villages were established near the natural springs (e.g. Box Springs). Smaller encampments were founded in other areas and scattered throughout the hillsides where exposed bedrock provided surfaces for grinding and/or milling sites. Trails, temporary small camp sites, and other limited use areas have been recorded throughout the area and attest to the wide-spread use of the Valley by prehistoric man.

The Luiseño practiced a relatively complex social organization based on lineages and clans. Individual clans occupied village sites and exploited individualized territories. Interactions provided exchange in the forms of trade, marriage alliances, and social/ceremonial contact. Marriage occurred between moieties, thereby avoiding marriages between blood relatives. Clan associations were more directly related to the exploitation of resources, trade, and social interaction (Love 1998: 4; McKenna 1997, 2003, and 2009).
688

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 8 Analysis of ethnographic data and archaeological data has resulted in the development of various chronologies for the Sonoran [California] Desert (Wallace 1962; Warren and Orr 1978; Weide and Barker 1975; Hall and Barker 1975; King and Casebrier 1976; and Gallegos et al. 1979). Jertberg (1982:5-7) synthesized the chronology(ies):

10,000 to 6,000 B.C.: The Lake Mojave/San Dieguito Complex and/or Western Lithic Co-Tradition). Characterized by the presence of projectile points, large knives, chopping tools, scraper planes, and scrapers, (Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Campbell and
Campbell 1937; Rogers 1939; Davis et al. 1969). Items associated with vegetal food processing and hunting and the presence of a coniferous woodland and pluvial lakes.
6,000 B.C.-A.D. 500: Archaic or Pinto Armagosa periods (Wallace 1962; Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Weide and Barker 1974). Characterized by diagnostic projectile points, leaf shaped blades, choppers, and scraper planes. Some sites exhibit a small assemblage of milling stones. A shift in climate and vegetation led to a shift in exploitation with an emphasis on vegetal resources.

A.D. 500 to Historic: (un-named). Characterized by the presence of the bow and arrow (as opposed to darts), ceramics, and cremations. Milling tools increase, including mortars and pestles. There is evidence of limited agriculture and the appearance of Shoshonean-speakers displacing local Hokan-speaking populations (Wallace 1962:176).

More recent archaeological investigations in portions of the San Jacinto Valley areas suggest Native Americans can be identified in the area as early as 8,000 to 9,000 B.P. (Before Present; Love 1999; Tang et al. 2003). Such studies have resulted in the development of a revised general chronological sequence for these inland areas of Southern California.

Grenda (1993) has summarized the chronological data as follows:
11,000-8,000 B.P. Pleistocene/Early Holocene (Early Man) Period 8,000-5,500 B.P. San Dieguito Period
5,500-1,500 B.P. Millingstone/La Jolla-Pauma/Archaic/Encinitas Period 1,500-300 B.P. Late Prehistoric/Luiseño Period
Research oriented towards the understanding of contact between Native American populations and non-Native populations emphasizes the impacts of European contact --- chronologically presented by many anthropologists and historians:
689

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 9 1500s-1760s Long distance contact with Europeans
1770s-1820s Mission Period
1830s-1840s Rancho Period
1850s-1870s American Migration to California
1880s-present Reservation Period
The “historic” Period of California history began in 1769 and the initiation of the Mission system in San Diego and the subsequent establishment of Missions throughout Alta California. Missionization was followed by many years of sporadic settlement by Spanish populations traveling from Mexico and into Alta California. Spanish explorers, such as Pedro Fages and Juan Bautista de Anza, traveled through the San Jacinto Plains as early as 1772-1774. However, no European settlement occurred in the vicinity of Moreno Valley until after 1800 (McCawley 1996; Marinacci and Marinacci 1988:67). This contact was minimal and did not result in any permanent settlements.

The first European-American settlers in western Riverside County arrived in the late 1860s and were generally concentrated in the area of San Jacinto, the oldest non-Native community in the general area. A land boom swept through much of Southern California in the 1880s and other settlements (e.g. Perris, Hemet, and Valle Vista) appeared (see Dumke 1944). Individuals began acquiring lands from the U.S. Government - some with considerable acreage. With respect to the Moreno Valley development, Gunther (1984:
333) states:
“MORENO. When this town was first platted in 1890, the Bear Valley and Alessandro Development Co., owners of the land, announced that it would be named New Haven [RP&H Oct. 11, 1890], but on November 1, 1890, The Citrograph carried a small item that stated simply, “The new town at this end of Alessandro Valley has had its name changed from New Haven to Moreno (Spanish for Brown)” ... there was no one living there at that time, the land still being prepared ... Moreno post office was established on February 19, 1891 ... Moreno was called “the new town on the Alessandro tract at the upper end of the Perris Valley” ... The surrounding farmland became known as MORENO VALLEY.”
The settlement within the Moreno Valley was, as noted, sporadic and the City of Moreno Valley was not incorporated until 1984. Until 1984, the area was considered unincorporated County land – San Bernardino County prior to 1893 and Riverside County after 1893. Research through the Bureau of Land Management General Land Office records showed that this general area of Riverside County was purchased as part of the larger holdings of Gustave Make (also referenced as “Mahe”) in ca. 1870 (Mahe purchased a total of 13,350 acres).

690

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 10 Mahe’s land was later transferred to the Bear Valley and Alessandro Development Company. Alessandro (e.g. the Alessandro Tract) was a reference to the “rich and fertile portion of the San Jacinto Valley” (Gunther 1984:11), also purchased by the Bear Valley and Alessandro Development Company.

When established, south of the current project area, the area associated with the Bear Valley and Alessandro Development Company was part of San Bernardino County. The subdivision – Map No. 1 - of the Bear Valley & Alessandro Development Co. included the current project area, identifying the 4.81 acres as part of Block 133, Lot 6 (Figure 4).

Each section of land within the subdivision was divided into eight blocks of eight lots each, or 94 lots of 10 acres each. The current project area is equated with the eastern half of Lot 6, Block 133, and, with minor lot line adjustment, now equates to the 4.81 acre project area.

Figure 4. A Portion of Map No. 1 – Bear Valley & Alessandro Development Co., Illustrating Block 133, Lot 6 (1890; SB Co. Map Book 11, Pg. 10).

This subdivision map was filed in San Bernardino County in 1890 and, following the establishment of Riverside County in 1893, Riverside County recognized the subdivision and began recording land ownerships and transfers. At the time of this research, the Riverside County Archives had data from 1926 to 1961 available (earlier data was out for digitizing). Nonetheless, the accessible data was sufficient to confirm the owner of Lot 6 inn 1926 was Mary H. Trautwein et al. In 1926, Mary H. Trautwein also owned Lots 7 and 8. By 1933, Trautwein has sold Lot 8 (to Maggie D. Muldowney) and purchased Lot 5 (from Anna T. King). In 1933, each 10 acre lot was assessed at $200 with no listing for any improvements.
691

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 11 Mary H. Trautwein et al. maintained ownership of all three lots through 1961, when each lot was assessed at $380 with no listed improvements.

Research into Mary H. Trautwein identified her as a native of Pennsylvania, born in 1916, and living in California by 1920. Her mother, Mary C. Trautman, nee Telford, was born in 1886 in Pennsylvania and was identified as a widow living with her sister and brotherin-law in Pasadena (William and Rachael Shephard) in 1920. Although no specific record was found, Mary C. Trautwein’s husband apparently died during WWI (1917-1918), leaving his wife with a newborn daughter. Mary C. Trautman relocated to California to live with her sister and rebuild her life. Shortly after relocating, Mary C. Trautment began attending college, receiving a B.A. from Occidental College and an M.A. in Education from the University of Southern California (1928), purchasing the residence on S. Bunker Hill the same year. She worked as a career public school teacher in Los Angeles and purchased a residence at 321 S. Bunker Hill, Los Angeles, where she raised Mary H. Trautwein. She never remarried and died in 1964.

Mary H. Trautwein remained at her aunt and uncle’s residence into the early 1930s, attending local schools while her mother was in college. She attended Pasadena Community College, studying music, eventually moving to Los Angeles to share the Bunker Hill residence with her mother. In 1935, she graduated from the University of Southern California in 1935 with a degree in Music. She remained in Los Angeles, dying in 1954 (only 38), while still living with her mother. She never married.

With respect to the property in Moreno Valley, the earliest record of ownership (ca. 1926) listed Mary H. Trautwein et al. As Mary Henrietta Trautwein was only ten in 1926, the property was obviously purchased by someone else and put in Mary H.’s name. It appears, the Shephards, identified as farmers, and Mary C. Trautwein were investing in the land for Mary H. Trautwein – insuring her some investment for future use. Her premature passing left the property in the name of “Mary H. Trautwein et al.” until Mary C. Trautwein’s passing in 1964. Subsequently, the land holdings were sold.

Lot 5 of Block 133 was subdivided as Parcel Map No. 8115 in 1977, following a purchased in 1971 by Lance Gage (representing Perris No. 14, LP). Edward A. and Marian Sutter subdivided a portion of Lot 5, Block 133, in 1978, resulting in the establishment of the western portion of Bradshaw Circle.

Also mapped in 1977, Parcel Map No. 8114 (Lance Gage for the Perris No. 15, LP) involved the subdivision of Lot 6 of Block 133, establishing the eastern extent of Bradshaw Circle and the definition of four parcels (Figure 5):

Parcel 1 = 1.750 acres
Parcel 2 = 1.667 acres
Parcel 3 = 3.083 acres
Parcel 4 = 1.976 acres
Bradshaw Circle = 1.524 acres
692

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 12 Figure 5. Parcel Map No. 8114 (1977) Illustrating the Subdivision of Lot 6, Block 133, BV&AD Co., by Perris No. 15, LP.

As illustrated, the current project area involves Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 8114.

With minor adjustments, the combined parcels have resulted in the current 4.81 acre project area. Tract No. 17535 shows Lot 7 was subdivided in 1981by William McCloud, general partner of “Alessandro Industrial.” This research has indicated the Trautwein holdings were sold around 1971 and, with the 1980 mapping of Parcel Map No. 16636 by Herbert W. and Martha Kruger, the three parcels comprising the project area were defined:

APN 478-090-18 = 3.16+/- acres (gross) 3.05 acres (net) APN 478-090-24 = 0.90 acres (gross) 0.90 acres (net)
APN 478-090-25 = 0.76 acres (gross) 0.76 acres (net)

There is no record of any improvements within Lot 6, Block 133, until the established residences in the southwestern quarter (outside the current project area). The project area, east and northeast of Bradshaw Circle, has been periodically disked.

R PA.RCEL 4 I , :>7G .Ac:: . 'l!.f
g -a
! u.dfb•r~•r-1,"'.e . -,).~-
4•Jfl•t4!11" R•t-Q,#,-;oQ '
r ,., J?~~ •v· 0'"<;;:' .-4.~·~ " j .-r:{2!1. 4 1),'
l!.'O'T ~ C, t't
M~89"8'$6.;s-w. Jil!I
?. ~" ·"'' M # •.Jfi'»~VI,." .11$,~t:,• -"-.....
~ ·PARCEL I -~ l -750 Ac.N,:f
.d•tf.¢i•r;t1t' ~ .. l".t• 70.00
.f,. # I 4-. t,7' r--,cn~a-o.•
I
.r-
,,,,.,.,,.
~
i
-
"' ,
l
..
""° , :
ii' ~
!! " !'
, AVENtJE -"
693

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 13 A review of early topographic maps showed there was no eastern extension of Cactus Avenue in 1965 and no southern extension of Pettit Road (now Moreno Beach Drive).

By 1976, both roads were present, but as unpaved extensions. No structures are mapped until after 1976 (but present by 1980). These improvements are consistent with the aerial photographs, which show the project area and surrounding acreage as open land in 1966-1967, also showing disking scars for weed abatement. By 1978, there is some evidence of Bradshaw Circle development and the residences to the west. The residential development north of the current project area was developed between 2002 and 2005. There is no mapped evidence or aerial photo evidence of any improvements within the current project area.

METHODOLOGY
To adequately and accurately complete the required Phase I cultural resources investigations, the following tasks were completed:

Archaeological Records Check: An archaeological records check was completed at the University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center (UCR-EIC; Appendix B). The UCR-EIC is the county-wide clearing house/repository for all archaeological and cultural studies completed within the Riverside County. All pertinent data was researched, including previous studies for a one mile radius surrounding the project area and the identification of recorded resources within one mile. In addition, the research included review of the current listings (federal, state, and local) for evaluated resources and reviewed historic maps.

1. Native American Consultation: In January, 2020, McKenna et al. sent a request to the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento, inquiring into the presence/absence of sacred, religious, or otherwise significant resources within the project area and/or general vicinity. In addition, McKenna et al. asked for and received a listing of local Native American representatives wishing to be notified of projects within their traditional territory. Letters with maps identifying the project area were mailed to these individuals, requesting input regarding the project area. Copies of the letters and responses, if received, are presented in Appendix C of this report.

2. Paleontological Overview: McKenna et al. arranged for a paleontological overview through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Appendix D). The results were incorporated into the discussion presented in this report.

3. Historic Background Research: Historic background research was completed by Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal Investigator, McKenna et al.

This research included a review of previous studies made available through 694

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 14 the UCR-EIC, research at the Riverside County Assessor’s Office, Recorder’s Office, Riverside County Archives, and the in-house McKenna et al. library. On-line research included a review of the Bureau of Land Management General Land Office files and maps. “Ancestry” research was completed for identified land owners and general information on the City of Moreno Valley.

4. Archaeological Field Survey: The intensive archaeological field survey was conducted for TTM No. 37858 by David Asplund (B.A.) and Breidy Quispe Vilcahuaman (M.A.), under the supervision of Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal Investigator at McKenna et al. The fieldwork was conducted on March 7, 2020. As required for compliance with CEQA guidelines and the data requirements of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), an intensive field survey was conducted to adequately identify, describe, report , and, if possible, evaluate any cultural resources identified within the project area boundaries. The surveyors carried a hand-held Garmin GPS unit for recording UTM coordinated and the field studies were supplemented by field notes (on file, McKenna et al.) and a photographic record (Appendix E).

Analysis and Technical Report: Every cultural resource study requires some level of analysis and the completion of a technical report. The extent of the analysis and the data requirements for the technical report are dependent upon the nature of the project and the requirements set forth by the Lead Agency, based on the defined project. In this case, the project is a Tentative Tract Map for future residential development. Compiled field and research data (Appendix F) were used in assessing the potential for cultural resources to be present within the project area – on the surface or in a buried context. This technical report, completed in a manner requested by both Riverside County and the City of Moreno Valley, provides recommendations for further studies and/or the treatment of cultural sites, as applicable.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

As noted, this project is being completed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and the City of Moreno Valley policies. The City of Moreno Valley essentially defers to CEQA, as noted in the 2006 General Plan (5.10-16), which states:
“Prior to the approval of a project, the City will assess potential impacts to significant historic, prehistoric archaeological, and paleontological resources, including impacts to human remains, pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. If significant impacts are identified, the City will require the project to be modified to avoid 695

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 15 the impacts, or require measures to mitigate the impacts. Mitigation may involve monitoring, resource recovery, documentation or other measures.” California State (CEQA) has multiple levels of recognition for significant or important cultural resources: California Historical Landmark, California Point of Historical Interest, and/or California Register of Historical Resources.

California Historical Landmark (Landmark)
To be designated as a California Historical Landmark, a resource must meet at least one of the criteria listed below, have the approval of the property owner(s), be recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, and be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The Criteria for Designation include:
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California); • Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California;
• A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.

California Point of Historical Interest (CPHI)
To be designated as a California Point of Historical Interest, a resource must meet at least one of the criteria listed below.
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geographic region (City or County);
• Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area;
• A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best 696

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 16 surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
To be designated eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, a resource must meet at least one of the criteria listed below.

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;

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

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

The criteria presented above represent the standard means of assessing the significance of a resource for determining the potential for listing on one or more of the California registries. Therefore, McKenna et al. considered and applied these criteria, as deemed appropriate, and depending on the results of the field survey.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Investigations into previous research were completed through the University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center (see Appendix B). This research was completed by Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal Investigator, on February 11, 2020, and confirmed the specific project area was not previously surveyed for cultural resources. A minimum of seventeen (17) studies have been completed within a one mile radius of the project area (Table 1). The nearest study was RI-0414, due north of the current project area and now developed as a residential tract.

A minimum of thirteen (13) cultural resources were recorded within one mile of the current project area (Table 2). With one exception, these resources were located in the hillsides more than one-half mile from the project area – both northwest and southeast. The isolated site not in the hillsides was located near Alessandro Avenue and Oliver Street. 697

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 17 Table 1. Cultural Resources Studies Completed within One Mile of TTM No. 37858.

Report/NADB Citation Description Resources
RI-00182 Weaver 1975 Brodiaea Ave. Water System Yes
RI-00414 Holcomb 1978 2 Portions of Land
RI-01893 Salpas 1984 Parcel 20223
RI-01979 Mack & Clopine 1986 APNs 483-340-005 AND -009
RI-02105 Drover 1987 ALTA Specific Plan
RI-02171 McCarthy 1987 Moreno Valley Inventory Yes
RI-02980 Unknown Redlands Avenue Survey
RI-04717 O’Connell 2002 Cell Tower Site
RI-05288 White 2000 Cell Tower Site
RI-06644 Allred 2006 Cell Tower Site
RI-06754 Robbins-Wade 2006 Lowe’s Moreno Valley Project RI-08802 Tang et al. 2012 Moreno Master Drainage
RI-09080 Tang et al. 2014 TTM No. 36739
RI-09083 Tang et al. 2014 TTM No. 36740
RI-09652 Puckett 2014 Cell Tower Site
RI-09667 Green 2016 Cell Tower Site
RI-10238 Chandler 2016 Nursing Facility Project
The status of many of these resources is unknown, but some references note impacts (from disking, pothunters, or modern recreations activities). None of the resources will be impacted by the proposed project.

As noted earlier, historic aerial photographs and maps showed no impacts in the general vicinity of the project area until after ca. 1976. All improvements, therefore, are less than 45 years of age and considered modern and of no historical consequence.

The paleontological overview for the project area (McLeod 2020) identified the immediate area as consisting of younger Quaternary Alluvial deposits originating in the Box Springs Mountains. These deposits overlay the older Quaternary alluvial deposits, known to have yielded fossil specimens. The relative depth of the older alluvium is unknown, but, in accordance with County policies and guidelines, excavations exceeding five feet below the present surface should be considered sensitive for resources and monitored accordingly.

Contact with the Native American Heritage Commission and local Native American representatives failed to identify and specific sacred, religious, or otherwise significant cultural resources in or near the project area. The Native American Heritage Commission responded on February 12, 2020, reporting the negative findings. McKenna et al. sent letters to the representatives identified by the Commission (February 18, 2020) and, as of this writing, received two responses (Agua Caliente and Morongo; see Appendix C). 698

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 18 Table 2. Cultural Resources Recorded within One Mile of TTM No. 37858.

Primary Trinomial Citation Description Status
CA-RIV-0419
McCarthy 1988 and
1995; Desautels 1983;
O’Neil 1968; Chace &
Shepard 1963
Rock Art Site Protected
CA-RIV-0420 Desautels 1983; O’Neil
1968 Slicks and BRM Site Impacted
CA-RIV-0421
McCarthy 1973, 1978,
1988 and 1995; Desautels 1983; O’Neil
1968; Chace & Shepard
1963
Rock Art Site Impacted
CA-RIV-2963 Banks 1983 Isolated Slick
CA-RIV-2964 Banks 1984 Isolated Slick
CA-RIV-3233 Pinto 1987 Isolated Slick
CA-RIV-3234 Pinto 1987 Isolated Slick
CA-RIV-3235 Pinto 1987 2 Isolated Slicks
CA-RIV-3323 Sampson 1987 3 Milling Slicks
33-011606 CA-RIV-6914 Goodwin 2002 Abraded Surfaces
33-013109 Mason 1983 19th Century
Residential Site In ruins
33-015934 Daly 2006 19th Century
Residential Site
33-028531 Lindgren 2017 Oliver Street Alignment
The Agua Caliente (via Arysa Gonzalez Romero; March 16, 2020) noted the project area was outside the traditional use area of the Cahuilla. The Morongo (Travis Armstrong, February 26, 2020) had no specific data to report or provide.

Based on the data compiled to date, McKenna et al. has tentatively concluded the current project area has the following levels of sensitivity:

Prehistoric Archaeological Sites LOW
Prehistoric Archaeological Isolates LOW
Historic Archaeological Sites LOW
Historic Archaeological Isolates LOW
Built Environments (Standing Structures) LOW to NONE
Historic Landscapes LOW
Ethnic Resources LOW
Paleontological Resources LOW to MODERATE
699

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 19

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS
McKenna et al. conducted the conducted research and field investigations pertaining to the TTM No. 37858 project area, Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California, for compliance with CEQA and local policies. The research was initiated in January, 2020, and completed in March, 2020. The field work was completed on March 7, 2020, working around weather conditions. The research was completed over various days throughout February, 2020.

Cultural Resources
As a result of the research and field investigations, McKenna et al. determined the potential for identifying any cultural resources, significant or not, was low. When conducting the field survey, the surveyors found the property to be fenced, but a small access point near the gate on Bradshaw Circle provided access. The property was found to be relatively flat, but covered in grasses and tumbleweeds. Nonetheless, the surface was adequately examined for any evidence of cultural resources. A single palm tree was present along the Cactus Avenue frontage.

The survey was initiated on the northwestern corner of the property and transects were walked by two surveyors, on an east/west axis and from the northern property boundary to the southern property boundary. Transects averaged 10 meters apart, providing an intensive level of coverage. UTM coordinates were marked on the property corners and at the turning on Bradshaw Circle (Table 3).

Table 3. UTM Coordinates Defining the Project Area Boundaries.

Location NAD 27 NAD 83
Easting Northing Easting Northing
NW Corner 484175 3752208 484095 3752404
NE Corner 484384 3752208 484304 3752404
SW Corner 484298 3752035 484218 3752231
SE Corner 484382 3752037 484302 3752233
Bradshaw Circle 484278 3752122 484198 3752318
No evidence of any prehistoric archaeological sites, prehistoric isolates, historic archaeological sites and/or historic isolates was found within the project area boundaries.

There was no standing structure(s) and research confirmed no structures were ever present. Likewise, no historic landscape or suggestion of ethic resources or associations were found. Overall, the property was clear of any evidence of surface cultural resources and the potential for buried resources was determined to be extremely low to non-existent. 700

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 20 Paleontological Resources
Summarizing Reynolds (1999) and McLeod (2015 and 2020), the project area consists of surficial deposits of younger Quaternary deposits overlying older Quaternary deposits.

The younger deposits are not conducive to yielding paleontological specimens. However, the deeper, older alluvial deposits may, in fact, yield such resources. The project area should be considered sensitive for buried paleontological resources. Depending on the nature of future developments, a paleontological monitoring program may be necessary for compliance. In accordance with County protocols, all earthmoving exceeding 5 feet from the present surface should be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor and local protocols for the handling of paleontological specimens should be followed.

Curation at the Western Center, Hemet, would be appropriate for any identified and recovered specimens.

Native American Consultation
Native American consultation included initial contact with the Native American Heritage Commission and follow-up letters to local Native American representatives. Responses, to date, have been limited to three – Cahuilla Band, Morongo, and Soboba. Neither the Cahuilla or Morongo had information pertaining to specific resources. The Soboba responded and confirmed the project area is within their Tribal Tradition Use Areas and, as such, requested additional consultation. Their detailed response is presented in Appendix C. Overall, the Luiseno (Soboba and Pechanga) consider the area sensitive for resources associated Luiseno occupation and use of the Moreno Valley area. The City of Moreno Valley, in completing the SB-18/AB-52 consultation, should contact representatives of the Luiseno (e.g. Soboba and Pechanga) for compliance with State and local laws and guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the negative findings presented above, McKenna et al. has concluded there are no cultural resources, significant or not, within or adjacent to the project area. The nearest recorded resources are more than one-half mile distant. McKenna et al. has concluded there are no known significant cultural resources within the project area and any future development will not adversely impact any significant resources.

The project area is considered moderately sensitive for paleontological resources. If future excavations impact the buried older Quaternary deposits and/or exceed a relative depth of five feet below the present surface, a paleontological monitoring program must be undertaken for compliance. This program must follow the County protocols and guidelines set by the County Geologist and/or those of the Western Center, Hemet.

If human remains, or suspected human remains, are uncovered, the County coroner must be notified immediately and permitted to examine the find(s) in situ. If the Coroner determines the remains are of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Com701

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 21 mission (NAHC) will be notified and the Commission will name the “Most Likely Descendent” (MLD) for consultation. Coordination between the Coroner, NAHC, MLD, Lead Agency, and archaeological consultant, the disposition of the remains will be determined.

Any cost related to the handling of the human remains will be the responsibility of the School District.

CERTIFICATION
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
____________________________________________________ ________________ Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal, McKenna et al. Date
OHP Certification No. 90
County Certification No. 161
Jeanette A. McKenna March 18, 2020
702

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 22

REFERENCES
Allred, Carla
2006 Letter Report: Proposed Cellular Tower Project(s) in Riverside County, California. Sites Number(s)/Name(s): CA-8393B/Ashley TCNS # 16652. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Archaeological Research Unit (ARU)
1986 An Archaeological Inventory and Management Plan for the City of Moreno Valley. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Avina, Rose Hollenbaugh
1932 Spanish and Mexican Ranchos of California. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California. (On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.) Axelrod, D.I.
1966 “The Pleistocene Soboba Flora of Southern California.” University of California Publications in Geological Sciences 60.

Banks, Thomas J.
1983 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-2963. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1983 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-2964. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Barrows, David P.
1900 The Ethno-botany of the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Reprinted, 1976, Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.)
Barton, Elsa E. Domenigoni
1989 Domenigoni-Barton Family: Early Day Pioneers. In: San Jacinto Valley: Past and Present. Hemet-San Jacinto Genealogical Society. Curtis Media Corporation, Dallas, Texas.

Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California.

Robert F. Heizer, ed. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 703

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 23 Bean, Lowell J. and Katherine Saubel
1972 Temelpakh: Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek
1978 “Luiseno.” In: Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California.

Robert F. Heizer, ed. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Beck, Warren and Ynez Haase
1977 Historic Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Bettinger, Robert L. and R.E. Taylor
1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequence of the Great Basin in Interior Southern California. In: Nevada Archaeological Research Paper 5:1-26.

Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer and William H. Campbell
1937 The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mojave. Southwest Museum Paper No. 11. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles, California.

Chace, P. and E. Shepard
1963 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-419. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1963 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-421. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Chandler, Sandy
2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Main Street Skilled Nursing Facility Project, Moreno Valley, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Curtis, E.S.
1926 The North American Indian, Volume 15. The University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Daly, Pamela
2006 Primary Record: 33-15934. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Davis, Emma Lou, C.W. Brott, and D.L. Weide
1969 The Western Lithic Tradition. San Diego Museum Paper No. 6. San Diego, California.
704

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 24 Desautels, Jackie
1983 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-419 (update). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1983 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-420 (update). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1983 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-421 (update). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Dibblee, T.W., Jr.
1981 “Geology of the San Jacinto Mountains and Adjacent Areas.” In: Geology of the San Jacinto Mountains. Brown, A.R. and R.W. Ruff, eds. South Coast Geological Society Annual Field Trip Guidebook 9:1-47.

Drover, Christopher E.
1987 An Archaeological Assessment of the A.L.T.A. Specific Plan, Moreno Valley, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Dumke, Glenn S.
1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

Goodwin, Riordan L.
2002 Primary Record: 33-11606. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Green, Alixis
2016 Addendum to FCC Form 620: Maltby/EnSite # 25566. 14058 Redlands Blvd., Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California 30222. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Greenwood, Roberta S.
1975 Paleontological, Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources, West Coast-Midwest Pipeline Project, Long Beach to Colorado River. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their - Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside, California.
705

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 25 Hamner, Viola F.
2003 Moreno Valley, California – In the Beginning. Privately Published. On file, Riverside Public Library, Riverside, California.

Holcomb, Thomas
1978 Environmental Impact Evaluation: Archaeological Assessment of Two Portions of Land in Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Hooper, Lucille
1920 The Cahuilla Indians, a Source Book. University of California Press, Berkeley. Berkeley, California.

King, Chester and Dennis Casebrier
1976 Background to the Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Region. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Knecht, Arnold A.
1971 “Soil Survey of Western Riverside County, California. California Sheet No.

27.” United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs in Cooperation with University of California. Agricultural Experiment Section. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Reprinted, 1976, Dover Publications.

Lindgren, Kristina
2017 Primary Record: 33-28581. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Mack, Joanne M. and G.A. Clopine
1986 Archaeological Assessment of Assessors Parcel # 483-340-005 and -009, Vicinity of Oliver Street and Alessandro Blvd., Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

MacMahon, James A.
1987 Deserts. A Comprehensive Field Guide, Fully Illustrated with Color Photographs, to the Wildflowers, Birds, Reptiles, Insects, and other Natural Won706

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 26 ders of North America Deserts, from Oregon to Mexico. The Audubon Society Nature Guides. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York.

Marinacci, Barbara and Rudy Marinacci
1988 California’s Spanish Place Names: What They Mean and How They Got There. Second Edition. Gulf Publishing, Houston, Texas.

Mason, Roger D.
1983 Historic Site Survey Record: 33-13109. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

McCarthy, Daniel F.
1973 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-421. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1978 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-421 (update). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1987 Cultural Resources Inventory for the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
1988 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-419 (update). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1988 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-421 (update). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. A Malki-Ballena Press Cooperative Publication.

McKenna, Jeanette A.
1997 In-House Letter Report: The Centreat Project Area Resources. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.
2003 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Assessor Parcels 467-160-047 and 467-160-012, Comprising 40 Acres in Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
2003 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Assessor Parcels 467-240-035 and 467-240-036, Comprising 20 Acres in Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.
707

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 27 2003 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Assessor Parcel 958-060-005, a 20 Acres in Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 2004 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Val Verde Unified School District Indian Middle School Site, Property No. 2, in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 2005 Letter Report: Monitoring at the Site of the Proposed Indian middle School in the City of Perris, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 2006 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Tentative Map/Tract 31394, 158 Acres in Pigeon Pass Valley, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 2009 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of Tentative Tract Map 36153, the Letty Watt Property in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California.

On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 2009 Primary Record: CA-RIV-3261 (Update). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 2016 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Westbluff Park and the Proposed Annexation into the Adjoining School Properties, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California.

McLeod, Samuel
2004 Paleontological Overview, Val Verde Unified School District Indian Middle School Site, Moreno Valley, Riverside County. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California. 2016 Paleontological Resources for the Proposed Canyon Springs High School/ Westbluff Park Project, Project #1776, in the City of Moreno valley, Riverside County, Project Area. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California. 2020 Paleontological Resources for the Proposed RC Hobbs Companies Project, McKenna et al. Job No. 20.2052, in Moreno Valley, Riverside County, Project Area. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.

Moreno Valley (City of)
2006 “General Plan: Cultural Resources Element (5.10).” On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.
708

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 28 Morton, D.M.
1978 “Geologic Map of the Sunnymead 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.” U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 78-21.

Munz, Philip A.
1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Norris, Robert M. and Robert W. Webb
1990 Geology of California. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York.

Ocampo, Gabriel
2015 Cultural Resources Survey: Maltby/EnSite # 25566 (284949), 14058 Redlands Boulevard, Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California 92555. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

O’Connell, J.F., P.J. Wilke, T.F. King, and C.L. Mix, eds. 1974 “Perris Reservoir Archaeology: Late Prehistoric Demographic Change in Southeastern California.” Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Report 14, Sacramento, California.

O’Connell, Keith A.
2002 Letter Report: Results of Archaeological Survey Conducted at Proposed “Moreno Beach” Verizon Wireless Tower Site, Riverside County, California.

On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

O’Neil, M.
1968 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-419 (update). On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1968 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-420. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1968 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-421. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Pinto, D.
1987 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-3233. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1987 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-3234. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 709

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 29 1987 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-2935. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Puckett, Heather R.
2014 Cultural Resources Summary for the Proposed Verizon Wireless, Inc., Property Site, 27905 John F. Kennedy Drive, Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Reynolds, Robert
1999 Personal Communication.

Robbins-Wade, Mary
2006 Cultural Resources Inventory: Lowe’s Moreno Valley Project, Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Robinson, John W. and Bruce D. Risher
1996 The San Jacintos: The Mountain Country from Banning to Borrego Valley.

Big Santa Anita Historical Society, Arcadia, California.

Rogers, Malcolm J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3. San Diego, California. 1953 Miscellaneous Field Notes - Riverside County. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Salpas, Jean
1984 An Archaeological Assessment of Parcel 20223. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Sampson, Michael
1987 Archaeological Site Record: CA-RIV-3323. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
1984 Cultural Resources Survey Report on Wolfskill Ranch. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 1987 Documentation of an Archaeological Site within the Moreno Valley Ranch Property, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 710

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 30 Shepard, Richard S.
1998 “Rock Art of the Luiseno.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology. Los Angeles, California. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.

Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 “The Culture of the Luiseno Indians.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:147-234. Berkeley, California.

Strong, William Duncan
1929 “Aboriginal Society in South California.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume 26. Reprinted, 1971, Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Tang, Bai Tom, Mariam Dahdul, Daniel Ballester, and Nina Gallardo 2014 Phase I Archaeological Assessment: Tentative Tract Map No. 36739, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 2014 Phase I Archaeological Assessment: Tentative Tract Map No. 36740, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Tang, Bai Tom and Michael Hogan
2013 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Toll Gate Tank and Pipeline Project, Idyllwild Water District, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Tang, Bai Tom, Michael Hogan, Deirdre Encarnacion, and Daniel Ballester 2012 Phase I Archaeological Assessment: Moreno Master Drainage Plan Revision.

On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

Wallace, William J. (with Edith S. Taylor)
1962 “Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Desert.” In:

American Antiquity 28:172-180.

Warren, Claude N. and H.T. Orr
1978 “Approach and Process of Dating Lake Mojave Artifacts.” In: Journal of California Anthropology 512:179-187.

Weaver, Richard A.
1975 Environmental Impact Evaluation: Archaeology of Brodiaea Avenue, PI-984, Water Systems Addition, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 711

20.2052 TTM 37858, Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., CA Page 31 Weide, Margaret L. and James B. Baker
1975 Background to the Prehistory of the Yuma Desert Region. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

White, Laurie
2000 Letter Report: Records Search Results for Sprint PCS Facility RV35XC093D (Golf Course Maintenance), City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

White, R.C.
1963 “Luiseno Social Organization.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48:91-194. Berkeley, California.

Wilke, Philip J.
1971 “Late Prehistoric Change in Land Use Patterns at Perris Reservoir.” University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 13. Los Angeles, California.
1978 “Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California.” Archaeological Research Facility Contributions No. 38. Berkeley, California.

Workman, James E.
2001 “Cupules: A Type of Petroglyphic Rock Art. A study of the Pitted Boulders in the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and the Lake Perris State Recreational Area.” On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California. 712
TO:

SOIL

EXPLORATION
COMPANY, INC.

Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology January 21 , 2020
Project No. 19251-01
Roger Hobbs
1428 E. Chapman Ave.

Orange, CA 92866
SUBJECT: Preliminary Soil Investigation, Infiltration Tests and Liquefaction Evaluation Report, Proposed Residential Development Site (41 Lots), Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle (APN 478-090-018, -024 and -025), City of Moreno Valley, California Introduction
In accordance with your authorization, Soil Exploration Co., Inc. has performed a preliminary soil investigation, infiltration tests and liquefaction evaluation for the subject site. The accompanying report presents a summary of our findings, conclusions, recommendations, and limitations of our work for proposed 41 lot, two-story wood frame residential development.

Scope of Work
• Review soils, geologic, seismic, groundwater data and maps in our files. • Perform exploration of the site by means of five 8" diameter borings, 16.5 to 50 feet deep, at readily accessible locations.
• Field engineer (California Registered RCE) for logging of the excavations, sampling of select soils, observation of excavation resistance, record SPT blow counts and water seepage (if any). • Perform basic laboratory testing of select soil samples, including moisture, density, expansion potential, sieve analysis and corrosion potential (pH, chlorides, resistivity and water soluble sulfates). • Perform digitized search of known faults within a 50-mile radius of the site. • Determine CBC (2019) seismic parameters.
• Consult with civil/structural design consultants.
• Perform two shallow infiltration tests at locations suggested by civil design engineer for WQMP design purposes.
• Prepare a report of our findings, conclusions and recommendations for site preparation, including overexcavation/removal depth, allowable bearing value, foundation/slab-on-grade depth/thickness/reinforcement recommendations, excavation characteristics of earth materials, lateral earth pressures for retaining walls design, pavement thickness estimates, suitability of onsite soils for compacted fills, liquefaction/dynamic settlement evaluation, general earthwork and grading specifications, California Building Code (2019) seismic design coefficients, Cal/OSHA classification of soils and infiltration rate (inches/hour).

Site Conditions
The rectangular shaped, relatively flat site is located on the north side of Cactus Avenue, east of Bradshaw Circle, in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. Cactus Avenue is a paved road with curbs and no sidewalks. Bradshaw Circle is a paved road with no curbs, gutters or sidewalks.

A chain link fence borders the site on the east side and a block wall on the north side. Existing houses are located on adjacent property to the north. Adjacent property to the east is vacant. Vegetation consists of very dense weeds and dense tumbleweeds.
7535 Jurupa Ave., Unit C, Riverside, CA 92504 • Tel: (951) 688-7200 • Fax: (951) 688-7100 [email protected] • [email protected] 713
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 19251-01
January 21 , 2020
The approximate locations of the above and other features are shown on Exploratory Boring and Infiltration Test Location Map, Plate 1. The base map is Site Plan prepared by Robert Beers of Jurupa Valley, California.

Proposed Development
We understand that the site is proposed for a single family, 41 lot residential development and associated improvements. The structures will be light, two-story wood frame construction with concrete floor slabs supported on prepared subgrade. Grading plans are not available for review at this time, however based on the relatively flat topography of the site, modest cut or fill grading and no significant cut or fill slopes are proposed.

Field Work
Five exploratory borings were drilled on January 8, 2020, to a maximum depth of 50 feet below existing ground surface utilizing a 8-53 mobile drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Refer to Plate 1 for boring locations. The borings were logged by a California Registered Civil Engineer. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) blow counts were recorded for the earth materials. Relatively undisturbed samples of the soils were also obtained by utilizing California Ring Sampler.

In general, these borings revealed that the site surface soils consist of sandy silt, silty sand and sand with silt (USCS "ML", "SM" and "SP-SM"). The granular earth materials are generally medium dense to very dense, however loose soils were noted to depths of 2 to 7 feet. Detailed descriptions of the earth materials encountered are presented in the form of Geotechnical Boring Logs in Appendix B.

USGS Geologic Map of the Sunnymead Quadrangle shows the site area is underlain with young alluvial-fan deposits (see Figure 2).

Laboratory Testing
Basic laboratory tests were performed for select soil samples. The tests consisted primarily of natural moisture contents, dry densities, sieve analysis and corrosion potential (pH, chlorides, resistivity and water soluble sulfates). Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C and with Geotechnical Boring Logs in Appendix B.

Groundwater
Groundwater, seepage or wet soils were not encountered in our exploratory borings, drilled to a maximum depth of 50 feet, at the time this work was performed. Groundwater study is not within the scope of this work. Groundwater data from well in the vicinity of the site is tabulated below (see Figure 1, Site Location Map, for location of well):

WSE* Date Distance/Location Estimated Depth
Well No. (ft) Measured Relative to Site of Water Below
Site (ft)
EMWD 10141 1471 .31 11/3/2011 SW/0.27 miles 74.5
1483.11 11/27/2018 62.7
* WSE = Water Surface Elevation
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Page 2
714
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California
Liquefaction Evaluation
Project No. 19251-01
January 21 , 2020
Soil liquefaction is a process by which loose, saturated, fine granular deposits, such as fine sands, lose a significant portion of their shear strength due to pore water pressure buildup resulting from cyclic loading, such as that caused by an earthquake. In general, liquefaction potential is higher when the groundwater table is less than 30 feet below ground surface. Soil liquefaction can lead to foundation bearing failures and excessive settlements.

Based on Riverside County GIS map, the site is located within an area of moderate liquefaction potential (see Figure 3).

Summary of conditions for the deep boring B-1 are as follows:

Depth Class SPT Count Moisture Passing 200 Sieve Compactness/ (ft) (USCS) (blows/foot) (%) (%) Consistencv
2 ML-SM 5 14.6 55 Loose
5 SM 8 - - Loose
10 SM 50 11 .9 39 Dense
15 SM 36 - - Dense
20 SM 36 9.1 41 Dense
25 SM 36 - - Dense
30 SP-SM 70 2.7 12 Very dense
35 SP-SM - - - - 40 SP-SM 77 - - Very dense
45 SP-SM - - - -
50 SP-SM 86 - - Very dense
Liquefaction Analysis/Dynamic Settlement: LiquefyPro
Liquefaction susceptibility using Standard Penetration Test data and laboratory grain size test results were analyzed using LiquefyPro software (Version 5.5g). Liquefaction analysis performed for this evaluation included: (1] evaluation of soil consistency and compactness influencing liquefaction, [2] correction of penetration resistance data to convert measured SPT N-values to standard Nso-values, (3] calculating the earthquake induced stress ratio (CSR), [4] calculating cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), [5] assume water table at 60 feet below the ground surface, and (6] evaluation of liquefaction potential by calculating a factor of safety against liquefaction (FS), by dividing CRR by CRS. The software output is presented in Appendix G.

The main observations of the results are as follows:
• Onsite soils at the site in general have a Safety Factor of 5.0 against liquefaction. Subsequent to compaction of upper 5 feet of soils, indicated settlement of saturated and unsaturated sands is 0.00 in . and 1.14 in., respectively, with total settlement of saturated and unsaturated sands of 1.14 in. , with differential settlement of 0.570 to 0. 753 in. in 30 feet. • Liquefaction also involves lateral or horizontal displacement (lateral spreading) of essentially intact blocks of surficial soils on slopes or toward a free-face slope such as river or canal bank. The potential for and magnitude of lateral spreading is dependent upon many conditions, including the presence of a relatively thick, continuous, potentially liquefiable sand layer and high slopes.

Subsurface information obtained for this study indicates that high slopes are not anticipated. Based on currently available procedures, the site does not appear to be susceptible to (lateral spread) ground surface disruption during a moderate seismic event.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Page 3
715
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California
Seismicity/Faulting
Project No. 19251-01
January 21 , 2020
The site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or County of Riverside Fault zone.

A computer search of all known Quarternary major faults within 50 miles of the site from USGS Earthquake Hazards Program is presented in Appendix D. Please note that it is probable that not all active or potentially active faults in the region have been identified. Furthermore, seismic potential of the smaller and less notable faults is not sufficiently developed for assignment of maximum magnitudes and associated levels of ground shaking that might occur at the site due to these faults.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
• All vegetable matter, old fills, buried utilities/irrigation lines, etc. and deleterious materials would require removal from the proposed building/grading areas. • Overexcavation and recompaction of the loose surficial soils should be anticipated to provide adequate and uniform support for the proposed structures. All surficial earth materials encountered during our investigation can be excavated with normal grading equipment in good working condition. • Onsite earth materials, cleansed of oversize cobbles and boulders (over 6 inches, if any), should be suitable for engineered/compacted fills.
• Based on observation and soil classification, the expansion potential of onsite near surface silty sands is expected to be very low (El<20).
• Subsequent to site preparation, the use of shallow spread footing foundations appears feasible for the proposed construction.
• Flooding potential of the site should be determined by the design civil engineer and considered in planning and construction.
• Site is located approximately 2. 78 miles from the San Jacinto fault. The site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of Southern California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience moderate to strong ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or nearby causative faults.
• There is a 2 percent probability in 50 years (2475 year return period) that site modified peak ground acceleration at the site (PGAm) will exceed 0.909g (see Appendix D). • Groundwater was not encountered during subsurface investigation. Our experience indicates that surface or near-surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where groundwater conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Page 4
716
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California
Recommendations
Site Preparation/Overexcavation
Project No. 19251-01
January 21 , 2020
Grading and backfills should be performed in accordance with the City of Moreno Valley Grading Ordinance and attached General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Appendix E), except as modified in the text of this report.

Structures should be provided with a compacted fi ll mat that extends to at least 5 feet beyond the structure lines in plan and to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing or proposed grade, whichever is deeper. The excavated bottom should be cleaned from roots, soft spots, wet spots, porous soils, old foundations, seepage pits and deleterious materials, etc. As a result, deeper excavations should not be precluded and this should be determined by observations and testing of excavated bottoms during grading.

After cleaning of the excavated bottom, the exposed surfaces should be further scarified to a depth of at least 12-inches, moisture conditioned/thoroughly watered and recompacted by utilizing heavy vibratory rollers to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557-12 Test Method, prior to placement of fi ll. Oversize material (larger than 6-inch size, if any) should not be utilized for structural fills. All fills should be placed on underlying medium dense native soils and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density.

The purposed of the above recommendations is to provide at least 3.5 feet of compacted fill mat below the foundation bottoms.

Compacted Fills/Imported Soils
Any soil to be placed as fill, whether presently onsite or import, should be approved by the soil engineer or his representative prior to its placement. All onsite soils to be used as fill should be cleansed of any roots or other deleterious materials. Cobbles larger than 3 inches in diameter should not be placed in the vicinity of foundations and utility lines. All fills should be placed in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts, thoroughly watered , mixed and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. This is relative to the maximum dry density determined by ASTM 1557-12 Test Method.

Foundation Design/Footings
Following site preparation, the use of shallow spread footings is feasible. An allowable bearing value of 1800 psf is recommended. This bearing pressure has been established based on the assumption that the footings will be embedded into compacted fill mat. Isolated column footings should be at least 24 inches wide and embedded at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent firm grade.

The above bearing value may be increased by one third for temporary (wind or seismic) loads. We recommend footings reinforcement should be at least two No. 5 bars at top and two at the bottom of footings. Conventional foundation should be in accordance with current California Building Code (CBC) 2019, with design by a qualified structural engineer. Additional recommendations for conventional foundations of one and two-story residential structures are presented on Plate 2. Please note that foundation design is under the purview of the structural engineer and structural engineer may have more restrictive requirements which will govern.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Page 5
717
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California
Conventional Residential Slabs-On-Grade
Project No. 19251-01
January 21, 2020
Residential slabs-on-grade should be at least 4 inches thick and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center both ways, properly centered in mid-thickness of slabs (structural recommendations govern). Slabs-on-grade should be underlain with 10-mil Visqueen moisture barrier.

The moisture barrier should be underlain by two inches of clean rolled sand.

Tentative Pavement Design
Based on the granular nature of the onsite soils, we have assigned an R-value of 45. The recommended sections are outlined as follows:

Street Type Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base (CAB) (Tl) (inches) (inches)
Interior Street 5.5 to 6 3 6
The upper at least 12 inches of the subgrade soils below new pavements should be compacted to at last 90 percent relative compaction. Minimum relative compaction requirements for aggregated base should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density as determined by ASTM D1557-12.

Final pavement design shall be based on R-value testing of the subgrade soils at the completion of grading.

Hardscape Areas/Compaction/Concrete Joints
The upper at least 12 inches of subgrade soils for hardscape areas should be scarified and compacted to at least 90 percent.

The joints spacing for concrete slabs should be determined by the project architect. Joints should be laid out to form approximately square panels (equal transverse and longitudinal joint spacing). Rectangular panels, with the long dimension no more than one-and-one-half times the short, may be used when square panels are not feasible. The depth of longitudinal and transverse joints should be one-fourth the depth of the slab thickness.

Joint layout should be adjusted so that the joints will line up with the corners of structures, small foundations and other built-in structures. Acute angles or small pieces of slab curves as a result of joints layout should not be permitted.

Concrete Curing
Fresh concrete should be cured by protecting it against loss of moisture, rapid temperature change and mechanical injury for at least 3 days after placement. Moist curing, waterproof paper, white polyethylene sheeting, white liquid membrane compound , or a combination thereof may be used. After finishing operations have been completed , the entire surface of the newly place concrete should be covered by whatever curing medium is applicable to local conditions and approved by the engineer. The edges of concrete slabs exposed by the removal of forms should be protected immediately to provide these surfaces with continuous curing treatment equal to the method selected for curing the slab surfaces. The contractor should have at hand, and ready to install before actual placement begins, the equipment needed for adequate curing of the concrete.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Page 6
718
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 19251-01
January 21 , 2020
In hot or windy weather (80°F or 15 mph), the contractor must take appropriate curing precautions after the placement of concrete. The use of mechanically compacted low slump concrete (not exceeding 4 inches at the time of placement) is recommended. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tiles or other crack sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs.

Special Considerations/Excess Soils from Foundation Excavations Excess soils generated from foundation excavations should not be placed on slabs and driveways subgrade without proper moisture and compaction . Slab subgrade should be verified to contain 1.2 times the soil optimum moisture content to a depth of 6 inches prior to placement of slab building materials.

Moisture content should be tested in the field by the soil engineer. The addition of fiber mesh in the concrete and careful control of water/cement ratios may lessen the potential for slab cracking.

Lateral Earth Pressures/Retaining Walls
The following lateral earth pressures and soil parameters, in conjunction with the above-recommended bearing value (1800 psf), may be used for design of retaining walls with free draining compacted backfills.

If passive earth pressure and friction are combined to provide required resistance to lateral forces, the value of the passive pressure should be reduced to two-thirds the following recommendations:

Active Earth Pressure with level backfill (Pa)
At Rest Pressure (Po)
Passive Earth Pressure (Pp)
Horizontal Coefficient of Friction (µ)
Unit Soil Weight (yt)
35 pcf (EFP), drained, yielding
55 pcf (EFP), drained, non-yielding (part of building wall) 250 pcf (EFP), drained, maximum of 2500 psf

0.30 120 pcf
We recommend drainage for retaining walls to be provided in accordance with Plate 3 of this report.

Maximum precautions should be taken when placing drainage materials and during backfilling. All wall backfills should be properly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.

Seismic Considerations
The site is located approximately 2. 78 miles from the San Jacinto fault. Moderate to strong ground shaking can be expected at the site and there is a 2 percent probability in 50 years (2475 year return period) that site modified peak ground acceleration at the site (PGAm) will exceed 0.909g. The site soil profile is Class D. The structural engineer must consider City/County local codes, California Building Code (CBC) 2019 seismic data presented in this report (Appendix D), the latest requirements of the Structural Engineers Association, and any other pertinent data in selecting design parameters.

Expansion Index and Corrosion/Soluble Sulfates
Based on observation and soil classification , the expansion potential of the near surface sandy soils is anticipated to be very low (El<20).

Results of tests performed by Cal Land Engineering, Inc. of Brea, California on a select soil sample indicate negligible soluble sulfate exposure (less than 0.1 percent water soluble sulfates by weight), pH of 9.20, chlorides of 214 ppm and resistivity of 1,700 ohm-cm (see Appendix C). Based on pH , the soils are alkaline. Based on resistivity test results, soil is highly corrosive and ferrous metals/pipes/reinforcement should be protected. Concrete, mix, placement and curing for concrete should comply with ACI guidelines.

Tentatively we recommend Type II cement and concrete slump not exceeding 4 inches at the time of placement. If critical, these should be further verified by your structural or a corrosion engineer.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Page 7
719
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California
Drainage
Project No. 19251-01
January 21 , 2020
Positive drainage must be provided and maintained for the life of the project around the perimeter of the structures and all foundations toward streets or approved drainage devices to minimize water infiltration into the underlying soils. In addition, fin ish subgrade adjacent to exterior footings should be sloped down and away to facilitate surface drainage. Roof drainage should be collected and directed away from foundations and slopes via nonerosive devices. Water, either natural or by irrigation, should not be permitted to pond or saturate the foundation soils.

Cal/OSHA Classification/Trench Excavations/Backfills
In general Cal/OSHA classification of onsite soils appears to be Type B.

Temporary trench excavations deeper than 5 feet should be shored or sloped at 1: 1 or flatter in compliance with Cal/OSHA requirements:
a.) The shoring should be designed by a qualified engineer experienced in the shoring design. b.) The tops of any temporary unshared excavations should be barricaded to prevent vehicle and storage loads within a 1: 1 line projected upward from the bottom of the excavation or a minimum of 5 feet, whichever is greater. If the temporary construction embankments, including shored excavations, are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the excavations where necessary to prevent runoff from entering the excavation and erod ing the slope faces. c.) The soils exposed in the excavations should be inspected during excavation by the soils engineer so that modifications can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur. d.) All unshored excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation .

Foundation Plan Review/Additional Observations and/or Testing The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information and subsurface conditions as interpreted from limited exploratory work. Our conclusions and recommendations should be reviewed and verified during construction and revised if necessary.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. should review the foundation plans and observe and/or test at the following stages of construction:
• During all overexcavations and fi ll placement.
• Following footing excavations and prior to placement of footing materials. • During wetting of slab subgrade (1.2X optimum to a depth of at least 6") and prior to placement of slab materials.
• During all trench and retaining wall backfills.
• During subgrade preparation/compaction, prior to paving. • When any unusual conditions are encountered.

Final Compaction Report
A final report of compaction control should be prepared subsequent to the completion of rough grading.

The report should include a summary of work performed, laboratory test results, and the results, locations and elevations of field density tests performed during grading.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Page 8
720
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California
Limitation of Investigation
Project No. 19251-01
January 21 , 2020
Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this or similar locations. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.

The field and laboratory test data are believed representative of the project site; however, soil conditions can vary significantly. As in most projects, conditions revealed during grading may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this condition occurs, the possible variations must be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and adjusted as required or alternate design recommended.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractor carry out such recommendations in the field .

This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In additions, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.

This report was prepared for the client based on client's needs, directions and requirements at the time.

This report is not authorized for use by and is not to be relied upon by any party except the client with whom Soil Exploration Co., Inc. contracted for the work. Use of, or reliance on , this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Soil Exploration Co., Inc. from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Soil Exploration Co., Inc.

Closure
If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call our office.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.

Very truly yours,
Soil Exploration Co., Inc.

Gene K. Luu, PE 53417
Project Engineer
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Page 9
721
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California
Distribution:

Attachments:

Soil Exploration Co., Inc.

Project No. 19251-01
January 21, 2020
[1] Addressee ([email protected])
[1] Robert Beers ([email protected])
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Site Location Map
USGS Geologic Map
Riverside County GIS Map
U.S. Geological Survey Faults Map
Exploratory Boring and Infiltration Test Location Map
Minimum Foundation and Slab Recommendations for Expansive Soils Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Backfill
References
Geotechnical Boring Logs
Laboratory Test Results
USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps-Source Parameters
and CBC (2019) Seismic Parameters
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Infiltration Test Procedures and Test Results
Liquefaction Analysis Summary

722
Legend
diaea Ave
- "
Bradshaw Ci
Cactus Ave . ( ,_ / C .. "- C , l u .... ('O
(l)
CD
0 C
r e
0 :E
--0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ro --1111!1----------~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'!!!!!!!I____ ~ i miles 9 Copyright 2020 Property Research Partners LLC.

Brodiaea Ave -
a.:
:::J
_J ~
u5 ~
~ . t c:: ·:5
0 Cactus Ave
. ..., . i. 't
...

Figure 1
723
... ___ ....... •·:·• ............... .

I • • i. - J ~~r~·-·-.. ...=-~..-.;==..,..._-1=1.
--... ~ ... ----;•
I '
~ I
,{
J.
; ' I
I
I
~lo1
;ii- - .,_ .
cJi1J/ ,,,..'
t,16
.. .... •··· .,···
Base Map: USGS Geologic Map of the Sunnymead 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, California.

LEGEND:

Qyf: Young alluvial-fan deposits (Holocene and late Pleistocene) - Gray-hued sand and cobble- and gravel-sand deposits from lithicly diverse sedimentary units.
a: Arenaceous (very coarse sand through very fine sand.

Gravel.

Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle
(APN 478-090-018, -024 and -025)
City of Moreno Valley, California
Soil Exploration Co., Inc.

Project No.: 19251-01
Date: January 21, 2020
Figure: 2
724
0 0 752 1 505 Feet
Map My County Map
C
..
. . . '. 'F~' ·. )
~ ..
'IMPORTANT" Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source Is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the Information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user.

REPORT PRINTED ON ... 1/312020 4:52:34 PM © Riverside County GIS l.OSAn~ ~- I!,; 1 . atDt~
'", DJuana- ~ em:al
Legend
□
□
Parcels
Contours 20 ft interval (with 1 O
20' CONTOUR
- 100' INDEX CONTOUR
Faults

OTHER AUTHORITY
ALQUIST .PRIOLO

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Fault Zones

C OTHER FAULT ZONE
■ COUNTY FAULT ZONE
■ ELSINORE FAULT ZONE
• SAN ANDREAS FAULT ZONE
■ SAN JACINTO FAULT ZONE
Flood
Liquefaction
L Other Susceptibility
■ High
Low
Moderate
Very High
■ Verylow
Blueline Streams
City Areas
World Street Map
Notes
APN 478-090-018, 024, 025
Figure 3
725
U.S. Geological Survey 2014 Faults
1/9/2020, 3:38:49 PM
NSHM 2014 Fault Sources
Normal
Strike Slip
Thrust
Unassigned
0 4
0 5
1:577,791
8 10
16ml
20 km
USGS, National Geographic, Esrl, Gatmln, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA. ESA. METI. NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA. Increment p Corp,
Figure 4
USGS Notional Geographic, Esti. Gatmln 726, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA. ESA. METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA. inerament P Corp, I USGS I -
7 PARCEL 4
PM 8114
PMB 38/28
_........_. OELAN"N 79-0IO-O'lf
,__ ~ --- - >-- - ---
r
1NOU.Ne ,-it:J011Gf CT M.. ---- <Md;-= l((J[INJI I l't'NN B0llD. Et M. APN .f~~3 AfN •~ APN 7&-J20-015 FD 1• I.JI. rJ fAC:: LS .1..u.: DN_
~";~~'" ::a. I.•
31/.ll<
Lot 23
~--1-~•~========::::::::~~v I
(.-
• Loi 2B
PAf CEL3
p .. 81 14
PMI 38/28
Lot 30
\\ Loi 15
-.,., .

R-- Open Space
~~ ltCETPao(a!IOAD:S-15-0I
lot 31
I
21tUI' 211.11' lt1 A R2
-··..;.,;:; .. ;... ... -, ....... ~) -- . - --- ~ . Loi 37 mt• I.JI. T'" •• ·••• ,_, ~ ~ :-... - ,,~•1u.PW 111~ f'llt f2A
I ARCEL2 ,fM 16636
I MB 96/16
l30.0T (330.04'•., • R2)
CACTUS
~
~ e
,.
;.
•
l
..

Nominal Lot Size: 43' by 72' and 45' by 72'
--
PARCEL 1
PM 17535
PMB 96/57- Sl
-DUAKlH ...... ET.._ -·-
RCEL 3
PM 17535
PMB 96/57- 5
-~ lSAI, CT"-
- ♦-
Infiltration Test No. 2
Infiltration Test
No.1

GRAPHIC SCALE
i i I (lll'm)
1 iacll • ..0 fl
..,.
j
1254.08' (1253.N' CALC PO R4 a: "5)
- ~ - --- - ----- --- - - - --- --- •
r
I
.
' i
I
I
I
l
I
I
l
I
I
l
11 I
l;
' l I
l I
I
' 1
r
l
i
I
I
l
I
I
t
I
l
I
' I
l
i
I
I
I
I
I
ROBERT BEERS t--Fl_ao __ e_oo_K _R_rr_. _______ __. PREPARED F'OR: I RCHobbe~ 8175 Llmonlte Avenue, Suite E
Jurupo Volley. CA 92509
Ph. (951) 317-2041 Fox (909) 360:..2070
Dote Robert M. 8..-. ilC.E. :siAoS [,.,Ir .. 12- 31- 21 1428 E. Chapman AvenJe
Orange, CA 92866
PHONE: (714) 6.33- 810q
j
.-----~~~~~~~~---------.i EXPLORATORY BORING 1
& INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION MAP II
1t-------...;;.P..;;LA;;;..;.;.T..;;E..;1;.._ _____ __.

LEGEND I
B-5 • Approximate Location of Boring
1-4 .A Approximate Location of Infiltration Test
Soil Exploration Co., Inc.

Proiect No. 19251-01 I January 21, 2020
Base Layout: 41
TTM37858
Bue 1-otlrg Lavout
Cly ol Manno.,.

CAl..FOfNA
Lots
DA TE 0«c- 9 :«119
JOO HO.

ORAIIN BY -1l.AJL.

C1£CXED BY...8.11.&
SHEET ..L OF ..L
727
EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D 4829)
0-20

VERY LOW EXPANSION
1-Story Footings All footings at least 18" deep. Reinforcement for continuous (See Note 1) footings: Two No. 5 bars top and two No. 5 bars bottom _2-Story Footing~ All footings at least 18" deep.
(See Note 1) Reinforcement for continuous footings: Two No. 5 bars top and two No. 5 bars bottom
Minimum Footing Continuous: 15" for 1-story
Width Continuous: 15" for 2-storv
Pad Footings Isolated column: 24" wide and 24" deep, tied to continuous footinQs in two directions
Garage Door A grade beam 18" deep by 15" wide for 1- and 2-story should be Grade Beam provided across the garage entrance and other large openings (See Note 2)
Living Area Floor 4" thick slab. No. 3 rebar at 18 inches on-center reinforcement at Slabs* mid-height with 10-mil Visqueen moisture barrier above 2" sand (See Notes 3, 4 and 5) base
Garage Floor 4" thick slab. No. 3 rebar at 18 inches on-center reinforcement at Slabs* mid-height with 10-mil Visqueen moisture barrier above 2" sand (See Notes 4 and 6) base. Garaae slabs should be auarter-sawn.

Presoaking of (1 .2) times optimum moisture to a depth of at least 6" Living Areas &
Garage Slabs
Subgrade**
The Above Are Minimum Recommendations.

All Work Should Comply with Applicable/Governing Agency Codes and Requirements • Based on California Green Code, a 4" thick base of½ inch or larger clean aggregate shall be used below the Visgueen. **Presoaking of living areas and garage slabs should be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer.

NOTES:

1. Depth of interior or exterior footings to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade.

2. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as that of the adjoining footings.

3. Living areas slabs may be tied to the footings as directed by the structural engineer.

4. We recommend the use of at least No. 3 bars at 18 inches on-center, each way, for all slabs.

5. 10-mil Visqueen sheeting welded at laps has proved successful. Equivalents are acceptable.

6. Garage slabs should be isolated from stem wall footings with a minimum 3/8" felt expansion joint.

7. Sand base should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater (e.g. , washed concrete sand).

Post-Tensioned Slabs
As an alternative to conventional foundations, building may be supported on post-tensioned slabs, to be designed by a structural engineer in consultation with the geotechnical consultant. In addition, a post-tensioned slab is also recommended for VERY HIGH expansion potential (Expansion Index greater than 130), if encountered. Post-tensioned slabs should have perimeter footings embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the adjacent grade. The slabs should be designed such that they can be deformed approximately 1-inch vertically over a width of 30 feet without distress in the event of shrinkage or swelling of the supporting soils.

Living area slabs should be underlain by a 10-mil Visqueen moisture barrier covered by a 2-inch layer of sand. Presoaking is recommended for post tensioned slabs: (1.2) x optimum to a depth of 12 inches, (1 .3) x optimum to a depth of 18 inches, and (1.4) x optimum to a depth of 24 inches for LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH expansion potential soils, respectively. LOW and MEDIUM expansive soil lots using conventional foundation should comply with 2019 CBC. For very high expansion potential (Expansion Index greater than 130), specific recommendations by the geotechnical consultant will be required . Placement of 4 inches of sand base is also suggested for post-tensioned slab systems. Unless stated in the attached report, for El=21-50 use Pl-25, and El=51-90 use Pl=35.

Minimum Foundation and Slab Recommendations
~ Soil Exploration Co. Inc.

For Expansive Soils
Plate: 2
ONE- AND J:WO-STORY_RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
728
SU"i3bRAlN OPTlONS fOR NATTVE MATERIAL BACKFl~L
OPTION N2: Pip,e-S-urrotmded
with Cl-2 Maten-al·
With Prop+r Surface
Drainage
_j_
, ::'
Waterproofing T
Slope or
L.vel
OP11ON N1: Gravel Wrapped in
Fiit.ar F 11:brlc
With Proper Surface
Drainage
OPllo"N N3: G30te~l4- Drain
With Proper Surface
Drainage
6::' to 1 ::' ~ Slope or
Lwel
Fabric Flap
Behind Core
~-
M.mbrane Mlradrain 6000•
-(CptJonaQ
Wate!l)tooling
M,~mbr.ane
{Optional)
9"-1----- Claaa 2 Filter
Permeable Material
¼ to 11/, Inch Size Gravel I
Wrapped in Filter Fabric Weep Hole
J Drain 1.00. l-i}vid
D<ain 1. or e<;uivalent
4-lnch Diameter Perforated Pipe
ClaN 2 Filter Permeable Material' Grading
Pe, Caitrans Specification-.

Slt>"e Sfl:e Pereen~ p,.ssir,g
,. 100
3W 90-10p
318' 40-100
No.4 25-40
No.a 1s-33
No. 30 S-15
No.SO 0-i
No. 200 ~
Proper Ol..~lct Shc~!d be.·
Provic!ed' tor Gravel Subdrain
(See Notes)
Level or~.,,,
Slope,,.,~
4-lnch Diameter
Perforated Pipe
Fabric Flap••
Behind Core
"Miradraii:16000 or .J Drain l-00 for
non-waterprOQfed wal!a;
Miradrain 6200 or J Drain 200 for
completed waterproofed walla
**Peel back the bottom fabric flap,
place pipe next to eore,
wrap fabric around pipe and
tuck behind core.

SUBDRAIN OPTIONS FOR CLEAN SAND BACKFiLL
With Proper Surface
Drainage~
..L -,_-
Waterproofing
Membrane.......__
(Optiona0
1±" r-H/2 Min.-!
·_:_· • . • .. ~:rean sand b~cktilT
.• _' , • . • .. .' ' f;,- having sand equivaient
• of 30 or greater (can be
:iensified by water jetting)
.,..:!:t::.:i+--- Subdrain Ootion S1:
1 fl 3/ft. of ¼ to 1 ½' size
gravel wrapped in fitter fabric
(s,!e r,otes io; o-.t.le\/
I
Subdrain Option S2:
4' diameter perforated pipe
surrounded with 1 tt 3ttt of
Class 2 filter material per
Caltrans specifications as above
• _.·. ·:
_-: • Subdrain Option S3:
• •.: 4' diameter perforated pipe
• wrapped in filter fabric
'
• Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Ac:-ylonitrile Sutediene Styrene (ASS) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 ?oiyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule 40, Armco /l2fX:IJ PVC, or approved equivalent Pipe should be installed with perforations down. • Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140N, 140NS, Supac 4NP, Amoco 4545, Trevira 1114, or approved equivalent • All drains sho_uld have a gradient of 1 percent minimum. • Outlet portion for gravel subdrain should have a 4'-diameter pipe with the perforated portion inserted imo the gravel approximately 2· minimum and the nonpertorated po1tion extending approximately 1' outside the gravel. Proper sealing should be provided at the pipe insertion enabling water to n.m irom the gravel portion into rather than outside the pipo. • Waterproofing membrane may be r6quired for a s~r.ic retaining wat: svcii as a: stucco or besemerrt wait. • Weephole should be 2" :-r.inirr.urn diame~er anc proviceo st 25' -n:r.imum ln ;ength of wai l. ~ expos1.:re is permitted, weepnole shou1d be iocated at 3=' above finished grede. ii' expos.:re ;:; ~.o: permrtted s1..ch as fo: a wall adjacent to~ ~~t<Walk/cvrb, a pipe under 1h11 $idewali< to discharge through the curb face or equivalent should be provided, or for a ba$ement-type wall, a proper subdrain outlet system should be provided. Open vertical masonry joints (i.e .. omit mortar from joints of first course above finished grade) at 32' maximum intervals may be substituted for weepholes. Scrnening such as with a filter fabric; should be provided for weepholes/ open joints to prevent earth materials fro"l entering the holes£i9ir,ts. ·----·

RETAINING WALL BACKFIL
AND SUBDRAIN DE All
SoH ·Expioration Co. ~nc.

Plate: 3
729
c===-==::=-----------·--------

APPENDIX A
730
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California

REFERENCES
Project No. 19251-01
January 21 , 2020
• USGS Geologic Map of the Sunnymead 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, California. • Riverside County GIS Liquefaction Map.
• U.S. Geological Survey - Earthquake Hazards Program, 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters.
• U.S. Geological Survey Faults, 2014.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Appendix A
731

APPENDIX B
732
Cl)
-J
0 Cl)
0 w
z
~ c., I
w
Cl)
0::
~
0 u
Cl)
-J
0 Cl)
Cl
w
z
;;;:
0::
(j
UJ
z
Li:

MAJOR DIVISIONS
w
> QJ
"vi
8 N
0 z
V
·o
V)
0 ~
C:

C1l
£
QJ
0 e,
0 0
N
0 z
V
·o_
V) Q)
- > 0 Q)
~ ·en C:
£
Q)
0 e,

GRAVELS
(More than ½ of
coarse fraction > No.
4 sieve size)
SANDS
(More than ½ of
coarse fraction < No.
4 sieve size)

SIL TS & CLAYS
LL < 50

SIL TS & CLAYS
LL > 50
HIGHLY

ORGANIC SOILS

SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
Pt
Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines ~-: -: -:-:-:a -: -:- :- :: :-.:::::: :::::~ :'.:'. Poorly graded gravels or gravel•sand mixtures, little ar no fines K1 ~ Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
¼"'~~ ~// ~ Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures
. . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . .
0 000 00
00 0 0 0
ooo 0 o 0 o
I I
... . . . . . .

Well-graded sands or gravely sands, little or no fines
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-salt mixtures
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity.

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays . lean clays.

Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.

Inorganic silts , caceous or diatonaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts
Inorganic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silty clays, organic silts
;,; ~ ½ Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silty clays, organic ~ /✓ ½ ~ silts
Peat and other highly organic soils

CLASSIFICATION CHART
(UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM)

RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES
CLASSIFICATION U.S. Standard Grain Size in
Sieve Size Millimeters
BOULDER ABOVE 12" ABOVE 305
COBBLES 3" to 12" 305 to 76.2 60 /
GRAVEL 3" to No. 4 762 to 4 .76
COARSE 3" TO¾" 76.2to19.1
FINE ¾ "'to No. 4 19.1 to4.76
SAND No. 4 to 200 4.76 to 0 .074
COARSE No. 4to10 4.76 to 2.00
MEDIUM No. 10 to 40 2.00 to 0.420
FINE No. 40 to 200 0.420 to 0.074
X
w 50 C
~ 40
>-
I- 30 c3
i'.= 20 en
~ 10 _J
C
H I/
/
V CH

CL / & /
V MH
SILT & CLAY BELOW No. BELOW 0.074
200

0.. 7
4 0
/
Cl -Ml /
ML &OL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

GRAIN SIZE CHART PLASTICITY CHART
NR No Recovery Classification in accordance with ASTM D2487 Ba Sam le Description and visual observation in accordance with ASTM D2488 ri:--.---".;...,a._....::...:;.;.:..;.i:..=....-+-'"-...,;;~-=-'---''-'--- t----------1 All Sieve Sizes shown are US Standard Seepage SPT Refusal is defined as one of the following:
10 blows for no apparent displacement
50 blows for less than 6 inches advancement
100 blows for 6 to 18 inches advancement
733

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-1
Date: January 8, 2020 Project No. 19251-01
Drilling Company: Larry Harklerode Type of Rig: 8-53
Hole Diameter- 8" Drive Weight: 140 lbs Drop: 30" Elevation· Existina Ground

DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: _ill,_ TEST 6 INCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY: GL
1 ML SANDY SILT: Olive/light brown, fine to medium
grained, moist, loose
2 3 X 4/2/3 - 14.6 Moist, loose
% Passing No. 200 Sieve = 55
4 5
6 X SM SILTY SAND: Tan, fine to medium grained, slightly 1/2/6 - - moist, loose 7 8
9 10
11 X 20/24/26 - 11.9 Light brown, moist, dense
% Passing No. 200 Sieve = 39
12 13
14 15
16 X 12/15/21 - - Fine to coarse grained, dry, dense
17 18
19 20
21 X 9/16/20 - 9.1 Tan, fine to medium grained, dry, dense % Passing No. 200 Sieve= 41
22 23
24 25
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. 734

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-1
Date: January 8. 2020 Project No. 19251-01
Drilling Company: Larry Harklerode Type of Rig: 8-53
Hole Diameter· 8" Drive Weight· 140 lbs Drop· 30" Elevation- Existino Ground

DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHN ICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (¾) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: GL TEST 6 INCH {%) uses SAMPLED BY:~
26 X 15/16/20 SM Very pale brown, dry, dense
27 28
29 30
31 X 35/40/30 2.7 SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: Very pale brown, fine to medium - grained, dry, very dense, trace of gravel % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 12 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 IX 32/37/40 - - Dry, very dense
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 Dry, very dense
49 / TOT AL DEPTH = 50 FEET
[X NO GROUNDWATER
38/41 /45 NO CAVING 50 - -

BORING BACKFILLED
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. 735

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-2
Date: January 8, 2020 Project No. 19251-01
Drilling Company: Larry Harklerode Type of Rig: B-53
Hole Diameter· 8" Drive Weight' 140 lbs Drop· 30" Elevation· Existina Ground

DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (¾) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: GL TEST 6 INCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY:~
1 SM SIL TY SAND: Olive/light brown, fine to medium
grained, slightly moist, dry, loose
2 3 4/4/5 85.3 5.8 Dry, loose
4 5
6 7
8 91 .2 15.6 ML SANDY SILT: Pale yellow, slightly moist, medium 9/11 /16 dense
9 10
11 IX 517/8 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, - - slightly moist, medium dense 12 13
14 15
16 X 17/20/30 - - ML SANDY SILT: Very pale brown, dry, dense 17 18
19 20
21 IX 13/14/20 SM SILTY SAND: Yellow, fine to medium grained, dry, - - dense 22 23 TOTAL DEPTH= 21 .5 FEET

NO GROUNDWATER
24 NO CAVING

BORING BACKFILLED
25 Soil Exploration Co., Inc. 736

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-3
Date: January 8. 2020 Project No. 19251-01
Drilling Company: Larry Harklerode Type of Rig: B-53
Hole Diameter- 8" Drive Weight' 140 lbs Drop· 30" Elevation· Existina Ground

DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS ORY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: GL TEST 6 INCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY:~
1 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained,
slightly moist, top 5 feet loose
2 3
4 5
6 1 /'i/11 95.6 18.7 Slightly moist, medium dense
7 ML SANDY SILT: Light brown, moist, medium dense
8 9
10 11 [X 13/23/23 - - Pale yellow, dry, dense
12 13
14 15
16 IX 8/14/21 Light brown, slightly moist, dense - -
17 18
19 TOTAL DEPTH= 16.5 FEET

NO GROUNDWATER
20 NO CAVING

BORING BACKFILLED
21 22
23 24
25 Soil Exploration Co., Inc. 737

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-4
Date: January 8, 2020 Project No. 19251-01
Drilling Company: Larry Harklerode Type of Rig: B-53
Hole Diameter· 8" Drive Weight: 140 lbs Drop· 30" Elevation· Existina Ground

DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: GL TEST 6 INCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY:~
1 SM SIL TY SAND: Brown. fine to medium grained. slightly moist, top 2 feet loose
2 3 iX 10/20/19 - 11 .9 Light brown, dry, dense
4 5
6 7 IX 6/6/6 - 6.5 Pale brown, dry, medium dense
8 9
10 11 X 12/24/28 - - Light brown, slightly moist, dense 12 13
14 15
16 X 19/20/20 - - Pale brown, dry, dense
17 18
19 X 17/22/24 - - Dry, dense 20
21 22 TOT AL DEPTH = 20 FEET

NO GROUNDWATER
23 NO CAVING

BORING BACKFILLED
24 25
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. 738

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No._-=B'--5-=----
Date: January 8, 2020 Project No. 19251-01
Drilling Company: Larry Harklerode Type of Rig: 8-53
Hole Diameter· 8" Drive Weight- 140 lbs Drop· 30" Elevation· Existina Ground

DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: GL TEST 6 INCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY:~
1 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained,
slightly moist, top 4 feet loose
2 3
4 5
6 [>( 7/8/10 Pale brown, dry, medium dense
7 8
9 10
11 IA 14/22/26 - - Light brown, sl ightly moist, dense
12 13
14 15
16 [>( 13/1 6/21 - - Dry, dense
17 18
19 20
21 IA 13/17/21 - - Dry, dense
22 23 Dry, dense
24 / TOTAL DEPTH= 25 FEET
[X NO GROUNDWATER
14/15/22 NO CAVING
25 BORING BACKFILLED
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. 739

APPENDIX C
740
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Ave.

Moreno Valley, California

SIEVE SIZE
Proposed Residential Development
Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle
City of Moreno Valley, California

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
8-1 @2' 8-1 @ 10' 8-1 @20'
% PASSING % PASSING % PASSING
3/8" 100 100 100
No. 4 99 98 99.6
No. 8 98 97 98
No. 16 96 94 95
No. 30 93 89 90
No. 50 86 80 80
No. 100 74 62 64
No. 200 55 39 41

SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST DATA
Soil Exploration Co., Inc.

Project No. 19251-01
January 21 , 2020
8-1 @30'
% PASSING
100
92 88
82 67
40 21
12 Appendix C
741
Cal Land Engineering, Inc.
dba Quartech Consultants
Geotechnical, Environmental & Civil Engineering --------------'---"-----··-·-···· ···-· --···------------ Soil Exploration Company Inc.
7535 Jurupa Avenue, Unit C
Riverside, California 92504
Attn: Mr. Gene Luu
RE: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS/REPORT
Client: Roger Hobbs
Project: Corrosion Potential
Project No.: 19251-01
QCI Job No.: 20-183-001h
Gentlemen:

January 16, 2020
We have completed the testing program conducted on sample for above project. The tests were performed in accordance with testing procedures as follows:

TEST METHOD
Corrosion Potential CT- 417, CT- 422, CT- 532 (643)
Enclosed is Summary of Laboratory Test Results.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide testing services to Soil Exploration Company Inc.

Should you have any questions, please call the undersigned.

Sincerely yours,
Cal Land Engineering, Inc. (CLE)
dba Quartech Consultants (QCl)
Jack C. Lee, GE 2153
Principle Engineer
Enclosure
Matthew Au
Project Engineer
---·•-·-----· - - •. - - . - ·-· -· ---·-----·-····--- 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, CA 92821 ; Tel: 714-671-1050, Fax: 714-671-1090 742
Cal Land Engineering, Inc.
dba Quartech Consultants
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Civil Engineering
Soil Exploration Company Inc.
7535 Jurupa Avenue, Suite C
Riverside, California 92504
Client: Roger Hobbs
Project: Corrosion Potential
Project No. : 19251-01
Corrosivity Test Results
pH Chloride Sample Sample ID Depth CT-532 CT-422
(ft) (643) (ppm)
B-1 0-5' 9.20 214
QCI Project No. : 20-183-001h
Date: January 16, 2020
Summarized by: MA
Sulfate Resistivity CT-417
%By CT-532 (643)
Weight (ohm-cm)

0.0400 1,700
576 East Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821 ; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 743

APPENDIX D
744
U.S. Geological Survey - Earthquake Hazards Program
2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters
New Search
Pref
Distance Slip Dip Dip Slip Rupture Rupture
Name State Top Bottom
in Miles Rate (degrees) Dir Sense
(mm/yr) (km) (km)

2.78 San Jacinto:SBV+SJV+A CA n/a 90 V
strike 0 16
slip

2.78 San Jacinto:SBV+SJV+A+CC CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 16

2.78 San Jacinto:SJV+A+C CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 17

2.78 San Jacinto:SBV+SJV+A+C CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 17

2.78 San Jacinto:SJV+A+CC+B+SM CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip

0.1 15

2.78 San Jacinto:SJV+A+CC+B CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip

0.1 15

2.78 San Jacinto:SBV+SJV CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 16

2.78 San Jacinto:SJV+A+CC CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 16

2.78 San Jacinto:SJV CA 18 90 V
strike
slip
0 16

2.78 San Jacinto;SBV+SJV+ATCC+B CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip 0.1 15

2.78 San Jacinto;SBV+SJV+ATCC+BTSM CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip

0.1 15

2.78 San Jacinto;SJV+A CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip 0 17

3.79 San Jacinto:A+CC+B+SM CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip

0.1 15

3.79 San Jacinto:A+CC CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 16

3.79 San Jacinto;A CA 9 90 V
strike
slip
0 17

3.79 San Jacinto:A+C CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 17

3.79 San Jacinto:A+CC+B CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip

0.1 15
745

8.27 San Jacinto·SBV CA 6 90 V strike 0 16
slip
S. San Andreas:CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 86
strike

13.82 0.1 13
slip

13.82 S. San Andreas:CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 85
strike
slip
0 14

13.82 S. San Andreas:CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 14
S.San

13.82 Andreas·CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO
CA n/a 86
strike
slip

0.1 13

13.82 S. San Andreas:SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 83
strike
slip

0.1 13

13.82 S. San Andreas:SSB+BG CA n/a 71
strike
slip
0 13

13.82 S. San Andreas·NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA nla 79
strike
slip

0.2 12

13.82 S. San Andreas:SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 81
strike
slip
0 13

13.82 S. San Andreas·SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip 0 13

13.82 S. San Andreas:BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 85
strike
slip 0.1 13

13.82 S. San Andreas:BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 84
strike
slip
0 14

13.82 S. San
Andreas:PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 86
strike
slip

0.1 13

13.82 S. San
Andreas;PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 86
strike
slip

0.1 13

13.82 S. San Andreas:PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V strike
slip

0.1 13

13.82 S. San Andreas·NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 75
strike
slip
0 14

13.82 S. San Andreas:NSB+SSB CA 90
strike nla V 0 13
slip

13.82 S. San Andreas·BB+NM+SM..-NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V
strike
0 14
slip

13.82 S. San Andreas:NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 84
strike

0.1 13
slip

13.82 S. San Andreas:NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 83
strike
slip
0 14

13.82 S. San Andreas:NM+SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip 0 13
746

13.82 S. San Andreas:SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 77 strike 0.2 12
slip

13.82 S. San Andreas:CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 86 strike
slip
0 14

13.82 S San Andreas:CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 14

13.82 S. San Andreas:SSB CA 16 90 V
strike
slip
0 13

16.74 S. San Andreas:PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip 0.1 13

16.74 S. San Andreas:SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 13

16.74 S. San Andreas:BB+NM+SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 14

16.74 S. San Andreas:NSB CA 22 90 V
strike
slip
0 13

16.74 S. San Andreas:NM+SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V
strike
0 13
slip

16.74 S.SanAndraa~CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB CA n/a strike
90 V 0 14
slip

16.74 S. San Andreas:CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip 0 14

19.47 Elsinore:W+Gl• T +J CA n/a 84 NE
strike
slip
0 16

19.47 Elsinore:GI+ T +J CA n/a 86 NE
strike
0 17 slip

19.47 Elsinore;GI+ T +J+CM CA n/a 86 NE
strike
slip 0 16

19.47 Elsinore;W+GI CA n/a 81 NE strike
slip
0 14

19.47 Elsinore:W+GI+ T CA n/a 84 NE
strike
0 14 slip

19.47 Elsinore:GI+ T CA 5 90 V
strike
slip 0 14

19.47 Elsinore:GI CA 5 90 V
strike
slip
0 13

19.47 Elsinore;W+GI+ T +J+CM CA n/a 84 NE
strike
slip 0 16

20.88 Elsinore:T CA 5 90 V
strike
slip 0 14

20.88 Elsinore:T +J CA n/a 86 NE
strike
slip
0 17
747

20.88 Elsmore:T +J+CM CA n/a 85 NE strike 0 16
slip
21 .34 S. San Andreas:BG CA n/a 58
strike
slip
0 13
21 .34 S. San Andreas:BG+CO CA n/a 72
strike
slip

0.3 12

23.55 Chino. alt 2 CA 65 SW
strike
slip
0 14

24.25 Cucamonga CA 5 45 N thrust 0 8

24.84 Elsinore:W CA 2.5 75 NE
strike
slip
0 14

24.92 Chino. alt 1 CA 50 SW
strike
slip
0 9

25.54 Cleghorn CA 3 90 V
strike
slip
0 16

27.62 Pinto Mtn CA 2.5 90 V
strike
slip
0 16

28.55 North Frontal (West) CA 49 s reverse 0 16

32.99 San Jose CA 0.5 74 NW
strike
slip
0 15

35.01 Helendale-So Lockhart CA 0.6 90
strike
V 0 13
slip

35.40 S. San Andreas:NM+SM CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip 0 14

35.40 S. San Andreas:PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip

0.1 13

35.40 S. San Andreas:SM CA 29 90 V
strike
0 slip
13 35.40 S San Andreas:CH+CC+BB+NM+SM CA n/a 90 V
strike
0 14 slip

35.40 S San Andreas:CC+BB+NM+SM CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 14

35.40 S. San Andreas:BB+NM+SM CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip
0 14

35.86 Sierra Madre Connected CA 2 51 reverse 0 14

35.86 Sierra Madre CA 2 53 N reverse 0 14

36.19 North Frontal (East) CA 0.5 41 s thrust 0 16

36.23 San Joaquin Hills CA 0.5 23 SW thrust 2 13

40.12 Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) CA 0.7 26 N thrust 2.8 15

40.39 Elsinore:J+CM CA 3 84 NE 0 17
748
strike
slip

40.39 Elsinore;J CA 3 84 NE
strike
slip
0 19

42.72 Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman Springs CA 0.9 90 V
strike
slip 0 13

44.65 Burnt Min CA 0.6 67 w
strike
slip
0 16

44.93 Clamshell-Sawpit CA 0.5 50 NW reverse 0 14

45.58 Newport Inglewood Connected alt 1 CA 1.3 89
strike
slip
0 11

45.58 Newport Inglewood Connected alt 2 CA 1.3 90 V
strike
slip
0 11

45.58 Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) CA 1.5 90 V
strike
slip
0 10

46.40 Landers CA 0.6 90 V
strike
slip
0 15

46.80 Eureka Peak CA 0.6 90 V
strike
slip
0 15

47.24 San Jacinto;CC+B+SM CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip

0.2 14

47.24 San Jacinto:CC CA 4 90 V strike
slip 0 16

47.24 San Jacinto:CC+B CA n/a 90 V
strike
slip 0.2 14

47.67 San Jac,nto;C CA 14 90 V
strike
slip
0 17

48.58 Newport-Inglewood. alt 1 CA 88 strike
slip
0 15

48.77 Puente Hills (Santa Fe Springs) CA 0.7 29 N thrust 2.8 15

49.03 Johnson Valley (Nol CA 0.6 90 V
strike
0 slip 16
749
ASCE. AMERICAN SOCIETY Of CML ENGINEHIS
Address:

No Address at This
Location
https://asce7hazardtool.online/
ASCE 7 Hazards Report
Standard: ASCE/SEI 7-16
Risk Category: II
Soil Class: D - Stiff Soil
----· - --- -o: -~----)::-----~---;• -·· ......... - .. • • '·-·---•-. ..• ti
-,,..-:--· .
•

l,tlll i
'
Elevation: 1562.21 ft (NAVO 88)
Latitude: 33.9112
Longitude: -117.1703
•"oJ
., ..

L ,· .,. ,.1 ,
I - 11
Thu Jan 09 2020
!: ,..;,of ....
1-,,1 ,.,
750
ASCE.

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CML ENGINEERS
Seismic
Site Soil Class:

Results:

S s
s,
F.

Fv
D - Stiff Soil

1.957

0.773
1 N/A
S o, :

T L :

PGA :

PGA M:

N/A
8 0.826

0.909
S Ms 1.957 F PGA 1.1
SM1 N/A ,. :

S os 1.305 Cv : 1.491
Ground motion hazard analysis may be required. See ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section 11.4.8.

Data Accessed: Thu Jan 09 2020
Date Source: USGS Seismic Design Maps
https://asce7hazardtool.online/ Page 2 Thu Jan 09 2020
751

APPENDIX E
752

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

1.0 GENERAL INTENT
These specifications present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installations of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.

Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report.

2.0 EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soils engineer and engineering geologist, and their representatives) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the consultant provide adequate testing and observations so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly.

It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture conditions, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the unsatisfactory conditions are rectified.

Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction will be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials, test method ASTM 01557-12.

3.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED

3.1 Clearing and Grubbing
All brush, vegetation, and debris shall be removed or piled and otherwise disposed of.

3.2 Processing
The existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of fi ll shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction.

3.3 Overexcavation
Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, shall be overexcavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant.

3.4 Moisture Conditioning
Overexcavated and processed soils shall be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as required to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.

3.5 Recompaction
Overexcavation and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned shall be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. 753 Appendix E-1

3.6 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal : vertical), the ground shall be stepped or benched.

The lowest bench shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide, shall be at least 2 feet deep, shall expose firm materials, and shall be approved by the consultant. Other benches shall be excavated in firm materials for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 (horizontal : vertical) shall be benched or otherwise overexcavated when considered necessary by the consultant.

3.7 Approval
All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas and toe-of-fill benches shall be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement.

4.0 FILL MATERIAL

4.1 General
Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the consultant.

Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall be placed in areas designated by consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material.

4.2 Oversize
Oversize materials defined as rock, or other irreducible material with maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the consultant. Oversize disposal operations shall be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant.

4.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material shall meet the requirements of Section 4.1.

5.0 FILL PLACEMENT and COMPACTION

5. 1 Fill Lifts
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer.

5.2 Fill Moisture
Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum shall be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers shall be aerated by scarification or shall be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning and mixing of fill layers shall continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum.

5.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned, and mixed, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and shall be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Appendix E-2 754

5.4 Fill Slopes
Compacting of slopes shall be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent.

5.5 Compaction Testing
Field-tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests shall be at the consultant's discretion. In general, the tests will be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of embankment.

6.0 SU BO RAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials shall not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade or material. All subdrains should be surveyed for line and grade after installation and sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrain.

7.0 EXCAVATION
Excavations and cut slopes will be examined during grading. If directed by the consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas shall be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope shall be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope.

8.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS
Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under engineering supervision.

After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand.

The onsite materials, or other soils approved by the soil engineer, shall be watered and mixed as necessary prior to placement in lifts over the sand backfill.

The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557-12 test method.

Field density tests and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made by the soil engineer during backfilling to see that proper moisture content and uniform compaction is being maintained. The contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory pits as required by the soil engineer to enable sampling and testing.

Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Appendix E-3
755

APPENDIX F
756
Cactus Ave. & Bradshaw Cir.

Moreno Valley, California
Infiltration Test (Boring Percolation Test Procedure)
Project No. 19251-01
January 21 , 2020
The tests were performed in accordance with Riverside County Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low Impact Development, dated June 2014.

Two 8-inch diameter, 6-deep test holes (1-1 and 1-2), were drilled at the suggested locations. The soil at the test locations was visually classified as silty sand. To mitigate any possible caving or sloughing of the test holes, a 6-inch diameter perforated pipe was placed in the hole. The bottom of the hole was covered with 2 inches of gravel.

The testing was conducted after presoaking. Two consecutive measurements showed that 6 inches of water seeped away in less than 25 minutes. The tests were therefore run an additional one hour with measurements taken at 10 minute intervals. Water level was adjusted to 20 inches above the bottom of the test hole after each measurement. The drop that occurred during the final reading was used for design rate purposes.

Infiltration Test/Tabulated Test Results
Test Depth of Infiltration Rate
No. Test Earth Material (in/hr) (feet)
1-1 6 Silty Sand (SM) 3.34
1-2 6 Silty Sand (SM) 3.52
1-3 6 Silty Sand (SM) 1.83
1-4 6 Silty Sand (SM) 1.99
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Appendix F
757

INFILTRATION TEST DATA
(Boring Percolation Test Procedure)
Project: ', 0 l~ [ r ~ ,,,, < :3 ", Project No.: IS 2 S: ~ -CJ .:i_ Test Hole No.: r:- j Date Excavated:__,__/ _- --4t--~-__,__l ..;._ r)_ Depth of Test Hole, DT: { F 1i r....,... Diameter: '' uses Soil Classification: Y'11 Diameter: P " Presoak:__,'----.---
Tested By: 11 p Date: ~
Trial No.
1 2
Trial
No.

Time
/// ~~(/< ,, , 0 ~ .. L- " "'r ()
l ?r :- Jt'Jl -:;
) 2'. ?S 7.7

SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST
Time
Interval
(min)
,.. f
' ·-
. ) -::-- I
l
Initial
Water Level
(inches)
!) 2.
j).

Final
Water Level
(inches)
CI\ I y(
61 Use Normal Sandy (Circle One) Soil Criteria
Start Time Stop Time At Do Dt
Time Initial Final
Interval Depth to Depth to
(min.) Water(in.) Water(in.)
A in
Water Level
(inches)
q,,~
~
~D
Change in
Water
Level (in.)
1 /J. ; ~~ '() l 2: i/ 0 /a I (;> I jJ s7-P1{_ s;J)1{
2 I 7·s 3 3~ I :a??,,._ . ' l1 <J. {n{ 5 ,6
·3 /~/1/ __ -:, S7s75 / '
J ~ 0{/ 11 I I S-1s/)
4 I ' I I D.., ' •/ I ~ /1 . ' \) \} , "' I I • {;:, {) -· 5 J :1i /() I. :' .-.. :> I I \) ') , I
6 ) '. L) tJ () 6 I .. ,-, 1' , I // ,, ,, .-, ,J :Jl I 7 8
9 - 10
11 12
COMMENTS: 4 j ~ v f 5 . ~I J _ ~Jr~ ~J,1{ ~ ~-1/ht - ~ "-1 f 9 AJ-! r,j 0-,,, jt 17 SJ D - 3 • ~ l+ /0 Greater
Than or
Equal to 6"
(Y/N)
I
'/
Infiltration
Rate
(in./hr.)
3~ 31-/-
758

INFILTRATION TEST DATA
(Boring Percolation Test Procedure)
Project: t<_og,,ey lklo bJ, Project N.o.: / O,u /-oJ Date:_l-!-/---,P,..:...,/_-z;:;:;-=--- Test Hole No.: -r---;, -'?,/' I Tested By: I -tr'(_ Date: t It q re Depth of Test Holy, DT: 6 r uses Soil Classification: _ __,_:kq~--'-- Diameter: x'' Presoak: y~
Trial No.
1 2
Trial
No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
' 11
12 SANDY SOIL GRITERlA TEST
Time Initial Final Change in
Time Interval Water Level Water Level Water Level
I j: o 1 I !2.

I &1- 37 1:2
(min)
~
,\
(inches)
2 \}
(inches) (inches)
C/, 71 ?- ✓
61-1-vf q,/7 {
Use Normal Sandy {Circle One) Soil Criteria
Start Time Stop Time flt Do Dt ~D
Time Initial Final Change in
Interval Depth to Depth to Water
(min.) Water(in.) Water(in.) _ Level (in.L
/J 1,3T;13 fJ,lt 7, ,] /0 ~ si-1~ 6, /~,
J 2=f-/r 5'f /,'o /; sf \ I \I -5'7-W 5J7S
):uJ-z 4( r1:r1r \I \' ~oh{ 5-/417{
>JLt ·fb I~ Jy-(b \I \j ~7,h( 5,(h,{
I -'J1 ; uJ /:t -r7:;oj \/ \/ I) \)
, ~/11 ~ Ji4-9--w ,1 t l \I v1
I
I
COMMENTS: 4 Y-6 u'l 1-6~ P'~f (JlA ~t( 1
, () r 4 -fr i-v 1 r ?.O _ r: en,;))) "p- 3, r J i·ft..,, '
Greater
Than or
Equal to 6"
Y/N
y
~ l
Infiltration
Rate
(in./hr.)
3-JoZ
759

INFILTRATION TEST DATA
(Boring Percolation Test Procedure)
- Project: () b _(; f ~ ·,) ~ Project No.: ) 1 l ~ j -o 1- Test Hole No.: , 3 Date Excavated:._,____..,___-_?.O=--- a.A Depth of Test Hole, DT: 0 • [ C. ~ r Diameter: " uses Soil Classification: _...._4 __ Diameter: 2~ Preso~
Tested By: fff-, Date:~
Trial No.
1 2
Trial
No.

Time
') 1: t) 3 I_,
. "' - , .,,..
.

I ,.,L • ,,, --. I.'" .• ) '-, ./ J
)2:?';, J

SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST
Time
Interval
(min)
2 - -
.I /
........ ,,.
j
Initial
Water Level
(inches)
5~
l \
Final
Water Level
(inches)

51.f?{
r-1\ ;Y5
Use Normal Sandy (Circle One) Soil Criteria
Start Time Stop Time Lit Do Dt
Time Initial Final
Interval Depth to Depth to
(min.) Water(in.) Water(in.)
Li in
Water Level
(inches)
1h(
7,/-i{
LiD
Change in
Water
Level (in.)
1 I: Or1?t> l ·,I/) 7 1 '0.2 ) (_(, { A 3,{
2 - J .• I 1 ~ ~ rx.ri1 ~. ,--:;;; I• z;;.-- , , () \ I ·3 I .., J: '7 L( 3) ! ·, s ~; 3 I f· I I ,, _) \ I
4 /!3-:JLtfO I • I • • ) I • 'I \ I \ I ,.. , . I· .

J ....)
5 /',';C!o.; I ,. ,... ,::,; ,,.,
\I \/ \)
') ( j
6 J2 ()2: 11 __) ;, /2:(]
"" \) \ 1 \\ \\
7 I
8 9 .
10 11
12 COMMENTS: t '/b OX ; /1,j - J y ~Julrdn>- )2_ rd{ - 1014-f f-1/1o)-f r 2 t)- '3,t~ f) ._/ /, 3 ,,4 A r I Greater
Than or
Equal to 6"
(YIN)
t
y
Infiltration
Rate
(in./hr.)
/, /J,3
~
760

INFILTRATION TEST DATA
(Boring Percolation Test Procedure)
Project: ~d¼.. ;Jot½ Project No.: !j~C/--1' f DDaattee:. \?l /J Test Hole No.( I- 4 , Tested By: r 1i1'<. __ 1 ~ ~
Depth of Test ~le, DT: G r uses Soil Classification: __ aj ....a__,,___:.. __ _ Diameter: ~ h Presoak: ts --"---f

SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST
Time Initial Final Change in Greater
Than or Trial No. Time Interval Water Level Water Level Water Level Equal to 6" (min) (inches) (inches) (inches) YIN 1 ,: oJ
) (JJ M !;J I v,1 J, ✓
' I 7nS - ,, s-1 ~7 2 q h rrv.! I
Use Normal Sandy (Circle One) Soil Criteria
Trial Start Time Stop Time Llt Do Dt L\D Infiltration
No. Time Initial Final Change in Rate
Interval Depth to Depth to Water (in./hr.)
(min.) Water(in.) Water(in.) Level (in.)
1 I i4J, ){ /i)/), < to !;_? t;Si R,1-{ -?.. J>,-v{'
2 1~ 1r1 s-6 /) 71:J:/J ~Ji~ - /
\/ \/ Z .\"b1-1
3 /i)/y 4 7 /:'Jt~47 IJ ,, rJ:'fsl) 5, 45},S
4 h?i1) /1 Ii 11rf \ l ,, ljy. ?15 'S- 3 75~
5 ,~ 1- ~, :s j;3J: (TT) J,: oJ I c5TJ \ I " \) ,,,
6 l$:oP I~ l)},,Jt;--;J \I ,l ' I 3.~7J /, gq
7 I
8 9
10 11
12 -
COMMENTS: if v. (Jot :S- s7 S
~jilf{vJ,tft' ~ T r of 4---t(in-f (?AJ-s,?.7S)fJ -z I 1 °'/"'//. ✓ V 761

APPENDIX G
762
UNTITLED.sum
************************************************************************************ *******************

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltechsoftware.com
************************************************************************************ *******************
Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.

Licensed to, 1/17/2020 4:36:40 PM
Input File Name: UNTITLED
Title: PROJECT NAME: Roger Hobbs
Subtitle: Proj No. 19251-01
Surface Elev.=Existing Ground
Hole No.=B-1
Depth of Hole= 50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 60.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 60.00 ft
Max. Acceleration= 0.91 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 7.50
Input Data:

Surface Elev.=Existing Ground
Hole No.=B-1
Depth of Hole=50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 60.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 60.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.91 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7.50

1. SPT or BPT Calculation.

2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara/ Yoshimine

3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Idriss/Seed

4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction*

5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones*

6. Hammer Energy Ratio,

7. Borehole Diameter,

8. Sampling Method,

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

10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes*
* Recommended Options

Ce= 0.89
Cb= 1
Cs= 1
User= 1
763
UNTITLED.sum
In-Situ Test Data:

Depth SPT gamma Fines
ft pcf %

0.00 50.00 120.00 55.00

5.00 50.00 120.00 39.00

10.00 50.00 120.00 39.00

15.00 37.00 120.00 39.00

20.00 36.00 120.00 41.00

25.00 36.00 120.00 41.00

30.00 70.00 120.00 12.00

35.00 70.00 120.00 12.00

40.00 77.00 120.00 12.00

45.00 77.00 120.00 12.00

50.00 86.00 120.00 12.00
Output Results:

Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.00 in.

Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=l.14 in.

Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands:::l.14 in.

Differential Settlement:::0.570 to 0.753 in.

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

0.00 2.00 0.59 5.00 0.00 1.14 1.14

5.00 2.00 0.58 5.00 0.00 1.13 1.13

10.00 2.00 0.58 5.00 0.00 1.09 1.09

15.00 2.00 0.57 5.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

20.00 2.00 0.56 5.00 0.00 0.77 0.77

25.00 2.00 0.56 5.00 0.00 0.61 0.61

30.00 1.96 0.55 5.00 0.00 0.47 0.47

35.00 1.90 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32

40.00 1.85 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17

45.00 1.80 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09

50.00 1. 75 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
* F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone
(F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Units: Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = atm (tsf), Unit Weight= pcf, Settlement= in.
1 atm (atmosphere)= 1 tsf (ton/ft2)
CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils
CSRsf Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user

764
request factor of
F.S.

S_sat
S_dry
S all
Noliq
UNTITLED.sum
safety)
Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf
Settlement from saturated sands
Settlement from Unsaturated Sands
Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands
No-Liquefy Soils

765

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA

PHASE I

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
JANUARY 27, 2024
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025

MORENO VALLEY, CA

PREPARED FOR
R.C. HOBBS CO, INC
1110 EAST CHAPMAN AVE, SUITE 201
ORANGE, CA 92866

PREPARED BY

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (REM)
1015 VIA ROMALES
SAN DIMAS, CA 91773
TEL 626-378-2714
PROJECT NO. 202824
766

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
_________________________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION 5

1.1 Objective 5

1.2 Scope of Work 5

2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 6

2.1 Geographical Description of Property 6

2.2 General Description of the Subject Property 6

2.3 Present Tenants and Business Operation 6

2.4 Past Tenants and Business Operation 6

2.4.1 Historic Aerial Photo/Topographic Map Records 7

2.4.2 City Building Department Records 7

2.4.3 Site Development/Occupancy History Summary 7

2.5 Regional Physical Setting 7

2.6 Hydrogeological Information 7

2.7 Historical Hazardous Substance Usage 8

2.7.1 Record Search Sources 8

2.7.2 List & Quantities of Hazardous Materials 8

2.7.3 Permits, Licenses and Registrations 8

2.7.4 Violation or Non-Compliance Notice 8

2.7.5 Regulatory Database Record Search 9

2.7.6 Environmental Lien Records 9

3. PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE 10

3.1 Air Quality – Indoor & Visible Emissions 10

3.2 Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) 10

3.3 Lead Based Paint (LBP) 10

3.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) 10

3.5 Underground Storage Tank (UST) 10

3.6 Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) 11

3.7 Fuel Islands 11

3.8 Hydraulic Hoist Unit 11

3.9 Hazardous Materials/Petroleum Products Storage & Handling 11

3.10 Other Containers 11

3.11 Hazardous Waste Storage 11
767

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
_________________________________________________________________

3.12 Distressed Vegetation 12

3.13 Stockpiled Soils 12

3.14 Wastewater Treatment Unit & Clarifiers 12

3.15 Solid Waste Disposal 12

3.16 Wells 12

3.17 Underground Pipelines 12

3.18 Boilers & HVAC Systems 13

3.19 Visual Indication of Spills, Leakage, Staining 13

3.20 Soil Staining or Surface Staining on Natural/Unpaved Land 13

3.21 Pits, Ponds, Lagoons 13

3.22 Herbicides/Pesticides 13

3.23 Radon 13

4. NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES 15

4.1 Adjacent/Adjoining Businesses 15

4.2 Historical Hazardous Substance Usage 15

5. GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCH AND
POTENTIAL OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION SOURCES 16

5.1 Historical Background & Scope of Coverage 16

5.2 Database Sources 16
A. Federal Sources 16
B. California State Sources 17
C. Regional Sources 18
D. Other Sources 19

5.3 Case Study References 19
A. Case-Closure 19
B. Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Reports on LUFT (LUST)’s 19
C. Groundwater Flow Gradient 20

5.4 Potential Sources of Contamination 20

5.5 UST, Disposal Sites, and Generators 20
768

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
_________________________________________________________________

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 21

7. LIMITATIONS AND CERTIFICATION STAMP 22

8. QUALIFICATION STATEMENT FOR PERSONNEL CONDUCTING
THE PHASE I ASSESSMENT 23

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FIGURES & PHOTOS
FIGURE 1 SITE PHOTOS
FIGURE 2 SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 3 RECENT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING SITE AND ITS

VICINITY GENERAL LAYOUT

APPENDIX B HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTO/TOPOGRAPHIC MAP RECORDS

APPENDIX C GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCH DATABASE

THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE TO MEET OR EXCEED THE LIMITATIONS AS SET FORTH BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING & MATERIALS (ASTM) STANDARD PRACTICE E 1527-21. IT IS FOR THE EXPRESS USE OF THE CLIENT, AND ITS CONTENTS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE PREVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS REPORT CONSTITUTES AN AGREEMENT BY THE CLIENT TO ASSUME FULL LIABILITY FOR INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. THIS

REPORT IS FOR THE SOLE USE AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CLIENT, AND IT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED TO OUTSIDE PARTIES. THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT IS FURNISHED IN GOOD FAITH AND WAS OBTAINED FROM PUBLIC & PRIVATE SOURCES AND DATABASE CONSIDERED RELIABLE. REM MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OF WARRANTY REGARDING THE ACCURACY, OR RELIABILITY, QUALITY OR COMPLETENESS OF SUCH INFORMATION. IN NO EVENT, SHALL REM BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXAMPLARY DAMAGES. THE CUSTOMER SHALL ASSUME FULL LIABILITY FOR USE OF THIS REPORT.
769

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

5 1. INTRODUCTION
______________________________________________________________

1.1 Objective
This report summarizes the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the subject property performed by Robin Environmental Management (REM) in January 2024.

The purpose of this Environmental Site Assessment is to evaluate the potential for environmental concerns or liabilities due to past and/or current land use practices at the subject site or from nearby properties. This assessment included in this report is solely targeted for CERCLA (Superfund) liability and the “innocent landowner defense”, to permit user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability, by conducting all appropriate inquiries to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs).

1.2 Scope of Work
 Visual investigation of the property to obtain information regarding obvious visual signs of adverse environmental conditions, contamination, hazardous material usage, storage and handling on and in the adjoining sites (only up to one parcel next to the subject property) of the subject property
 Visual survey of the adjoining land uses (only up to one parcel next to the subject property) and determination of any current nearby operations which may potentially impact the subject site
 Government document search of records compiled by various government agencies for on site or nearby operations (past and present) to aid in the identification of any potential contamination sources
 Review of building permit records available at local agency and other pertinent documents to identify any potential past on-site operations which may have environmental implications.
770

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

6 2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
______________________________________________________________________

2.1 Geographical Description of Property
The subject property, APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, is a roughly N-S trending rectangularshaped lot with its approximate southern half located at the northeastern corner of (the E-W trending) Cactus Avenue and (there N-S trending) Bradshaw Circle (which turns westward at approximate the middle point of the west side of the site) within a residential zone in the southeastern portion of the city of Moreno Valley, California as shown on Figure 1-Site Photos, Figure 2-Site Location Map, and Figure 3-Recent Aerial Photograph Showing Site and Its Vicinity General Layout.

2.2 General Description of the Subject Property
The subject property, APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, is a roughly N-S trending rectangularshaped lot with its approximate southern half located at the northeastern corner of (the E-W trending) Cactus Avenue and (there N-S trending) Bradshaw Circle (which turns westward at approximate the middle point of the west side of the site) in the southeastern portion of the city of Moreno Valley, California. The subject site is currently unpaved vacant lot covered by native vegetation and also certain tumbleweeds; with no improvement features present on the site premise. No pits, ponds, swamps, dry wells, or lagoons were observed on the subject property.

2.3 Present Tenants and Business Operation
At the time of site inspection on January 12, 2024, the site was currently unpaved vacant lot covered by native vegetation and also certain tumbleweeds; with no improvement features present on the site premise.

2.4 Past Tenants and Business Operation
Methods of researching historic use of ownership of the subject property employed by REM are as follows:
 Historic Aerial Photo/Topo Map records
 City Building Department records
771

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

7 2.4.1 Historic Aerial Photo/Topo Map Records
Historic aerial photo/topo map records for the site area included in Appendix B showed that the site has been vacant and undeveloped lot since prior to 1954.

2.4.2 City Building Department Records
Records available at the City of Moreno Valley Building Department indicated that the site has never been developed in the past.

2.4.3 Site Development/Occupancy History Summary
Based on historic site occupancy data listed above, the site has never been developed in the past.

2.5 Regional Physical Setting
The subject property’s physical locations were researched employing a United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle (Quad) Map relevant to the subject property. The USGS 7.5 Minute Quad Map has an approximate scale of 1 inch to 2,000 feet, and shows physical features with environmental significance such as wetlands, water bodies, roadways, mines, and buildings. Please refer to Appendix A, Figure 2.

The physical and natural features illustrated on the Quad Map served as areas of visual emphasis when conducting the site inspection of the subject property. The USGS 7.5 Minute Quad Map was used as the only Standard Physical Setting Source, and is sufficient as a single reference. The surface elevation of the subject site ranges from approximately 1,550 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) near its southwestern corner to approximately 1,570 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) near its northeastern corner; and exhibits a topographic down gradient generally towards south-southwest.

2.6 Hydrogeological Information
The subject site is located within the San Jacinto Groundwater Sub-Basin of the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin. General hydrogeology information for the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin can be found in the California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 15 (1955), “Santa Ana River Investigation; Appendix B: Geology of San Jacinto and Elsinore Basins”. Based on the above reference, the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin 772

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

8 consists of an alluvium-filled drainage system on a rather high-standing fault block, the Perris block. The alluvial fill in some places is more than several hundred feet thick. The principal confined aquifer of the San Jacinto Groundwater Sub-Basin lie at depths greater than 100 feet and generally exhibits a flow direction towards south-southwest following the topographic gradient.

2.7 Historical and Current Hazardous Substance Usage

2.7.1 Record search sources
REM’s field engineer contacted the following public agencies to find any records of former operation of Underground Storage Tank (UST) for gasoline/product or any other hazardous substances on the subject site:
 City of Moreno Valley Building Department
 Regional Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana Region No records were found in reference to historical usage or handling of UST or any hazardous substances on the subject property.

2.7.2 List and quantities of the hazardous materials
During the site inspection, the use, storage, and generation of any quantity of hazardous materials was not observed. No regulatory agency data was found regarding historic or present use of the subject property in regards to hazardous materials previously or presently used, stored, treated, disposed or generated at the subject property.

2.7.3 Permits, licenses, and registrations
All present and past records of permits, licenses, registrations, certificates of environmentally related operations were searched. No equipment requiring environmentally related licensing was observed. Thus, no environmentally related permits or registrations were necessary for the operation of subject business.

2.7.4 Violation or non-compliance notice
No currently pending violation or notice of non-compliance was issued with the present environmental regulations, according to the findings of our environmental assessment on the 773

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

9 subject property.

2.7.5 Regulatory database record research
The subject property was not listed on the following environmental regulatory database record research (NETR records search): NPL, RCRA-TSD, CERCLIS, NFRAP, RCRA-G, ERNS, CORRACTS, CORTESE, CALSITES, LUST, UST, and SWF.

2.7.6 Environmental lien records
Under current environment regulation, government agency may place an environmental lien on the property with known contamination and no cleanup/mitigation activities apparently intended being conducted by the site owner upon the agency issued the cleanup enforcement order. The conducted government records search shows that there are no environmental liens placed by the federal environmental agency under CERCLA regulations for the subject site. REM staff searched the California State Department of Toxic Substances website EnviroStor data search and found no environmental liens were placed by the State environmental agency for the subject site. Records available at the City of Moreno Valley also show that there are no environmental liens placed by the local environmental agency for the subject site.
774

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

10 3. PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE
______________________________________________________________________ REM’s environmental assessor/geologist performed the field survey of the subject site and adjacent properties on January 12, 2024. A site location map and a recent aerial photograph showing site and its vicinity general layout are included as Figures 2 and 3, respectively.

3.1 Air Quality - Indoor and Visible Emissions
No unusual smells, obnoxious odors, or visual emissions were observed during the inspection of the subject property. Neither air emission stacks nor paint booth were present, thus no pertinent permits were searched for the previous records of violation history.

3.2 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM)
Since the subject lot is currently with no improvement buildings, asbestos-containing building materials are not of environmental concern.

3.3 Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Since the subject lot is currently vacant with no improvement buildings, lead-based paint is also not a potentially environmental concern.

3.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB’s)
Prior to 1978, PCBs were commonly used in dielectric fluids in transformers, capacitors, and light ballasts due to their desirable thermal characteristics, and hydraulic fluid compactor. Due to their demonstrated toxicity and persistence in the environment, PCB manufacturing in the United States was discontinued.

Pole- or pad-mounted transformers were found in the vicinity of the subject site, appearing in good condition without any sign of leakage. No PCB-containing hydraulic fluid trash compactor was noticed present on the subject site premise.

3.5 Underground Storage Tank (UST)
The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no evidence of surface or above ground features (e.g., fill pipe, vent pipes, fill connections, concrete pads, saw cuts, sumps, spill 775

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

11 containment device, leak detection device, etc.) normally associated with underground storage tanks (UST’s).

3.6 Aboveground Storage Tank
REM’s field officer performed the visual inspection of the subject site to find evidence of surface or above ground features (e.g., fill pipe, vent pipes, fill connections, concrete pads, saw cuts, concrete pad, drains in vicinity, etc.) normally associated with aboveground storage tanks (AST’s). Visual observation also includes the inspection to identify any surface markings indicating the existence of aboveground product pipelines. No evidence on the presence of any on-site aboveground storage tank was identified.

3.7 Fuel Islands
The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no evidence of fuel islands or dispensers either in operation or abandoned.

3.8 Hydraulic Hoist Unit
The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no presence of underground hydraulic hoist units within the subject site premise.

3.9 Hazardous Materials / Petroleum Products Storage & Handling No containers storing automotive or industrial batteries, pesticides, or chemicals seemingly exhibiting toxic hazards were identified present at the time of site inspection. No major spills, leakage, or staining were observed throughout the site

3.10 Other Containers
No other containers indicating any sign of environmental concern were observed during the site inspection.

3.11 Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal (TSD) No storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste was found during the site investigation. No severely improper waste stream processing or disposal practices were observed on the subject property.
776

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

12 3.12 Distress Vegetation
Planters and vegetation in the vicinity of the subject site were found well maintained on bare soil or within separate planters in relatively good appearance with no sign of chemical stress or unnatural appearance.

3.13 Stockpiled Soils and Construction Debris
REM’s site inspection did not reveal any evidence of stockpiled soils on the ground of subject property.

3.14 Wastewater Treatment Unit / Clarifier
No underground industrial wastewater treatment facility, i.e., clarifier was observed on the subject property during the site visit.

Storm water drainage system in the close proximity of the subject area did not identify any abnormal accumulation of petroleum or chemical run-off or foreign materials. No unusual blockage of the storm-water control system was observed during the site visual inspection.

REM recommends no investigation on described storm-water systems at the subject property.

3.15 Solid Waste Disposal
No improper activities of treatment or disposal of hazardous, medical, or toxic wastes are performed on the subject site.

3.16 Wells
REM’s site walk-through did not discover any irrigation wells, injection wells, abandoned wells, groundwater-monitoring wells, dry wells, septic wells oil wells, gas wells, domestic water wells, other monitoring wells on the subject premises.

3.17 Underground Pipelines
REM’s site inspection did not reveal any evidence of underground pipelines beneath the ground of subject property, other than public utility lines such as sewer, power, and electric lines, for which public “dig-alert” service would easily identify upon 48-hour telephone notice 777

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

13 in advance.

3.18 Boilers & HVAC Systems
The subject lot is current with no improvement buildings and there are no water heater and HVAC systems present on the site premise.

3.19 Visual Indication of Spills, Leakage, Staining
REM’s site inspection did not reveal any evidence of on-site or off-site spills, leakages, or staining significant enough to pose immediate environmental concern onto the subject property. No significantly stained catch basins, drip pads, or sumps were observed. There were no major spills around surface drains, pipes, gutters, spouts, or tubes, if any, at the time of site investigation.

3.20 Soil Staining or Surface Staining on Unpaved/Natural Lands No staining or surface staining on the bare soil or unpaved lands were identified during the site investigation.

3.21 Pits, Ponds, Lagoons
No visible evidence of wetlands such as pits, ponds, lagoons, or any other water bodies, except water accumulating at the bottom of excavation along the west side of the site, was observed within the subject property’s boundary lines.

3.22 Herbicides/Pesticides
No evidence of herbicide or pesticide use on the subject property was observed during the inspection.

3.23 Radon
Radon sources can be found from earth and rock beneath building structures, well water, and building materials themselves. Though there is no immediate health effect, it is believed to account for approximately 10% of lung cancer deaths in the United States. Estimated national average is 1.5 picocuries per liter of air, however, levels as high as 200 picocuries per liter in some commercial buildings can be found. USEPA and California Department of 778

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

14 Health Services’ Radon Survey Interim Results report shows different U.S. regions according to general geological and climate information, where Region 9 includes Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and San Diego Counties. According to the California EPA, Los Angeles and Riverside County is classified as a “Zone 2” county having a predicted average screening level between 2-4 picocuries per liter of air. Orange and San Diego County is under Zone 3, having the level less than 2 picocuries/L, and Ventura County as Zone 1 has the level greater than 4 picocuries/L.

If a property region reportedly has radon concentration below 4 picocuries per liter of air in

99.5% of homes within the region, then, it is not likely impacted by the presence of radon gas, considering EPA action limit of 4 picocuries per liter of air volume. REM is not contracted to perform the testing of radon level on the subject property, thus the delineation of radon level is beyond the scope of the service covered in this report. 779

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

15 4. NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
______________________________________________________________________

4.1 Adjacent/Adjoining Businesses
For the scope of this assessment, properties are defined and categorized based upon their physical proximity to the subject property. An adjoining property is any real estate property whose border is contiguous or partially contiguous with the subject properties, or that would be if the properties were not separated by a roadway, street, public thoroughfare, or stream.

Adjoining properties of the subject site are as follows:

North: By residences

East: By vacant lot
South: Immediately by Cactus Avenue, and then by residences West: By vacant lot for approximate its northern half; and immediately by Bradshaw Circle, and then residences for approximate its southern half

4.2 Historical Hazardous Substance Usage in Neighboring Properties REM’s staff contacted the following public agencies to find any records of former operation of Underground Storage Tank (UST) for gasoline/product or any other hazardous substances in the vicinity of the subject site:

 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB-SA)  California Department of Toxic Substances Control
No locations in the immediate adjacency of the subject site were found to pose any environmental threat to the subject property, based upon the data obtained via NETR governmental records database and the conducted agency records search. 780

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

16 5. GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCH AND POTENTIAL OFF-SITE

CONTAMINATION SOURCES
______________________________________________________________________

5.1 Historical Background and Scope of Coverage
Since the early 1970s, environmental agencies have been tracking the compliance of many facilities with the various laws that have been promulgated to halt the pollution of air, land and water. More recently, records have been maintained documenting spills of hazardous materials and the locations of known waste sites or regulated waste handling facilities. The following sections summarizes REM’s review of database search of available records at the local, state and federal level and highlights the approximate location of such sites with respect to the subject property.

The conducted government record search was performed to aid:
1) Identification of facilities, located within a one-mile radius of the subject property, which might pose a potential threat to the subsurface environment at the subject property; and 2) Identification of any environmental violation notices associated with activities conducted at the subject property itself. The following lists were reviewed for sites within one mile of the property:

5.2 Database Sources
A. Federal Sources
 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
 U.S. EPA, National Priority List (NPL)
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Federal TSD Facilities  Federal Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)  CERCLA Site Enforcement Tracking System
 RCRA Violators List (CORRACTS)
 U.S. EPA Federal Enforcement Docket
 Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS)
781

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

17  No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP)
The CERCLIS is the EPA compilation of sites for which the EPA has evidence of, or is investigating, a release or threatened release, of hazardous substances which may be subject to review in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund Act). Sites to be included are identified primarily by the reporting requirements of hazardous substances including degreasing solvents, oily waste, acid solutions, alkaline solutions, and heavy metal solutions, Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) facilities and releases larger than specific Reportable Quantities (RQ), established by EPA.

An NPL site is an uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste site identified for priority remedial action under Superfund Program. Such prioritized sites with significant risk to human health and the environment receive remedial funding under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Conservation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

RCRA generator/TSD list is a compilation of hazardous waste generating facilities which have obtained an identification number from EPA.

ERNS database is a national computer database used to store information on unauthorized release of oil and hazardous substances. The program is a cooperative effort of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation Research and Special Program Administration’s National Transportation System Center and the National Response Center. There are primarily five Federal statues that requires release reporting: CERCLA Section 103; the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III Section 304; the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) Section 311(b)(3); and the Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1974 (HMTA) Section 1808 (b).

RCRA Violators List (CORRACTS): The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 provides for “Cradle to Grave” regulation of hazardous wastes. RCRA requires regulation of hazardous waste generators, transporters, and TSD sites. Evaluation to potential violations, ranging from manifest requirements to hazardous waste discharges, is typically conducted by the US EPA. This database is also known as Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS).

Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS): TRIS compiles database for a property having had a release of chemical compound, whose listing reflects permitted air releases rather than a release to soil or groundwater.

B. California State Sources
 State of California Office of Planning and Research (CORTESE), the State of California equivalent of CERCLIS
 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)
 Solid Waste Information System (SWIS)
 Annual Work Plan (previously known as Bond Expenditure Plan), the State of California equivalent of NPL
 California Historical Abandoned Site Survey Program (CALSITES) 782

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

18 CALSITES: The Historical Abandoned Site Survey (HASS) Program, formerly the California Abandoned Sites Program Information System – ASPIS, identified certain potential hazardous waste sites. The identification of these sites was generally not made via sampling and site characterization, but as a result of file searches and windshield surveys.

No Further Action sites are also on the CALSITE list which has been marked for no further action by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) in accordance with California Health & Safety Code.

CORTESE: This database is a consolidation of information from various sources. It is maintained by the State Office of Planning and Research and lists potential and confirmed hazardous waste or substances sites.

LUST(s): The Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Information System is maintained by the State Water Resource Board pursuant to California Health & Safety Code.

SWIS (Solid Waste Information System): As legislated under Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972, the California Waste Management Board maintains list of certain facilities, i.e. Active solid waste disposal sites, Inactive or Closed solid waste disposal sites and Transfer facilities.

AW (Annual Work Plan previously known as Bond Expenditure Plan): The California Health & Safety code requires the California EPA to develop a site-specific expenditure plan as the basis for an appropriation of California Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 funds. The Agency is also required to update annually and report any significant adjustments to the Legislature on an ongoing basis. The plan identifies California hazardous waste sites targeted for cleanup by responsible parties, the California and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency over the next coming years.

C. Regional Sources
 LUST - Regional
 Toxic Releases (NT)
 California Regional Water Resources Control Board, Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT)
 Well Investigation Program
NT (Toxic Releases): The California Regional Water Quality Control Boards or local Department of Health & Safety Services keeps track of toxic releases to the environment. These lists are known as Unauthorized Releases, Spill, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanups, Non-Tank Releases, Toxic List or similar, depending on the local agency
SWAT (Solid Waste Assessment Test): This program requires that disposal sites with more than 50,000 cubic yards of waste provide sufficient information to the regional water quality control board to determine whether or not the site has discharged hazardous substances which will impact the environment. Site operators are required to file Solid Waste Assessment Test reports on a staggered basis. Operators submit water quality tests to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, describing surface and groundwater quality and supply; and the geology 783

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

19 within 1 mile of the site. Air quality tests are submitted to the local Air Quality Management District or Air Pollution Control District.

D. Other Sources
 RCRA-Generator
 RCRA-TSD Facilities
 SWLF (Solid Waste Landfill)
RCRA-G: The EPA regulates generators of hazardous material through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). All hazardous waste generators are required to notify EPA of their existence by submitting the Federal Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Form or a State equivalent form. The notification form provides basic identification information and specific waste activities.

RCRA-D: The EPA regulates the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous material through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). All hazardous waste TSD facilities are required to notify EPA of their existence by submitting the Federal Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Form or a State equivalent form.

SWLF: The California Waste Information system database consist both open as well closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations pursuant to the Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972. Generally the California Integrated Waste Management Board learns of locations of disposal facilities through permit applications and from local enforcement agencies.

5.3 Case Study References
A. Case-Closure
If sites are listed on the California Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database with a "case closed (no further remedial actions required)" status, it shall be interpreted as follows.

The identified contamination at such sites was mitigated to a degree that the governing agency believed that these sites do not pose apparent concern/threat to the subsurface environment of the neighboring area.

B. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Reports on LUFT’s According to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory / University of California Reports on Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFT’s), approximately ninety percent of dissolved petroleum products are found less than 280 feet in distance from the origination source, and most of these plumes are either stable or decreasing in distance. And seventy percent of the plume is in shallow groundwater less than 25 feet below the ground surface. 784

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

20 C. Groundwater Flow Gradient
Environmentally-concerned sites located not directly at the up-gradient from the subject site can be deleted from anticipated target sites, since contamination from identified sites is unlikely to migrate along the groundwater flow direction to affect the subsurface environment underneath the subject site (Section 2.6 – Hydrogeologic Setting).

5.4 Potential Source of Contamination
Sites identified on referenced agency listing within the one-mile radius from the subject property are tabulated in the Appendix C of this Report. As shown in Appendix C, there are no open Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)/Cleanup sites or other sites identified as exhibiting potential environmental concerns within the immediate vicinity (< 1/8 mile) of the referenced subject property.

5.5 UST, Disposal Sites, and Generators
As also summarized in Appendix C, there are no sites listed on federal EPA RCRA small quantities hazardous waste generators and Information System facilities databases, no disposal sites, and no sites listed on active permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) database compiled by the State Water Resources Control Board, located within 1/8-mile radius of the subject property.
785

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

21 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
______________________________________________________________________  The subject property, APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, is a roughly N-S trending rectangular-shaped lot with its approximate southern half located at the northeastern corner of (the E-W trending) Cactus Avenue and (there N-S trending) Bradshaw Circle (which turns westward at approximate the middle point of the west side of the site) in the southeastern portion of the city of Moreno Valley, California. The subject site is currently unpaved vacant lot covered by native vegetation and also certain tumbleweeds; with no improvement features present on the site premise. No pits, ponds, swamps, dry wells, or lagoons were observed on the subject property.
 Various historic sources listed in Section 2.4 reveals that the site has never been developed in the past.
 According to the conducted government records search (see Section 5.0), the subject property was not recognized being listed on the following environmental regulatory database record research (NETR database): NPL, RCRA-TSD, CERCLIS, NFRAP, RCRA-G, ERNS, CORRACTS, CORTESE, CALSITES, LUST, UST, and SWF.  Based on the conducted government records search, there are no open Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)/Cleanup sites or other sites identified as exhibiting potential environmental concerns within the immediate vicinity (< 1/8 mile) of the referenced subject property.
 In conclusion, we have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E-1527-21 of APN 478- 090-018, 024, & 025, Moreno Valley, CA. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. No Phase II (subsurface investigation) environmental assessment is recommended for the subject property.
786

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

22 7. LIMITATIONS AND CERTIFICATION STAMP
__________________________________________________________________ The opinion expressed herein is based on the information collected during our study, our present understanding of the site conditions and our professional judgment in light of such information at the time of preparation of this opinion. The report is a professional opinion work, and no warranty is either expressed, implied or made as to the conclusions, advice and recommendations offered in this report. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or similar localities.

The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report are considered valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the property can occur with the passage of time, due to natural process or the works of man on this or adjacent properties.

In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standard may occur. REM is not responsible for conditions found at or beneath the subject property or adjacent properties.

Accordingly, portions of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by the changes beyond our control.

This report is prepared for the exclusive use of the client, and opinions/recommendations contained in this report apply only to conditions existing when services were performed and are intended only for the client, purposes, locations, time frames, and project parameters indicated.

Report Prepared by:

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ROBIN CHANG, PH.D., P.G.

Project Manager
787

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, MORENO VALLEY, CA
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

23 8. QUALIFICATION STATEMENT FOR PERSONNEL CONDUCTING

THE PHASE I ASSESSMENT
_____________________________________________________________________ Since Robin Chang, the personnel conducting the Phase I Environmental assessment is a California State Registered Professional Geologist, Robin Chang declares that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in Sec. 312.10 of 40 CFR. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, experience, and license to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

ROBIN CHANG, PH.D., P.G.

Project Manager
788
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

APPENDICES
789
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

APPENDIX A

FIGURES & PHOTOS
790
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

FIGURE 1

SITE PHOTOS
791
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

Photo 1
Viewing the site from near the southwestern corner of the site (facing north-northeast) Photo 2
Viewing the northwestern portion (outside the fence) of the site with residences to the north of the site on the background (facing north)
792
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

Photo 3
Vacant lot to the east of the site (facing northeast)
Photo 4
Residences, across Cactus Avenue, to the south of the site (facing west-southwest) 793
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

Photo 5
Vacant lot to the west of approximate the northern half of the site (facing northwest) Photo 6
Residences, across Bradshaw Circle, to the west of approximate the southern half of the site (facing southwest)
794
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

FIGURE 2

SITE LOCATION MAP
795
l
.

A
----... -='-· ~ - ~- '
A V/Z NUF. - - - -- -=- - -:--, . ,. ·
0 i
f
,[
1--
,i-,..,,,
r-·'"'"''- -~.-... - ~
Ii
I'
de,\
Vlf~J f
f!i,4/
f
l
~, .r--·
s -
·--"" ,, 1•\ l. ' (s
)t ....,v \,
O ----------• 0.5 Mi
0 L
0 O ---------- 3000 Ft
.;.:,r .
. -
- -tr·-
)
\{\':
('
·v•t0 ;, C"
~6 ~' ,\• !, ~_% r,;:;. ~-'--=P
,A·., -C ·-;fN. \:::~--. \ ~
? ,,,_\~ >f?flk.F
~- '
Map provided by MyTopo.corn
796
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

FIGURE 3

RECENT AERIAL PHOTO SHOWING SITE/ITS VICINITY

GERNERAL LAYOUT
797
Cactus Ave
798
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

APPENDIX B

HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTO/TOPOGRAPHIC MAP RECORDS
799
•
--- •
,. .
..

N
w*• ' .
·•
1954 topographical map
■ USGS, 5524127 SUNNYMEAD 7:5 X 7.5 MINUTE (1953, Revised 1954) 800
15001 I I
1966 aerial photograp_h
USGS (1966-04-16 - 1966-04-16)
'
' / :;ffi
~ ii{
Arbo hen Orive
Cactus Avenue
801
11 00m
jSOOi
/~
i!~ ·,
I I
1978 aerial photograph
USDA (1978-09-20 - 1978-09-22)
-, I
-~1
... ~ .. J
r
_,. ..
'
Cac U'" Avenu,e
-
802
t ·
15001 I ,
1996 aerial photograph
USGS DOQQ (1996-06-04- 1996-10-10)
Arborgl,e n Ori~•e
Cac us Avenue
, . , .
• •
•
803
I I
2005 aerial photograph Arbor lenn Drive
US Departmen of Agriculture (2005-05-29 - 2005-09-29)
Cactus Avenue
804
,,,..
..... '
"~
J,' ·-·
r:
~.~ ... .,..,l'>.Jl" ............ -,,.ur<r:r.Jt;~. - .~ - ... ,..,..._ ___ ....,_ .. -- ~ ,,,_-,-..-.~ ~r~ ,
I I
• 2014 aerial photograph
USDA (2014-05-13 - 2014-10-05)
•
Arbo glen11 Drii.•e
- actu Avenue
805
_____________________________________________________________________

ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773

APPENDIX C

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCH DATABASE
806
Site Name: Cactus Ave & Bradshaw Circle
Location: Cactus Ave & Bradshaw Circle, Moreno Valley, CA Prepared for: REM
Ref: 202824
Center Coordinates: 33.91109829875324,-117.17021942138673 Prepared Date: Sat Jan 27 2024 14:45:16 GMT-0700 (Mountain Standard Time)

ENVIRONMENTAL

RADIUS REPORT
ASTM E1527-21
2055 E. Rio Salado Pkwy, Tempe, AZ 85381 | 480-967-6752 NETRe)nline
807
environmental.netronline.com
Summary
Federal < 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1
Lists of Federal NPL (Superfund) sites 0 0 0
Lists of Federal Delisted NPL sites 0 0 0
Lists of Federal sites subject to CERCLA removals and CERCLA orders 0 0 0 Lists of Federal CERCLA sites with NFRAP 0 0 0
Lists of Federal RCRA facilities undergoing Corrective Action 0 0 0 Lists of Federal RCRA TSD facilities 0 0 0
Lists of Federal RCRA generators 0 0 0
Federal institutional control/engineering control registries 0 0 0 Federal ERNS list 0 0 0
State < 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1
Lists of state and tribal Superfund equivalent sites 0 0 0 Lists of state and tribal hazardous waste facilities 0 0 0 Lists of state and tribal landfills and solid waste disposal facilities 0 0 0 Lists of state and tribal leaking storage tanks 0 0 0
Lists of state and tribal registered storage tanks 0 0 0 State and tribal institutional control/engineering control registries 0 0 0 Lists of state and tribal voluntary cleanup sites 0 1 0 Lists of state and tribal brownfields sites 0 0 0
Other < 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1
State and/or tribal lists of sites requiring further investigation / remediation 0 0 0 State list of Significant Environmental Hazards (SEH) 0 0 0 Lists of state and tribal mine sites requiring further investigation and/or remediation 0 0 0 State and/or tribal lists of spills and spill responses 0 0 0 State and/or tribal lists of emergency responses 0 0 0
State and/or tribal lists of dry cleaners 0 0 0
State and/or tribal lists of clandestine laboratory cleanups 0 0 0 State and/or tribal lists of scrap/used tire processing facilities 0 0 0 State and/or tribal lists of underground injection control sites 0 0 0 State and/or tribal listings of permitted drywells 0 0 0 Automobile salvage yards 0 0 0
Livestock Waste Control sites 0 0 0
Controlled Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) 0 0 0
State and/or tribal lists of registered aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) 0 0 0 C.A.A. Permitted Facilities 0 0 0
NPDES Permitted Facilities 0 0 0
Onsite Wastewater Treatment sites 0 0 0
State and/or tribal lists of permitted facilities 0 0 0 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo) 1 2 0 U.S. EPA Enforcement, Compliance History Online (ECHO) 0 0 0 U.S. EPA Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 0 0 0
U.S. EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) database 0 0 0 U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS) 0 0 0
808
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of Federal NPL (Superfund) sites
The National Priorities List (NPL) is the list of sites of national priority among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation. The NPL is updated periodically, as mandated by CERCLA.

There were no Federal NPL sites found within a one-mile radius of the target property. 809
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of Federal Delisted NPL sites
The EPA may delete a final NPL site if it determines that no further response is required to protect human health or the environment.

Under Section 300.425(e) of the NCP (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990), a site may be deleted when no further response is appropriate if EPA determines that one of the following criteria has been met: 1) EPA, in conjunction with the state, has determined that responsible parties have implemented all appropriate response action required, 2) EPA, in consultation with the state, has determined that all appropriate Superfund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented and that no further response by responsible parties is appropriate, 3) A remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate.

There were no Federal Delisted NPL sites found within a half-mile radius of the target property. 810
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of Federal sites subject to CERCLA removals and CERCLA orders CERCLA identifies the classes of parties liable under CERCLA for the cost of responding to releases of hazardous substances. In addition, CERCLA contains provisions specifying when Federal installations must report releases of hazardous substances and the cleanup procedures they must follow. Executive Order No. 12580, Superfund Implementation, delegates response authorities to EPA and the Coast Guard. Generally, the head of the Federal agency has the delegated authority to address releases at the Federal facilities in its jurisdiction.

There were no Federal sites subject to CERCLA removals and/or orders found within a half-mile radius of the target property. 811
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of Federal CERCLA sites with NFRAP
No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) is a decision made as part of the Superfund remedial site evaluation process to denote that further remedial assessment activities are not required and that the facility/site does not pose a threat to public health or the environment sufficient to qualify for placement on the National Priorities List (NPL) based on currently available information. These facilities/sites may be re-evaluated if EPA receives new information or learns that site conditions have changed. A NFRAP decision does not mean the facility/site is free of contamination and does not preclude the facility/site from being addressed under another federal, state or tribal cleanup program.

There were no Federal CERCLA sites with No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) decisions found within a half-mile radius of the target property.
812
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of Federal RCRA facilities undergoing Corrective Action Corrective action is a requirement under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that facilities that treat, store or dispose of hazardous wastes investigate and cleanup hazardous releases into soil, ground water, surface water and air. Corrective action is principally implemented through RCRA permits and orders. RCRA permits issued to TSDFs must include provisions for corrective action as well as financial assurance to cover the costs of implementing those cleanup measures. In addition to the EPA, 44 states and territories are authorized to run the Corrective Action program.

There were no Federal RCRA facilities undergoing corrective action(s) found within a one-mile radius of the target property. 813
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of Federal RCRA TSD facilities
The final link in RCRA's cradle-to-grave concept is the treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) that follows the generator and transporter in the chain of waste management activities. The regulations pertaining to TSDFs are more stringent than those that apply to generators or transporters. They include general facility standards as well as unit-specific design and operating criteria.

There were no Federal RCRA treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) found within a half-mile radius of target property. 814
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of Federal RCRA generators
A generator is any person who produces a hazardous waste as listed or characterized in part 261 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Recognizing that generators also produce waste in different quantities, EPA established three categories of generators in the regulations: very small quantity generators, small quantity generators, and large quantity generators. EPA regulates hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to ensure that these wastes are managed in ways that protet human health and the environment. Generators of hazardous waste are regulated based on the amount of hazardous waste they generate in a calendar month, not the size of their business or facility.

There were no Federal RCRA generators found at the target property and/or adjoining properties. 815
environmental.netronline.com
Federal institutional control/engineering control registries Institutional Controls (IC) are defined as non-engineered and/or legal controls that minimize the potential human exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use. Whereas, Engineering Controls (EC) consist of engineering measures (e.g, caps, treatment systems, etc.) designed to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination by either limiting direct contact with contaminated areas or controlling migration of contaminants through environmental media.

There were no Federal institutional or engineering controls found at the target property. 816
environmental.netronline.com
Federal ERNS list
The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a database used to store information on notification of oil discharges and hazardous substances releases. The ERNS program is a cooperative data sharing effort encompassing the National Response Center (NRC), operated by the US Coast Guard, EPA HQ and EPA regional offices. ERNS data is used to analyze release notifications, track EPA responses and compliance to environmental laws, support emergency planning efforts, and assist decision-makers in developing spill prevention programs.

There were no Federally recorded releases of oil and/or hazardous substances at the target property. 817
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of state and tribal Superfund equivalent sites
In order to maintain close coordination with the states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of states and tribes on sites that EPA is considering for listing. Consistent with this policy, since 1996, it has been the EPA's general practice to seek the state or tribe's position on sites under consideration for NPL listing by submitting a written requiest to the governor/state environmental agency or tribe. Various states may have their own program for identifying, investigating and cleaning up sites where consequential amounts of hazardous waste may have been disposed that work in conjunction with the EPA's Superfund remedial program.

There were no State and/or tribal Superfund equivalent sites found within a one-mile radius of target property. 818
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of state and tribal hazardous waste facilities
EPA established basic hazardous waste management standards for businesses who produce hazardous waste and categorized three businesses based on the volume of hazardous waste produced in a calendar month. On the federal level, there are three generator categories: large quantity generator, small quantity generator, and conditionally exempt small quantity generator. Some states are authorized to establish generator categories that are different from those that federal EPA set up. State regulatory requirements for generators of hazardous waste may be more stringent than the federal program.

There were no State and/or tribal hazardous waste facilities found within a half-mile radius of the target property. 819
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of state and tribal landfills and solid waste disposal facilities Title 40 of the CFR parts 239 through 259 contain the regulations for non-hazardous solid waste programs set up by the states. EPA has requirements for state solid waste permit programs, guidelines for the processing of solid waste, guidelines for storage and collection of commercial, residential and institutional solid waste, and the criteria for municipal solid waste landfills. State solid waste programs may be more stringent than the federal code requires.

There were no State and/or tribal landfills or solid waste disposal facilities found within a half-mile radius of the target property. 820
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of state and tribal leaking storage tanks
A typical leaking underground storage tank (LUST) scenario involves the release of a fuel product from an underground storage tank (UST) that can contaminate surrounding soil, groundwater, or surface waters, or affect indoor air spaces. Once a leak is confirmed, immediate response actions must be taken to minimize or eliminate the source of the release and to reduce potential harm to human health, safety, and the environment. Each state has unique requirements for initiating responses to a release, and it is up to the UST owner or operator to conduct actions in compliance with his/her local rules.

There were no State and/or tribal leaking storage tanks found within a half-mile radius of the target property. 821
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of state and tribal registered storage tanks
EPA initially issued UST regulations in 1988. In 2015, EPA modified the UST regulation, which was effective October 13, 2015 in Indian Country and states without State Program Approval. EPA recognizes that, because of the size and diversity of the regulated community, state and local governments are in the best position to oversee USTs: 1) State and local authorities are closer to the situation in their domain and are in the best position to set priorities, 2) Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act allows state UST programs approved by EPA to operate in lieu of the federal program, 3) the state program approval (SPA) regulations set criteria for states to obtain the authority to operate in lieu of the federal program. State programs must be at least as stringent as EPA's. A complete version of the law that governs USTs can be found in U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 82, Subchapter IX.

There were no State and/or tribal registered storage tanks found at subject and adjoining properties. 822
environmental.netronline.com
State and tribal institutional control/engineering control registries Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and legal controls that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy. Engineering controls consist of engineering measures (e.g, caps, treatment systems, etc.) designed to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination by either limiting direct contact with contaminated areas or controlling migration of contaminants through environmental media. It is EPA's expectation that treatment or engineering controls will be used to address principal threat wastes and that groundwater will be returned to its beneficial use whenever practicable.

There were no State and/or tribal institutional and/or engineering controls found filed against the target property. 823
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of state and tribal voluntary cleanup sites

SWRCB - SITE CLEANUP PROGRAM
The Site Cleanup Program (SCP) regulates the investigation and cleanup of 'non-federally owned' sites where recent or historical unauthorized releases of pollutants to the environment, including soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment, have occurred. Sites in the program are varied and include, but are not limited to, pesticide and fertilizer facilities, rail yards, ports, equipment supply facilities, metals facilities, industrial manufacturing and maintenance sites, dry cleaners, bulk transfer facilities, refineries, and some brownfields.

These releases are generally not strictly from petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs). There are five main types of funding for sites in the SCP: (1) voluntary cleanups executed and funded by the discharger, (2) "Cleanup and Abatement Order" cleanups executed and funded by the discharger, (3) cleanups executed by the Regional Board or another public agency, county, municipality, or city and funded by the State via the Cleanup and Abatement Account (CAA), (4) Site Cleanup Subaccount Program (SCAP), and (5) brownfield cleanup using available grants and loans. This information was retrieved from the SWRCB's GeoTracker database, and was searched to return all records within a half-mile of the target property.
center: 33.91109829875324,-117.17021942138673 0.5 Miles 1.0 Miles I /l
~
::
~ ;:,;
BayA'<'l!nue
L
I
1 LI
l
r
0 rx Ranc:ho
Del Sol
Golr Club
'
.. -
i i E
I
' '
'
Dfacaea A...enue J I
·,1
:,
I¼
"' 0
e
Lelilngton Wily l
_a
Glff« dAv
Wlllta
!ii Imbert, Averiue
Milld>yAwnue
.,.

I
.,,.
___ ,.. ------·
" l
~ ~
" }
"
~
•
. Cactl.lS,A.I(@
AllcameAv ue
.,. .,. .,.

I
• Mount
R1,.1s.5,ell
824m
Leaflet I © 0 11enStreetMa11 contributors
824
*Site Title Not Available*
Wilmot/Cactus
Project Name: Proposed Cactus Avenue & Wilmot Street Elementary School Address: Wilmot/Cactus
City: Moreno Valley
ZIP: 92555
Site Type: School Investigation
Site Type Details: School
Acres: 10
APN: NONE SPECIFIED
Present on NPL:

Regulatory Agencies Involved: SMBRP
Lead Agency: SMBRP
Project Manager: Aslam Shareef
EnviroStor ID: 60000476.0
Site Code: 404726
Special Program:

Status: No Action Required
Status Date: 2006-11-28 00:00:00
Past Uses: NONE
Media Affected: NMA
Restricted Use: NO
Site Management Required: NONE SPECIFIED
Funding: School District
Potential COC: No Contaminants found
Confirmed COC: No Contaminants found
Distance From Center (Miles): 0.4959
Site Source: last updated 02-08-2022 from CA-DTSC-CLEAN 1 825
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of state and tribal brownfields sites
Since its inception in 1995, EPA's Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program has grown into a proven, results-oriented program that has changed the way communities address and manage contaminated property. The program is designed to empower states, tribes, communities, and other stakeholders to work together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. Beginning in the mid-1990s, EPA provided small amounts of seed money to local governments that launched hundreds of two-year Brownfields pilot projects and developed guidance and tools to help states, communities and other stakeholders in the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields sites.

There were no State and/or tribal brownfields sites found within a half-mile radius of the target property. 826
environmental.netronline.com
State and/or tribal lists of sites requiring further investigation / remediation No records found
827
environmental.netronline.com
State list of Significant Environmental Hazards (SEH)
No records found
828
environmental.netronline.com
Lists of state and tribal mine sites requiring further investigation and/or remediation
No records found
829
environmental.netronline.com
State and/or tribal lists of spills and spill responses No records found
830
environmental.netronline.com
State and/or tribal lists of emergency responses
No records found
831
environmental.netronline.com
State and/or tribal lists of dry cleaners
No records found
832
environmental.netronline.com
State and/or tribal lists of clandestine laboratory cleanups No records found
833
environmental.netronline.com
State and/or tribal lists of scrap/used tire processing facilities No records found
834
environmental.netronline.com
State and/or tribal lists of underground injection control sites No records found
835
environmental.netronline.com
State and/or tribal listings of permitted drywells
No state and/or tribal permitted drywells were found within a half-mile radius of the target property. 836
environmental.netronline.com
Automobile salvage yards
No records found
837
environmental.netronline.com
Livestock Waste Control sites
No records found
838
environmental.netronline.com
Controlled Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
No records found
839
environmental.netronline.com
State and/or tribal lists of registered aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) No records found
840
environmental.netronline.com
C.A.A. Permitted Facilities
No records found
841
environmental.netronline.com
NPDES Permitted Facilities
No records found
842
environmental.netronline.com
Onsite Wastewater Treatment sites
No records found
843
environmental.netronline.com
State and/or tribal lists of permitted facilities
No State and/or tribal permitted facilities found within a half-mile of the target property. 844
environmental.netronline.com
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo)

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT INFORMATION SYSTEM RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.

Please note that RCRAInfo contains all hazardous waste handlers in addition to TSDFs, generators, and facilities undergoing RCRA corrective action. One may encounter duplicate records from the TSDF, generators, and/or the RCRA corrective action sections. This source was searched for all records within a half-mile of the target property. center: 33.91109829875324,-117.17021942138673 0.5 Miles 1.0 Miles BayA't'!nue
1 LI
l
r
0 -------
rx Ranc:ho
Del Sol
Golr Club
,i' Dfaca@a AW!nue J I
·,1
:,
I¼
.,
0 e
Lelilrigton W!i1J .f -·-····--·--·--··--·--·--·--·-8.
,.. I
I
,.. ,..
___ ,..------ ·
',
I
,.. ,..

I
• Mount
R1.1~~II
824m
Leaflet I © 0 11enStree1Ma11 contributors
845

ERIK D CABRERA DDS PROF DENTAL CORP
14435 MORENO BEACH DR STE 108A
Registry ID: 110070477548
Name: ERIK D CABRERA DDS PROF DENTAL CORP
Address: 14435 MORENO BEACH DR STE 108A
City: MORENO VALLEY
Site Type: STATIONARY
Program Acronyms: RCRAINFO:CAL000349582
Interest Type: OTHER HAZARDOUS WASTE ACTIVITIES
Point of Reference Description: ENTRANCE POINT OF A FACILITY OR STATION Date Created: 02-JAN-19
Date Updated:

FRS Facility Detail Report URL: Link
Distance From Center (Miles): 0.2287
Site Source: last updated from FACILITY REGISTRY SERVICE 1 MORENO BEACH MARKET INC
14025 MORENO BEACH DR.

Registry ID: 110065261950
Name: MORENO BEACH MARKET INC
Address: 14025 MORENO BEACH DR.

City: MORENO VALLEY
Site Type: STATIONARY
Program Acronyms: CA-ENVIROVIEW:50118, RCRAINFO:CAL000387551 Interest Type: OTHER HAZARDOUS WASTE ACTIVITIES, STATE MASTER Point of Reference Description: ENTRANCE POINT OF A FACILITY OR STATION Date Created: 10-OCT-15
Date Updated:

FRS Facility Detail Report URL: Link
Distance From Center (Miles): 0.4656
Site Source: last updated from FACILITY REGISTRY SERVICE 2 STATER BROS MARKETS #185
14425 MORENO BEACH DR
Registry ID: 110062906413
Name: STATER BROS MARKETS #185
Address: 14425 MORENO BEACH DR
City: MORENO VALLEY
Site Type: STATIONARY
Program Acronyms: BR:CAL000337786, RCRAINFO:CAL000337786 Interest Type: HAZARDOUS WASTE BIENNIAL REPORTER, LQG
Point of Reference Description: CENTER OF A FACILITY OR STATION Date Created: 03-DEC-14
Date Updated: 27-JAN-15
FRS Facility Detail Report URL: Link
Distance From Center (Miles): 0.292
Site Source: last updated from FACILITY REGISTRY SERVICE 3 846
environmental.netronline.com
U.S. EPA Enforcement, Compliance History Online (ECHO)
No records found
847
environmental.netronline.com
U.S. EPA Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
No records found
848
environmental.netronline.com
U.S. EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) database
No records found
849
environmental.netronline.com
U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS)
No records found
850
environmental.netronline.com
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR). It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL TITLE RESEARCH, LLC SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER.

IN NO EVENT SHALL NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL TITLE RESEARCH, LLC, BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS,

NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL TITLE RESEARCH, LLC, IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this report "AS-IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.

Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2024 by Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR). All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR) and its logos are trademarks of Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
851

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
FOR
TTM 37858
Moreno Valley, CA
Prepared for:

RC Hobbs Companies
1428 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Initial Report: April 15, 2020
Prepared by:
ers
75 Limonite Avenue
Suite E
Riverside, CA 92509
(951) 317-2041
852
Preliminary Drainage Report
Wednesday, April 15, 2020

INTRODUCTION
The following report and calculations were prepared to analyze the 2, 10 & 100-year storm runoff from the development of the TTM 37858 at the northeast corner of Bradshaw Circle and Cactus Avenue in the City of Moreno Valley, Ca. Two infiltration basins are proposed for both mitigation of increased runoff from the site and for onsite BMPs for treatment of site runoff.

SITE BACKGROUND
The proposed project is located on the north side of Cactus Avenue with Bradshaw Circle on the west side of the property. The property is vacant and undeveloped and slopes from east to west.

There is a large undeveloped parcel adjacent to the property on the east property line that drains to swale along the east property line and conveys that offsite drainage to Cactus Avenue at the southeast corner of the property. There are single family residential properties immediately adjacent to the site along the north property line.

The soil type for the area is Type B per Plate C-1.17 “Hydrologic Soils Group Map for Sunnymead” from the Riverside County Hydrology Manual.

METHODOLOGY
Subareas were determined based on the proposed grading of the site. A link-node model was created for each subarea, with flow path length and elevations shown for the upstream and downstream nodes for the subarea. Peak flowrates were determined for each subarea using the CivilDesign Corporation “RIV” rational method hydrology software. The results of those calculations are shown on the site hydrology map included with this report. Separate maps for the existing and developed condition are included with this report.

ANALYSES/DISCUSSION
Rational method hydrology calculations have been prepared for 2, 10 & 100-year existing and proposed condition for the project site. In the existing condition site drainage sheet flows across the property to the west towards Bradshaw Circle. There is a high point at the knuckle of Bradshaw Circle with a portion of the site drainage (Area 1) flowing southerly to Cactus Avenue where it is collected by a series of catch basins along the Cactus Avenue and placed into an offsite storm drain in the existing condition. Area 2 flows go offsite along Bradshaw Circle to the west and thence out to Cactus Avenue where the flows are collected by a series of catch basins along Cactus Avenue. 853
In the developed condition, the site has been designed to maintain the drainage area flow split with flows being routed through two onsite water quality infiltration basins. The infiltration basins will be located in the proposed landscape area onsite adjacent to Bradshaw Circle street right-of-way and will discharge to Bradshaw Circle.

The drainage areas and peak 2, 10 & 100-year discharges are summarized below:

Rational Method Calculations
Existing Condition
Description Area (Ac.)
2-year discharge
(cfs)
10-year
discharge (cfs)
100-year
discharge (cfs) Tc mim.

Area 1 2.93 1.62 3.48 5.90 15.27
Area 2 2.01 1.18 2.51 4.24 14.00
Proposed Condition
Description Area (Ac.)
2-year discharge
(cfs)
10-year
discharge (cfs)
100-year
discharge (cfs) Tc mim.

Area 1 2.13 1.84 3.08 4.91 11.92
Area 2 0.77 0.84 1.42 2.23 7.66
Area 3 1.68 1.46 2.44 3.89 11.85
2 & 3 2.45 6.60 12.28 21.60 13.85
PROPOSED PROJECT BMP’s
Based on soil infiltration test results we have selected an infiltration basin onsite as the method for treatment of onsite flows. The details of the proposed infiltration basin system are described in detail in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan prepared for this project.

CONCLUSION
Based on the calculations and proposed improvements, onsite flows can be conveyed to suitable points of disposal, and the proposed site development will not impact offsite properties.
1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1
I
I
854
Appendix A
Existing Condition Rational Method Calculations
2-year
10-year
100-year
855
ttm37858ex2a
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 04/15/20
File:ttm37858ex2a.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37858 EXISTING CONDITION
2-year flow rates - Area 1
RMB

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 2.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 1 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Sunnymead-Moreno ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.010(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.940(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 2.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 0.554(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****

856
ttm37858ex2a
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 604.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 67.400(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 56.300(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 11.100(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01838 s(percent)= 1.84
TC = k(0.530)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 15.270 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.099(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
UNDEVELOPED (poor cover) subarea
Runoff Coefficient = 0.503
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 1) = 60.60
Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 1.620(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.930(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
End of computations, total study area = 2.93 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Area averaged RI index number = 78.0

857
ttm37858ex2b
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 04/15/20
File:ttm37858ex2b.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37858 EXISTING CONDITION
2-year flow rates Area 2
RMB

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 2.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 1 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Sunnymead-Moreno ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.010(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.940(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 2.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 0.554(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 200.000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****

858
ttm37858ex2b
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 516.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 69.200(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 58.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 10.700(Ft.)
Slope = 0.02074 s(percent)= 2.07
TC = k(0.530)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 13.996 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.148(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
UNDEVELOPED (poor cover) subarea
Runoff Coefficient = 0.513
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 1) = 60.60
Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 1.183(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.010(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
End of computations, total study area = 2.01 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Area averaged RI index number = 78.0

859
ttm37858ex10a
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 04/15/20
File:ttm37858ex10a.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37858 EXISTING CONDITION
10-YEAR FLOW RATES - AREA 1
RMB

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 10.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Sunnymead-Moreno ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.010(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.940(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 10.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****

860
ttm37858ex10a
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 604.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 67.400(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 56.300(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 11.100(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01838 s(percent)= 1.84
TC = k(0.530)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 15.270 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.625(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (poor cover) subarea
Runoff Coefficient = 0.731
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 78.00
Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 3.481(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.930(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
End of computations, total study area = 2.93 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Area averaged RI index number = 78.0

861
ttm37858ex10b
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 04/15/20
File:ttm37858ex10b.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37858 EXISTING CONDITION
10-YEAR FLOW RATES - AREA 2
RMB

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 10.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Sunnymead-Moreno ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.010(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.940(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 10.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 200.000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****

862
ttm37858ex10b
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 516.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 69.200(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 58.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 10.700(Ft.)
Slope = 0.02074 s(percent)= 2.07
TC = k(0.530)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 13.996 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.698(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (poor cover) subarea
Runoff Coefficient = 0.737
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 78.00
Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 2.514(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.010(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
End of computations, total study area = 2.01 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Area averaged RI index number = 78.0

863
ttm37858ex100a
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 04/15/20
File:ttm37858ex100a.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37858 EXISTING CONDTION
100-YEAR FLOW RATES - AREA 1
RMB

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 3 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Sunnymead-Moreno ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.010(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.940(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 100.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****

864
ttm37858ex100a
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 604.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 67.400(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 56.300(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 11.100(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01838 s(percent)= 1.84
TC = k(0.530)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 15.270 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.379(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (poor cover) subarea
Runoff Coefficient = 0.846
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 89.80
Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 5.897(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.930(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
End of computations, total study area = 2.93 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Area averaged RI index number = 78.0

865
ttm37858ex100b
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 04/15/20
File:ttm37858ex100b.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37858 EXISTING CONDTION
100-YEAR FLOW RATES - AREA 2
RMB

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 3 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Sunnymead-Moreno ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.010(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.940(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 100.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 200.000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****

866
ttm37858ex100b
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 516.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 69.200(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 58.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 10.700(Ft.)
Slope = 0.02074 s(percent)= 2.07
TC = k(0.530)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 13.996 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.485(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (poor cover) subarea
Runoff Coefficient = 0.848
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 89.80
Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 4.236(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.010(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
End of computations, total study area = 2.01 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Area averaged RI index number = 78.0

867
Appendix B
Proposed Condition Rational Method Calculations
2-year
10-year
100-year
868
TTM37858dev2a
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 03/28/20
File:TTM37858dev2a.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37858 - Drainage Area A
Developed Condition - 2 year flow rates
RMB

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 2.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 1 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Sunnymead-Moreno ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.010(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.940(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 2.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 0.554(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 102.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****

869
TTM37858dev2a
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 636.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 64.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 57.100(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 7.400(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01164 s(percent)= 1.16
TC = k(0.370)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 11.924 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.244(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
CONDOMINIUM subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.693
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 1) = 36.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.350; Impervious fraction = 0.650 Initial subarea runoff = 1.840(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.134(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.350
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 102.000 to Point/Station 103.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 53.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 53.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 9.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.840(CFS)
Given pipe size = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.840(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 3.32(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 13.97(In.)
Critical Depth = 6.12(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 8.21(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.02 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.94 min.

End of computations, total study area = 2.13 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.350
Area averaged RI index number = 56.0

870
TTM37858dev2b
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 03/28/20
File:TTM37858dev2b.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37858 - Drainage Area B
Developed Condition - 2 year flow rates
RMB

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 2.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 1 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Sunnymead-Moreno ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.010(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.940(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 2.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 0.554(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 201.000 to Point/Station 202.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****

871
TTM37858dev2b
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 250.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 62.900(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 58.800(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 4.100(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01640 s(percent)= 1.64
TC = k(0.370)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.663 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.551(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
CONDOMINIUM subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.710
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 1) = 36.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.350; Impervious fraction = 0.650 Initial subarea runoff = 0.848(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.770(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.350
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 202.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 55.800(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 55.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 67.50(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 0.848(CFS)
Given pipe size = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 0.848(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 3.32(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 13.96(In.)
Critical Depth = 4.11(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.79(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.30 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.96 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 202.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 0.770(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 0.848(CFS)

872
TTM37858dev2b
Time of concentration = 7.96 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.522(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 302.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 580.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 64.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 58.700(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 5.800(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01000 s(percent)= 1.00
TC = k(0.370)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 11.846 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.248(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
CONDOMINIUM subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.694
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 1) = 36.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.350; Impervious fraction = 0.650 Initial subarea runoff = 1.458(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.685(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.350
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 302.000 to Point/Station 303.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 55.700(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 55.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 43.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.458(CFS)
Given pipe size = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.458(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 4.01(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 14.98(In.)
Critical Depth = 5.43(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.97(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.14 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.99 min.

873
TTM37858dev2b
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 302.000 to Point/Station 303.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 1.685(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 1.458(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.99 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.240(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 0.848 7.96 1.522
2 1.458 11.99 1.240
Largest stream flow has longer time of concentration
Qp = 1.458 + sum of
Qb Ia/Ib

0.848 * 0.815 = 0.691
Qp = 2.149
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

0.848 1.458
Area of streams before confluence:

0.770 1.685
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 2.149(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.990 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 2.455(Ac.)
End of computations, total study area = 2.46 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.350
Area averaged RI index number = 56.0

874
TTM37893dev10
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 03/28/20
File:TTM37893dev10.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37893 - Mission & Agate
Developed Condition - 10 year flow rates
Including offsite area - mini warehouse storage
RMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 10.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Mira Loma ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 1.960(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.760(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 3.100(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 10.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 0.760(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5300
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________

875
TTM37893dev10
Initial area flow distance = 928.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 102.700(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 85.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 17.700(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01907 s(percent)= 1.91
TC = k(0.390)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 13.243 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.693(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm SINGLE FAMILY (1/4 Acre Lot)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.728
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.500; Impervious fraction = 0.500 Initial subarea runoff = 2.920(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.370(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.500
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.500 to Point/Station 201.500 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 79.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 79.200(Ft.)
Pipe length = 36.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.920(CFS)
Given pipe size = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.920(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.81(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 17.46(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.79(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.76(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.13 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 13.37 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.500 to Point/Station 201.500 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 2.370(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 2.920(CFS)
Time of concentration = 13.37 min.

876
TTM37893dev10
Rainfall intensity = 1.684(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 200.000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 957.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 103.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 85.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 18.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01881 s(percent)= 1.88
TC = k(0.390)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 13.445 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.679(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm SINGLE FAMILY (1/4 Acre Lot)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.727
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.500; Impervious fraction = 0.500 Initial subarea runoff = 3.565(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 2.920(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.500
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 201.000 to Point/Station 201.500 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 2.920(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 3.565(CFS)
Time of concentration = 13.44 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.679(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 2.920 13.37 1.684
2 3.565 13.44 1.679
Largest stream flow has longer time of concentration

877
TTM37893dev10
Qp = 3.565 + sum of
Qb Ia/Ib

2.920 * 0.997 = 2.912
Qp = 6.477
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

2.920 3.565
Area of streams before confluence:

2.370 2.920
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 6.477(CFS)
Time of concentration = 13.445 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 5.290(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 5.290(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 6.477(CFS)
Time of concentration = 13.44 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.679(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 300.000 to Point/Station 301.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 807.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 113.300(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 98.100(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 15.200(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01884 s(percent)= 1.88
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 9.658 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.001(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.869
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00

878
TTM37893dev10
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 6.660(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 3.830(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 301.000 to Point/Station 302.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 98.100(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 79.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 957.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 6.660(CFS)
Given pipe size = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 6.660(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 7.49(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 22.24(In.)
Critical Depth = 10.97(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.96(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 2.00 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.66 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 302.000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 3.830(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 6.660(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.66 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.811(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 6.477 13.44 1.679
2 6.660 11.66 1.811
Largest stream flow has longer or shorter time of concentration Qp = 6.660 + sum of
Qa Tb/Ta

6.477 * 0.867 = 5.618
Qp = 12.278
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

879
TTM37893dev10
Flow rates before confluence point:

6.477 6.660
Area of streams before confluence:

5.290 3.830
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 12.278(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.661 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 9.120(Ac.)
End of computations, total study area = 9.12 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.332
Area averaged RI index number = 56.0

880
TTM37858dev10B
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 02/16/20
File:TTM37858dev10B.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37858 - Drainage Area B
Developed Condition - 10 year flow rates
RMB

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 10.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Sunnymead-Moreno ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.010(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.940(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 10.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 201.000 to Point/Station 202.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****

881
TTM37858dev10B
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 250.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 62.900(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 58.800(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 4.100(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01640 s(percent)= 1.64
TC = k(0.370)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.663 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.294(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm CONDOMINIUM subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.801
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.350; Impervious fraction = 0.650 Initial subarea runoff = 1.416(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.770(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.350
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 202.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 55.800(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 55.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 67.50(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.416(CFS)
Given pipe size = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.416(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 4.28(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 15.32(In.)
Critical Depth = 5.34(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.40(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.26 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.92 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 202.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 0.770(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 1.416(CFS)

882
TTM37858dev10B
Time of concentration = 7.92 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.257(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 302.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 580.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 64.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 58.700(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 5.800(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01000 s(percent)= 1.00
TC = k(0.370)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 11.846 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.845(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm CONDOMINIUM subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.786
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.350; Impervious fraction = 0.650 Initial subarea runoff = 2.444(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.685(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.350
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 302.000 to Point/Station 303.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 55.700(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 55.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 43.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.444(CFS)
Given pipe size = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.444(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 5.20(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 16.32(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.10(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.77(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.12 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.97 min.

883
TTM37858dev10B
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 302.000 to Point/Station 303.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 1.685(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 2.444(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.97 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.836(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 1.416 7.92 2.257
2 2.444 11.97 1.836
Largest stream flow has longer time of concentration
Qp = 2.444 + sum of
Qb Ia/Ib

1.416 * 0.813 = 1.151
Qp = 3.595
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

1.416 2.444
Area of streams before confluence:

0.770 1.685
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 3.595(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.970 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 2.455(Ac.)
End of computations, total study area = 2.46 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.350
Area averaged RI index number = 56.0

884
ttm37858dev100
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 02/16/20
File:ttm37858dev100.out
------------------------------------------------------------------------ TTM 37858 Drainage Area A
Developed Condition - 100-year flow rates
RMB

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6288
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 3 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Sunnymead-Moreno ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.010(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.820(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.940(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 100.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 1.200(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 102.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****