NWC of Cactus Ave. & Redlands Blvd. Project No, 2006-01 MorenoValley,California August12,2020
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,
SoilExplorationCo
be
Gene K. Luu, PE 534
Project Engineer
Distribution: [1] Addressee ([email protected])
[1] RobertBeers {imbeers777 @hotmail,com)
Attachments: Figure1 SiteLocaticnMap
Figure2 USGSGeologicMap
Figure 3 Riverside County GIS Map
Figure 4 U.S. Geological Survey Faults Map
Plate 1, 1A Exploratory Boring and Infiltration Test Location Map Plate 2 Minimum Foundation and Slab Recommendations for Expansive Soils Plate 3 Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Backfill
Appendix A References
Appendix B GeotechnicalBoring Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps-Source Parameters and CBC (2018) Seismic Parameters
Appendix E General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix F Infiltration Test Procedures and Test Results AppendixG LiquefactionAnalysisSummary
Soil Exploration Co., inc. 1578 Page 9
Kalm1a Ave
EAO ---~- 60
Fir Ave ii>
~ ~ Eucalyptus Ave
Cit
i
Cottonwood Ave
Bey Ave
Alessandro Blvd
Cactus Ave
• ~
~ q;
Kramerle Ave ~"'
osa Ave
....,
m
<
QI
7/17/2020, 10:21 :51 PM
z
QI
"' 0
::>
en
Site Location Map
Vi
>.
u
c
5 0
Locust Ave
Kalmia Ave
0 J:;
u
Cl>
.,
ID
0 c
CD
0 :?
B r
t:J.err s
N
I
;ti
Cl>
a.
QI
::>
a.
"'
~
<
a. Ironwood Ave
'O
~
ID
iJJ
'O
c
"' Dracaea Ave :0
CD
a:
0 0
0.5 0.75
60 Alessandro Blvd
0 ...
<
;;;
;ti
a.
1:72,224
1.5 0
.,
<
/
2 mi
3 km
Sourt41a. ~. HERE. Garmtn. FNJ. NOM. USGS. 0 Opan5ne1Map ~.end 111eGIS User COIMlunoty
Figure 1
loma Linda U-ly. u--, "'Cailfomla, City"' Morono v~. Councy"' --· Ea<I. HERE. Gamlin. SetGGl'l!)ll. INCREMENT P. METllNASA. usos. 9ur"8U"' Land M-t. EPA.
Site Location Map
Fir Ave
nNebark g t Ny,
Cotténwood Ave
Bay Ave
Alessandro Blvd
4 Cactus Ave
z 0
F4
FF
[+] a , _ oo
a . o ] & zr = & CI
[7 - A
= »
. -
( \ hb a fa
oy 4 Kramella Ave. & x
-\ od LE
[re osa Ave~~ ’
fi
.a
Zz
>
[~] ®
7/17/2020,10:21:51PM
Eucalyptus Ave
ye 1S vosEN
Q
=
aa
©
[-]
[]coa
]=
ot
5 500°
5~~
< & Lake Deny
Nd Sra
Herrpanlr A550
a] 7 Ra V4
-t ’ @
J
[]4KE]
[=]
Locust Ave N
4 pee ave gg Keim ae Kalmia Ave
®3
L] ve @ ao0d A, . -.n 1o% ® Ra wot Ironwood Ave
Dracasa Ave
SITE
ENO
Brodinea Ave
Redtands Blvd
World Logistics Center PK
Alessandro Blvd
|=} 1]
\ h-3
&A
a
o LY
[]<[-] = PJ
172,224
[+] 0.5 1 2m
L n PY i 1 A i i i | ma 0 0.75 1.5 km
Sowesx:Ead. HERE, Gannin, FAQ, NOAA, USGS, © OpenSrestiap coniribulors, and the GIS User Community
Figure1
Lome Live University,University of California,City of MormnoValley, Countyof Riverside,1579 Eat,HERE, Garmin,SafsGmph,INCREMENT 7, METUNABA,UBGS.Buen of LandManegement,EFA, <>Ay : -....-.="'.£!- - .. ~ ~ • \ ;;-..., 'I
'"LJ"@i.=- r:-;_i l --~ - - 'l:i... ':·--~ - - .
. . { - . ..: } : •. :=
LEGEND:
Qyva: Yound alluvial valley deposits (Holocene and late Pleistocene)-Silty to sandy alluvium on valley floors, gray, unconsolidated.
Qvof1a: ve old alluvial fan deposits, Unit 1 earl Pleistocene)-Mostl well-dissected, well-indurated, reddish-brown sand de osits.
Cactus Ave.
City of Moreno Valley, California
Soil Exploration Co., Inc.
Project No.: 2096-01
Date: August 10, 2020
Figure: 2
ie a - on
4 / - * i. a
5 i589 Cry
- = - A. Rd
. 5
in 3
WHA Eh = _z=z ERE ===1 grxmliamea .r = =m je »
; = TY . i Ty tt ei mist — x
= , oT 3 EF ] ~~. | u
.. _ x e h - H
. Le — i To -
er ona” Pe
s=ac J 1525 nT Ee
— ! ” rs vi ov *
[Py EL Ia of re Jp— weit vi c_3 Pie = Ar
“ = be: B tS Fa
N| Lala & OF { Ie 1 V4 2
wel a yd F fu i ; E. 8 i 4 : —— mE rR Yi — a
N oO & : A
A)
~ ANSE
«
~ )
- \
BaseMap:USGSGeologic Mapof the Sunnymead7.5’ Quadrangle,Riverside County,California.
LEGEND:
Qyva: Yound alluvial valley deposits (Holocene and late Pleistocene)-Silty to sandy alluvium on valley floors, gray, unconsolidated.
Qvofia: very old alluvial fan deposits, Unit 1(early Pleistocene)-Mostly well-dissected, well-indurated, reddish-brown sand deposits.
Cactus Ave.
City of Moreno Valley, California
Soil Exploration Co. Inc.
Project No.: 2096-01
Date: August 10, 2020
1580 Figure: 2
Map My County Map
Los Angeles
(ti?; .I
D Parcels
Contours 20 ft . - '1!l CONT~~terval (with 10
10C/ INDEX CONTOUR
Faults
OTHER AUTHORITY
ALQUIST·PRIOLO
RNERSIOE COUNTY
Fault Zones
._ OTHER FAULT ZONE
COUNTYF AULT ZONE
• ELSINOR EFAULTZONE
SAN ANDREAS FAULTZ.ONE
Flood JACINTO FAULT ZONE
~quefaction
Other Susceptibility
High
Low
Moderate
Vary High
• Verylow
Blueline Streams
City Areas
World Street Map
Map My County Map
Ll
i
gg
leHad)fr pug
Legend
[0 Parcels
Contours 20ftinterval(with10
COUNTYFAULTZONE
ELSINOREFAULT20NE
Liquefaction $F1o
752 1,506Feet
“IMPORTANT" Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurste 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 completenass of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained onthis map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user.
REPORT PRINTED ON... 5/28/2020 11:56:50 AM © Riverside County GIS 1581
U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Faults
/'::.~.
: .. ~~~' .. - -"- .r---
m
~ ancho Sant a
Margarita
7/17/2020, 11 :20:07 PM
Fault Areas
Historic(< 150 years)
I Latest Quaternary(< 15,000 years)
L Late Quaternary(< 130,000 years)
Crestlane•
~ Middle and Late Quaternary(< 750,000 years)
l!!iB Undifferentiated Quaternary{< 1.6 million years)
l
N
i
Ill \
0 0 5
1 :577,791
8 10
16 m1
20km
USGS, N- Geographic. ESll. Genmn. HERE. UNEP·WCMC. USGS, NASA. ESA. METI. N~. GEBCO, NOM. ""'"'"""1t P Corp.
Figure 4 USGS
Nllllonal Googtapnlc, E"1. GMnln, ~ERE. UNEP.WCMC. USGS, NASA. ESA. METI, NRCAN. GEBCO. NOM. lnc<oment P Corp. I USGS I U. S. GeologicalSurvey QuaternaryFaults
LakeAnpwhesd op Bes:
TV m I nn,
a - 17340
208 iE ¥ + amR—
. Margarita
AMRSM
TE anal
7/17/2020, 11:20:07 PM
Fault Areas BE Historic (<150 years)
BBRLatestQuaternary(< 15,000years)
B22 LoteQuatemary(< 130,000years)
BEERMiddleandLateQuatemary(<750,000years)
BBEUndifferentiatedQuaternary(<1.8millionyears)
1.677791
0 4 8 16mi
ia PE A 3
ad or Ld T v ¥ 0 5 10 20 km
USGS, Naionsd Geographic,Ew, Gammin,HERE, UNEF-WCMC, USGS, NAEA, ESA, NETL NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAM, incremant P Com,
Figure 4
UBGE3
HERE, UNEPWCMC,USGS, NASA,BBA,METI, NHCAK, GEBCO, NOAA,incranient # Corp,| USGS| 1582
/
,_:...; __ -~-..:.-..:.. ..
' ..
--::
' , ..... ~
£:AST fltt£ fS WALL Q.14' WEST OF Pi.
/
.~
1:5?'""
• I ._ ~
NI Origihal Uop ProtJx:/ ConlaiM NI
Embosst!d Seo/ In This Amo
EC
--Sllot1
"""° -..
llS80
JN
~+!>i ;.~ .. '.I • ". I
40 0 ,..._-._~
I
r
20 ................ "'·', I
r.
'I
·,.. ;
,•
'!<"
160
I
•.
~ . ... 7
~ I'
• .... ~ f
~-1 ~
>
(
t
)
. ,•
' F).-{
• 1,
l
i
Prepared under the Supeniision of:
.ti
' \
··,
. I I\ I '
1.,. . :·' "'"ld '"- - :itr.
I
! 1
.: j
;•!
I I
i .:
: I
-~.j {•
• ~PAVEME>IT OU>!>---1".., ' i n i. i1';
I'
' \
·'" ,jj!:
. ~I
,.;,
( ..
.11 b l
:? .,,
"f 1 ..J
~ 1 11 I
I:'
:1
, 1i !i'
I
I
I
I' '
I j
,,
i
'\
'j:
HILLWIG· GOODROW, INC.
~__... Gft---·-~
~ JIC!O-_/O._CA1217!o("'l"""
\~ ,._ ~-- ' I-Dols:-· .AJIE--2020---l
I f' ,''
.a i
,,
: .,,
I ':f ... 1.'
·;/
'/'
' ! •1,, .,
j} 1
~ ; I/- ] : " !;! RICHARfi>S
[jiii~EX~PL~OiiiiiRA~T~OiiiiiiiR~Y~BiiiiiO~R!ii!iilN~Gi!!iiiiii&iiiliiiiiN~FiilLiiiiiiiTiiiiiiiRAiiiiiTliiOiiNiiTiiEiiSiiTiiii
LOCATION MAP
PLATE 1
LEGEND
B-13 • Approximate Location of Boring
1-6 A Approximate Location of Infiltration Test
Soil Exploration Co., Inc.
Project No. 2031-01 August 12, 2020
,_ . HO BASE R.OCIO D..EVAnotcS DEllJft80 ,
_.\
4. ' , • ~-I
l /I ,: ) . ( t
"I!//···
. ·l/ /
,. 9:.1
1 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY
RIDGE PARK MORENO VALLEY
]"t"
.....
.UJ
,UJ
l:
CJ)
,UJ
w
(/)
. /'.,.
. , .... <
•JI' -
J.coNlRCI.. l.ONC.'
.- : ; f.f,~'lio< LINE •
• i I
I
/
PR[PARfJ) FOR: J
ROBERT M BEERS
8175 LIMONITE AVENUE., STE E
RIVERSIDE, CA 92509
F.N. r.a.
FU Na
280-51
August12, 2020
PLATE1
LOCATION MAP
roxi mateLocation of Infiltration Test
Soll Exploration Co., Inc.
Project No. 2031-01
END
Approximate Location of Boring
1-8A App
B13 eo
BEERS
92509
PREPAREDFOR:
ROBERTME
8175 LIMONITE AVENUE,STEE
RIVERSIDE, CA
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLESURVEY
RIDGE PARK MORENO VALLEY - on ———
= smeoes
+
ue
31487OuterNighy NoBufo, CA 23730(909)
LandSurveglng- GPS Surveys - Avie
SNA
EE
omeT ry smsam me + . .. > ; ra Nr ry rn ~~. *r NL ring brn mm+ ~~ VV AES mt ar nt gecarn RY NA enig Ea Aga
BR aa
Je_iur et +9
bloc wall
ey
NE SNa mn pm gy mer -
i
§ji . dni: ji
amide es EF ERT RS,
~
A TL
a rE DUCEDne ES-J- DANS
ty Bs
YF
1583
'.("t)
1-·
lli
J:
en
w
w
en
I
,:
"'
1'.1
u!
:;,;
. i;
'"
\ f·
1 ' i ' !jb . ,., ifj
, .
I
RICHARbS . '~ ' ·..;·'
I
-~ -I ';···
. " ',:· I
I
. J.
pMujlf?.
: B_.16 ,-.,
-r / J
f •I'
,..... NO BAS[ FtOOO f El..EVATICNS 0ETEmaC
~ .
0 -
,.
0 - f'l!'I'_
(
; .. f'
"<. <..,.1
-y I I
I ..__,
I ~ I ~
l 8' I
en
I - -- r
(I f
..1 I
/ I/ I ·
i
i.
I
(·
I
!
!
'
,
/
40 0 !""I..-..-
!
20 '
CACTUS
p,_,,,.s undef the SupeMaion of:
.·'
80 ,J
.J .El '
,.
160
I
SION .
0 S11)l!f"ltG -
.,..,... o'
.
I
i•
!.
,.
AVENUE'
_,
I~/,'
· t.
I
'
... ,
'
I I
l
1'l
J
!1
l'
i !! ,,
:i
·[
EXPLORATORY BORING & INFILTRATION TEST
LOCATION MAP
PLATE 1A
LEGEND
8-13 • Approximate Location of Boring
1-6 A Approximate Location of Infiltration Test
Soil Exploration Co., Inc.
Project No. 2031-01 August 12, 2020
ALTNNSPS LAND mLE SURVEY
RIDGE PARK MORENO VALI.EY
PREPA88J FOR: 4
ROBERT M BEERS
8175 LIMONITEAVENUE., STE E
RIVERSIDE. CA 92509
Flt F.11.
Fil.£ NO.
286- 51
| ! Sail li
-r EY Sem emar — com fp me emesis menre mtn — - ms ormoan tems PLATE1A i a Ee - io
LOCATIONMAP - «. a
~~ ~ See - Te -. Ta . N ". "4 ~ -. ~~. h RN ~ . ~.. . : E | Te. hE p—. ~. hl R ~~.
——ee a dN EER BE Raa EUS SLC < = pu 4 g “.. =. oe EN
por — be —— erm ene a— — — Te —— = - ~ a_i | N . i - ee “ v = eda — \\ \ 3
LE ND
Approximate Location of Boring
1-8 A Approximate Location of Infiltration Test
B13 e
SollExploration Co., Inc.
Project No. 2031-01
-- - 77.
3%«¢ [EOE a
H
i
!
iN i
H , . ‘ hid . id Ta ut
Ne
of
otA AS A atSoh 2 AAA AA Aa Ry © oe
—— August 12, 2020
(a3ivov ~.
DEVE
_EI33HS338 |
v — fe — j }
# Sw
| kyak
ALTA/NSPSLAND TITLESURVEY
RIDGE PARKMORENOVALLEY
Far: | #&
ROBERT
MBEERS
8175 LIMONITE AVENUE,STEE
RIVERSIDE,CA 82508
FA. !
SIE SUMNER MOIES
31497OuterHighway $0eRadi, CA923730(900)79-2673
LandSurveying- CFS Burveps - Acslal
| ow
1584
- - - i EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D 4829) I
0-20
I VERY LOW EXPANSION I
1-Story Footings All footings at least 18' deep. Reinforcement for continuous I I (See Note l footings Two No. 5 oars toe ana two No. 5 bars bottom I _2-Sto[l'. Footings All footings at least 18" deep. (See Note 1 Reinforcerient for con:inuous footings: Two No. 5 bars top and I I two No. 5 bars bottorr
Minimum Footing Cantin uous: 15" for 1-story I
Width Continuous. ~ 5" to~ 2-s:o~
I Pad Footings Isolated column: 24" wide and 24" deep, tied to continuous footings in two directions I
Garage Door A grade beam 18" deep by 15" wide for ~ - and 2-sto[l'. should be Grade Beam provided across the garage entrance and other large openings I (See Note 2 I
Living Area Floor 4 " thick slab No. 3 rebar at 18 inches on-center reinforcement at Slabs" mid-height with 1 O-m1I 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 Garage slabs should be quarter-sawn. -- Presoaking of (1.2) times optimum moisture to a depth of at least 5•· I I
Living Areas & I
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 1 thicK base of Y2 inch or .a·ger 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 Equ•valent (SE) or 30 or greater (e g wasned concrete sand) Post-Tensioned Slabs
As an alternative to conventional foundatiors. building may be suoporteo on post-tensioned slabs. to be designed by a structural engineer in consultation with the geotechnical consultant. In ado1bon, a post-tensioned slab 1s 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 E1=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 TWO-STORY_ RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
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:Stoy Footings ' All footings at least18" deep.
(See Note 1) ' Reinforcement for continuous footings: Two No. § bars top and . two No. § bars bottom
Minimum Footing | Continuous: 15" for 1-story
Width _ Continuous: 15” for
Pad Footings Isolated column: 24" wide and 24" deep, tied to continuous { footings 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 iarge openings (See Note2)
| 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 (SeeNotes4 and 6) pase. Garage siabs shouldbe quarter-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.
l All Work Should Comply with v Applicable/Governing Agency Codes and Requirements ~Bresosking of living areasSanddead peshould be observed and tested by theproject geotechnical engineer.
NOTES:
Depth of interior or exterior footings to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade.
The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as that of the adjoining footings.
Living areas slabs may be tied to the footings as directed by the structural engineer.
We recommend the use of at least No. 3 bars at 18 inches on-center, each way, for all siabs. 10-mil Visqueen sheeting welded at laps has proved successful. Equivalents are acceptable.
Garage slabs should be isolated from stem wall footings with a minimum 3/8" felt expansion joint.
Nome
Sand base should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater (e.g.. washed concrete sand). wN
Post-Tensioned Slabs
As an alternativeto conventionalfoundations.buiidingmay be supportedon post-tensioned slabs, to be designed by a structural engineer in consultation with the geotechnical consultant. In addition, a2 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 depih 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 s0il lots using conventional foundation should comply with 2099 CBC. For very high expansion potential (Expansion Index grester 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 EI=21-50 use Pi-25, and E!=51-80 use Pl=35, Minimum Foundation and Slab Recommendations i Soil Exploration Co. inc.
For Expansive Soils
Plate: 2
ONE-AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIALBUILDINGS
1585
SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX s 50 OPTION 1 PIPE SURROUNDED WITY
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIA1...
A:.. -e~P~oc: · .. ~
SEE Ge· .. eR;. .. ~-es t
GENERAL NOTES
,\\Tr'i P'<O"ER
t.. :>~.:.c£ o~:.1tJ•o=
~C?CO"
'ElfE-
:-._....55 = E~~/E~SLE ;l!..i E;::
~·~;ERl~c SEE GRAC~TJQ•,
'.·\~TE pP~OOFING
SEE GEN:il.r.L 'iO;es
v',EEF HOLE
S~E ' '0TE:
-' 1· .. =.., :l~METE;;
"ERFORHEO PIPE
SEE :;-e 3
t.EVEL Og
SLOPE
Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Graoauor.
Per Caltrans Spec1ficalions
Sieve Size f'erceni Passing
1 00
314" 90-100
3/8 .. 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5. - - :>
No. 50 0-7
No.200 0-3
• 'llaterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undeslreable. ·water proofing of the walls 1s not under the purview of the geo1ecnn1cal eng1nee ·All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum.
OPTION 2 GRAVEL WRAPPED
IN FILTER FABRIC
.f. i}~ Pi:tC?Erl
SURF.:.ce ORAJr•~GE
•1ATIVE
FILTER F•SRIC
SEE 'IO""E~
12· 1,11N1MUM
' • 70 • '·'2 INC~ SIZE
GRAVEL 'l\'R.r.PPEOIN •IL7EP
•-.BRIC
·outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4-incn d1amater sohd pipe discharged into a su1table disposal area designed by 1he pro1ect engineer. The subdra1n pipe should be accessible for maintenance 1rodd1ng1
·Other subdra1n backfill options are sub1ect to the review oy the geotechn1cal engineer and mod1ficat1on of design parameters Notes
) Sand shoulc have a sand eauivalenr of 30 or grea1er and rnay be dens1fieo by water ietting 21 ~ Cu. ft. per ft of 114 - to 1 1/2 -inch size gravel wrapped in filter faonc 3 1 Pipe tyoe should be ASTM 01527 ~crylon1tnte Bu1adlene Styrene 1ABSl SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Polyvinyl Chlonse plashc (PVC). Schedule 40. Armco A2000 PVC or approved equivalent Pipe should be installed with oertorauons down Per.orations snould be 318 -•nch in diameter claced at the ends of a 120-degree arc 1n two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered'
4) Filter Fabric snould be M1rafi 140NC or approved equivalent 5l Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot maximum intervals if exposure 1s permitted weepholes should be located ~2-mches aoove finished grade If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb. a pipe under the sidewalk to be discharged throllgh the curb face or equivalent shOuld be provided For a basement-type wan a proper subdra1n outlet svstem snould be provided 6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechn1cal engineer. 7> Walls over six feet 1n ne19nt are subiect to a spec.al review bv the geotechr'l1cal engineer and mod1fica11ons to the above requirements
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL PLATE
3 SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX _<50 ON 1;PIP RROU TH PTION 2° GRA p
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL INFILTERFABRIC
WITri PROPER MTH PROPER SURFACEDRAINAGE SURFACEDRAINAGE
SLOPEOR SLOPEOF
LEVEL LEVEL
J !
Fa 12
T | )
WATERPACCFING —a WATERPROOFING EE : SEE GENERALNOTES! SEEGENERALNOTES: : a rik phiepng — 12° MINIMUM A co. CiASS2PERMEABLEFILTER — : 12”MINIMUM
WEEPHOLE MATERIAL(SEEGRADATION NEEPHOLE Lo
SEE NOTE§ SEENOTE Sl me, 4 INCH CIAMETER. TO H2 INCH SIZE
PERFORATEDPIPE GRAVELWRAPPEDIN FILTER
SEENOTEY FABRIC
LEVELOR LEVELOR
Swope SLOPE
Class 2 Fliter PermeableMaterialGradation
Per CaltransSpecifications
Sieve Size FercantPassing
1" 100
3/4" 80-160
ki 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
Na. 30 5-15
No.50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
GENERAL NOTES
“Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisanceproblemthroughthewall is undesireable. “Water proofing of the walls 1s not under the purview of the geotechnical engineer. “All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent meumum. “Outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4-inch diamater solid pipe discharged into a suitabledisposal area designedby the project engineer. Thesubdrainpipe should be accessible for maintenance (rodding).
“Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.
Notes.
1} Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densifiedby water jetting. 2 1?Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4 - to 1 1/2 -inch size grave! wrapped in filter fabric 3} Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Polyvinyl Chlorise plastic (PVC), Schedule 40. Armco A2000 PVC. or approved equivalent Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perforations should be 3/8 -inch in diameter placed at the ends of 8 120-degrec arc in two rows at 3-inch on center(staggered). 4) Filter Fabric shauid be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent. 8) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot maximum intervals. if exposure is permitted, weepholes should be located12-inches above finshed grade. If exposure is not permitted. such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb. a pipe under the sidewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided, For a basement-type wall. 3 proper subdrain outlet system should be provided. 8) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer. 7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above reguirements, —— RETAININGWALLBACKFILLANDSUBDRAINDETAIL PLATE
3 —
1586
APPENDIX A
1-
~
APPENDIX A
1587
NWC of Cactus Ave. & Redlands Blvd.
Moreno Valley. California
REFERENCES
Project No. 2096-01
August 12,2020
• 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
NWCof CactusAve.& RedlandsBlvd. ProjectNo.2096-01
Moreno Valley, California August 12, 2020
REFERENCES
¢ USGSGeologicMapof theSunnymead7.5’Quadrangle,RiversideCounty,California. + Riverside County GIS Liquefaction Map.
+ U.S. Geological Survey — Earthquake Hazards Program, 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps — Source Parameters.
e U.S. Geological Survey Faults, 2014.
Soil ExplorationCo.,Inc. Appendix A
1588
APPENDIX APPENDIX BB
1589
I
(/)
....J
6 (/)
0 w
:z
<i:
a::
(.'.) I
UJ
(/)
a::
<2'.
0 (..)
(/)
'
0 (/)
c
w
z
<i:
a::
(.'.) I
~
z
..
MAJOR DIVISIONS
.......
0 > <U
'iii
8 N
0 z
v
'(5
II)
0 ;:;:
c
£
~ 0
~
x
C\i
0 z
v
~ II) <U
0 >
c ;:;: ·v;
~
~
~
GRAVELS
(More than Y. of
coarse fraction > No
4 sieve size)
SANDS
(More than /, of
coarse '•ac:;or. < \;o
4 sieve size)
SIL TS & CLAYS
LL< 50
SILTS & CLAYS
_L >SC
HIGHLY
ORGANIC SOILS
SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
Pt
I:: ~~ :j Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mlxtures, lit:le or no fines ... ">·a-:-::- . · · · Poor!y graded gravels or g:ravef·sand mOOures. little or no fines 0 000 00 l
oo o o o I ooc 0 o 0 o
t IJllllLl'.
·, . ··i ...
Silty gravels, gravel-sand·sil: mixtures
C layey grave!:), 9r::ivol-e:i11d-cl::iy m1XlurQ,;
w e· ... 9~ade::! sar.ds or s·a11e:y sarids, li!•'e er no fines i'oor:y gradeo sa:-:os er graveily sanes. :: e oc :io f:::es s•::y sar.ds. sa~c-sa t IT'iXlJ:es
c:ayey sanes sar.d-day m'x'.vres
no:-gar.'C s. !s a~:: ve~ r.::e sa'l::!s •ock nc:..· s-'!y er clayey :.-e sar.es o• clayey silts w1:r. slight plast<c1ty.
Inorganic clays of .cw to i"'1edun piast c.ty, g:2vel;y clays. sa..,dy c;;ys s ,:y c:ays ·ea" c·ays
ro~;a"":C s;.:s :~cec~s C"' c a:~:-a~~c:.:s r.,e sar.dy er s:.:y soils. e·as:ic S 1!S
lnorc;an•c c ays o: ;r:ecn.::n :c •,c;r p as:<c.:y. o:c;an<c si.:y c.ays. cr9a1;c s :s
o~c;ar.:c c'a;;s c' ::-e(;!;~:"l tor. :;r p·as:1::1:y o·c;anic s:l:y clays, o:gar .. c 5;.:5
CLASSIFICATION CHART ~U Nlt:: ED SOIL CL.ASS1=1cATION SYSTEM~ RANGE OF GRAi"l S'ZES
CLASSIFICATION ~. . Starda·d Grain Size 1n
Sieve s ;ze Millirr. e:ers
BOULDER ABOVE 12 ABOVE 3C5
COBBLES 3 ~o i 2 3C5 to 75 2 s:
GRAVEL 3 :o \ o. t. 7€2 :c 1. 1e
COARSE 3"TOW 76.2 to 19 ',
FINE Y.'"to No. 4 9 ... :o I.. -5
SAND \o. t. :o 20C t..76 !c C C7t.
COARSE No. a to 10 4.76 !O 2 .00
MED1UM No. 10 to 40 2 00 !OJ t.20
x
~ :: 0
~ o
~ '\~
u -"
f:: 20 Cl)
«= !\ E Ne t.0 to 200 0 t.20 ·o 0. 07 t.
SILT & CLAY BE'.....OW Ne S!::LOV\I 0 07t. 200
<t ~J ...J
c.. -
4 ' ... Al
: v~ &OL
0 ·o 20 30 40 50 60 7C 80 so :oc
GRAIN SIZE CHART PLASTICITY CHART
Ji \i NR No "{ecovery Ciass:ficat:on ,, accordance with ASTM 02487 RinQ Samo.e _ 3ag Sa~o:e ;:esc 'ptior, ar.d visua: obser1ation in accordance w1:h ASTM 02488 '""'--7-'-'.:;.;.;:'-===--r1-:;;;;;4111f'iiiii.~.::o.....::::..::.:.~.:::..__,. ________ Ail Sieve Sizes snowr are US Standard ll
SPT Sample = Seepage SPT Re'usa' is defired as one of the following 11 iO blows for no apparent displacement
SC otows for ess tha1 5 incnes advancemeri
• 00 blows for 6 ;o 18 inches advancement
: —— MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES
.: Weil-gradedgravelsor gravei-sandmixtures,litle ornofines z GRAVELS 0 » 2 re | Poortygradedgravelsor gravel-sandmixtures,litie or no fines a 3 {More thanJ of 0
[7] & coarsefraction> No. GM 7 jl Siltygravels, gravel-sand-siltmixtures 2 g 4 gieve size)
Z Iv GC Cleyoy gravels, gravei-sand.ciay mixtures
2 2 SW "-l Well.gradedsands or gravely sands,little or no fines
LE SANDS
& S SP #oorly grades sands or gravelly sands, tiie or no fines [] H (More than 4 of Tt © 3 coarse fraction < No. SM 1% Sity sands, sand-salt minutes 2 4 sleve size)
| SC Clayay sands. sand-clay mixtures
ML inorganic sits and very fine sands, rock ficur, silty or clayay fine sands 4 or clayey silts with slight plasticity. © ~N SILTS & CLAYS - " , - = Ss cL inorganic clays of lew tc medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy ciays, ; 2 Zz | i silty clays, lear clays. hd LL<50 Y
! g 35 {. Crganic sits anc argamc sly ciays of low siasticity 4 -— > [3]
i < M £ norganic sis. caceous or digicnacecus fing sandy or silty soils, elastic = slits | 8
g z § | swTsacLAYs Inorganic clays of medium ic high pizsticity, — organic silly clays, organic— gE 3 LL>50 Telli ~
: = . Orgaric clays of medium 1c high plasticcy organic silty clays, organic ! i J 154
ORGANIC o OILS Pt Fea: and ctrer Nigriy organic Sis
FCO] CLASSIFICATION CHART
(UNIFIED SO!L CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM)
| RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES |
| CLASSIFICATION U.S.Standard Grain Size in |
Sieve Size Millimeters ,
|BOULDER . ABOVE 12° | ABOVE30S|
| COBBLES 31012" | 30510752 | ec, Lo |
i GRAVEL 3"to No. 4 7620 4 76 x so | | co A |
COARSE 3 TO% 762t0 185 . & Eo
FINE %"ta No.4 19110475 |
= a0 | | CL]
| SAND No. 410200 | 4.7610C.074 E wl len) : COARSE Ne.4 to 10 47610200 + RB To Te MEDIUM No. 101040 | 2.00 to 0.420 a *__1 le A]
FINE No. 40to 200 | 0.420! 0.074 < EZ Fo mH
a 7 ; SILT & CLAY BELOWNe. | ge ow 0.074 | « To of A 200 i Le og — SMa lao] | TT 0 10 20 30 40 50 50 7C 80 SO 00
GRAIN SIZE CHART PLASTICITY CHART
] I. Sample |
mT
=! BagSample
i NR No Recovery i Classification in accordance with ASTM D2487 X SPT Sample
|
wr
Seepage |
|
Cescription and visual! shservation in accordance with ASTM D2488 i All Sieve Sizes shown: are US Standard + SPTRefusal is defined as one of the following:
' 10 blows for na apparent displacement
50 blows for less than § inches advancement
© 100 blows for 6 to 18 inches advancement
1590
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-1
Date: 7/24/20 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 85
Ho I e Diameter: 8" D riv. e W e. 1g h t: 140 lb s. D rop: 30" El eva f ion: 1571 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY 1•1.1 CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY~ TEST 6 INCH (%} uses SAMPLED BY GL
1 ML
SANDY SILT: Pale brown, dry, loose
2 3 x '21414 106 I Slightly moist
4 5
6 ,x 4/4/5 12 2 Pale brown, slightly moist, loose
% Passing #200 sieve = 62
7 I
8 9
10 11 iX 4/4/4
Pale brown, dry loose
12 13
14 I
15 16 x 2/415
12.0 I Brown, fine to medium grained, slightly moist. loose 17 % Passing #200 sieve = 58
18 19
20 21 x 7113/17 CL-ML
SANDY SILTY CLAY: Brown, slightly moist, very stiff
22 23
24 25
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-1
Date: 7/24/20 Project No._2006-01__
Drilling Company:_____ One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 85 Hole Diameter: _8- Drive Weight: 140 1bs_ Drop: 30" Elevation: 15713 DEPTH TYPE | SAMPLE | BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICALDESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY %) CLASSIFICATION LOGGEDBY __GL TEST &INCH (%) USCS SAMPLEDBY GL
1 ML SANDY SILT; Pale brown, dry, loose
2 3 orld 106 Slightlymoist
Palebrown,slightlymoist,loose
8 aus 12.2 % Passing #200 sieve = 62
10 1 aisle Pale brown, dry, loose
12 13
14 16
16 2415
12.0 Brown,fineto mediumgrained,slightlymoist,loose
17 % Passing #200 sieve = 58
18 19
20 Ly manT CL-ML Y Y: Brown, slightlymoist,very stiff
22 all Evnbtasatlian Pa las 1591
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-1
Date: 7124120 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 85
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive . W. e1g h t: 14 0 lb S. D rop: 30" El evat1on: 157 1 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS ORY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY ("4) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY _.m..._ TEST 6 INCH 1%1 uses SAMPLED BY GL
26 x SM SIL TY SAND: Yellowish light brown, fine to medium 8/12/15 grained, slightly moist medium dense 27 28
29 30
31 x 10/10/5 10 3 I Light brown, slightly moist, medium dense % Passing #200 sieve = 44
32 33
34 35
I
36 x 3f7/9 I
Olive light brown, slightly moist, medium dense
37 I
38 39
40 I
41 x 6/9112
Olive light brown, slightly moist, medium dense
- 42
43 44
45 46 x ML SANDY SILT: Olive light brown. slightly moist, medium 6/8/8 dense
47 48
49 SM SIL TY SAND: Light greenish gray, dry, dense
50 x 17/15/16
Total depth = 50', No groundwater, No caving
Date:__ 7/24/20 _ Drilling Company: OneWay Drilling
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-1
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: 140 Ibs. Drop: 30° _ Elevation: 15 DEPTH | TYPE | SAMPLE | BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION {feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY _ GL TEST 6INCH {%) uscs SAMPLEDBY:
26 SM SILTY SAND: Yellowish light brown, fine to medium 8n2ns grained, slightlymoist, mediumdense
27 28
29 30
Light brown, slightly moist, medium dense
3 110s 103 % Passing #200 sieve = 44
32 33
34 _— Clive light brown, slightly moist, medium dense
ar
38 39
#1 6/8/12 Olive light brown, slightly moist, medium dense 42 43
44 45
SANDY SILT: Olivelightbrown,slightlymoist,medium 46 61818 ML dense 47 48
4 SM SILTY SAND: Light greenishgray,dry,dense
50 17/1518
Cail CBvninratinm Ma Inn
Total depth = 50’, No groundwater, No caving
1592
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-2
Date: 7124120 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company :_--'O::;..;n..:.:e'-W.:...:..::;a ... y-=D"""r""'ill""'"in'"'q.___ Type of Rig: CME 75 Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight : 1401bs Drop: 30" Elevation: 1572 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS ORY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY __ru._ TEST 6 INCH {%) uses I SAMPLED BY GL
1 SM I SILTY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, dry, medium dense
2 I I Slightly moist, medium dense 3 916/10 112.5 10.2
4 5
6 5/618 Slightly moist, medium dense
7 ML SANDY SILT: Pale brown, slight moist. medium dense 8 9
10 11 >< 5/8/9
Pale brown, slight moist, medium dense
12 13 I
14 15 I
16 x SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, 6113112 slightly moist, medium dense 17 18
19 20
21 IX 12115125 Slightly moist, dense
22 23
24 ML SANDY SILT: Pale brown, slightly moist, dense
25 x 9112119
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-2
Pate: __ 7/24/20 Project No.__2096-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling TypeofRig:__CME 75
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: 140 lbs Drop: 30" Elevation: + DEPTH | TYPE | SAMPLE | BLOWS DRY MOISTURE So GEOTECHNICALDESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY %) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: _ GL TEST 6INCH {%) USCS _ SAMPLEDBY:
1 SM SILTY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, dry, medium dense
2 3 98/10 112.5 10.2 Slightlymoist,mediumdense
4 8
6 58 Slightly moist, medium dense
y ML SANDYSILT:Palebrown,slightmoist,mediumdense
8 8
10 ” i Pale brown, slight moist, medium dense
12 13
14 18
SILTY SAND: Light brown,fine to mediumgrained,
1 enanz SM slightly moist, medium dense
17 18
19 20
2 1218/28 Slightlymoist,dense
23 2 ML SANDY SILT: Pale brown, slightly moist, dense
Cail Bvnlarmtian Ca Ine
TotalDepth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
1593
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-3
Date: 7/24120 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company:_~O~n~e~W~a .... v~D~r_ill_in_g~- Type of Rig: CME 85 Hole Diameter: 8" Drive WeiQht: 140 lbs. Drop: 3 0 " E I evat1on: 157 3 .5 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS I ORY I MOISTURE SOIL I GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY {%) CLASSIFICATION I LOGGED BY __Q1__ TEST 61NCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY GL
1 ML I SANDY SILT: Very pale brown, dry, loose
2 I I
3 x 3/3/3 7.5 Pale brown, slightly moist, loose
4 1
5 6 IX 3/4/4 14 8 I Pale brown, slightly moist, loose
7 I
8 I 9 I 10
11 x 41618
Pale yellow, shghtly moist, medium dense
12 13
14 15
16 x 9/9/15 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, slightly moist, medium dense .•
17 18
19 20
21 x 8/10110 slightly moist. medium dense
22 23
I
24 25 x 10/12/18 I Yellowish light brown, slightly moist, medium dense I
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-3
Date:__ 7/24/20 Project No._ 2096-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 85
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: 140 Ibs. Drop: 30° Elevation: 1573.
DEPTH | TYPE | SAMPLE | BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOL GEOTECHNICALDESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY %) CLASSIFICATION LOGGEDBY. _ GL, TEST 6 INCH {%} Uscs SAMPLED BY:
1 ML SANDYSILT: Very pale brown, dry, loose
2 3 ars 75 Palebrown,slightlymoist,loose
4 5
8 avaia 14.8 Pale brown, slightly moist, loose
7 8
9 10
1 i Pale yellow, slightly moist, medium dense
12 13
14 15
16 or SM SILTY SAND:Light brown, fine to medium grained, 5 slightlymoist,mediumdense
17 18
19 20
24 81010 slightlymoist, medium dense
23 2 SE Yellowish light brown, slightly moist, medium dense Lall Evnlavatian Ma Irn
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
1594
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-4
Date: 7/24/20 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 75
H oe I o· 1ame t er: 8" 0 n. ve W e1g . ht 140 lb s. D rop: 30" El eva ti on: 1570 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY W•l CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY _QL_ TEST 6 INCH 1%1 uses SAMPLED BY GL
1 Ml SANDY Sil T: Very pale brown, slightly moist, loose 2 I
I I Slightly moist, loose 3 1x1 5i5/4 9 1
4 5
6 x 4/515 70 I Very pale brown, slightly moist, loose
7 8
9 10
11 x 41617 Slightly moist, medium dense
12 I
13 14
15 I
16 x 618/10 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, slightly moist, medium dense
17 18
19 20
I slightly moist, medium dense 21 IX 10/14119
22 23
24 IX, 15120120
Dense
25 Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
Date: 7/24/20
Drilling Company:
Hole Diameter: 8"
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
One Way Drilling
DEPTH
{feet)
"TYPE
OF
JEST
SAMPLE
TEST
BLOWS
PER
6INCH
DRY
DENSITY
04)
Drill Hole No.
Drive Weight: 140 Ibs. Drop:
MOISTURE
%)
B44 — Project No.__ 2008-01
Type of Rig: CME75
Elevation: 1570 +
SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
USCS
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
LOGGED BY: __GL
SAMPLED BY:
1 2
55/4
4518
10 1"
12 13
487
14 15
9.1 7.0
ML SANDY SILT: Verypalebrown, slightlymoist,loose
Slightly moist, loose
Verypale brown, slightlymoist,loose
Slightly moist, medium dense
18 17
18 19
21 8/8/10
10/14/19
23 15/20/20
SM SILTY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained,
slightly moist, medium dense
slightly moist, medium dense
Dense
Canil Evalacabian Me Irv
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
1595
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-5
Date: 7/24/20 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company· One Wav Dnllina Type of Rig· CME 85
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Elevation: 1572 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY _fil._ TEST &INCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY GL
1 ML I SANDY SILT: Gray, slightly moist. medium dense
2 I
3 3/5/5 101 .3 14.9 Gray, slightly moist, medium dense
4 s
6 31517 92.2 11 3 Gray, slightly moist, medium dense
7 8
9 10
11 x 315/8 I Gray, slightly moist. medium dense
12 13
14 15
16 x 6/8111 Gray, slightly moist, medium dense
17 18
19 I
I
20 I
21 x 3/11/15 I SM I SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, slightly moist. medium dense
22 23
24 25 x 616/10 I
I
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-5
Date: 7/24/20 _ Project No._2006-01 Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 85 Hole Diameter; 8" Drive Weight: 140Qlbs I. Drop: 30° _ Elevation: 15722 DEPTH TYPE | SAMPLE | BLOWS ORY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICALDESCRIPTION {feat) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGEDBY __GL TEST 8 INCH {%) USCS SAMPLEDBY:
3 ML SANDY SILT: Gray, slightly moist, medium dense
2 — 82.2 11.3 Gray, slightly moist, medium dense
3 sis 101.3 14.9 Gray,slightlymoist,mediumdense
4 10
11 5/8 Gray,slightlymoist,mediumdense
12 13
14 18
16 8/8/11 Gray, slightlymoist, mediumdense
17 18
19 20
SILTY SAND: Light brown, fine to mediumgrained,
2 ynns SM slightly moist, medium dense
3 25 8/10
TotalDepth=25',Nocaving,Nogroundwater
Cnll Buwnlnenéinm Ma Ins 1596
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-6
Date: 7/24/20 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Com pany:_~O~n"""e~W~a .... D~r~ill in .... g.___ Type of Rig: CME 85 Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weiaht: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Elevation: 1575 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION I LOGGED BY~ TEST 6 INCH 1%1 uses SAMPLED BY GL
1 ML SANDY SILT: Very pale brown. dry, loose
2 3 x 313/3 16.1 Very pale brown. slightly moist, loose 4 5
6 x 4/4/4 10.5 I Slightly moist, medium dense
% Passing #200 sieve = 65
7 8
9 10
11 rx 5nt9
I Dry, medium dense
12 13
14 15
16 x 418/10
17 18
19 20
21 X1 9/16121 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, slightly moist, medium dense
22 23
24 25 lX I
C:nil C:vnlnr'3tinn r.n lnr
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-6
Date:__ 7/24/20 Project No._ 2006-01 _ Drilling Company: OneWay Drilling Type of Rig: CME85 Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight. 140 lbs, Drop: 30" Elevation: 1578 3 DEPTH TYPE | SAMPLE | BL DRY MOISTURE son GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION {feet} OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGEDBY. __GL TEST 6 INCH (%) USCS SAMPLED BY:
1 ML SANDY SILT: Very pale brown, dry, loose
3 — 16.1 Very pale brown, slightly moist, loose
Slightlymoist,mediumdense
8 aia 10.5 % Passing#200 sieve=65
10 1" “me Dry, medium dense
12 13
14 18
18 4/8110
17 18
19 SILTY SAND: Lightbrown,fineto mediumgrained, 21 9118/21 SM slightly moist, medium dense 23 1
=
nil Evnilaratinn Ca Ine
1597
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-6
Date: 7/24/20 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 85
Hole Diameter: 8 " D . w . h 1 0 lb rive e1g t: 4 s. D rop: 30" El evat1on: 1575 ±
DEPTH TYPE I SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL I GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY ___GL_ TEST 6 INCH 1%1 uses I SAMPLED BY r.1
26 x H.12118 ML I SANDY SILT: Light brown, slightly moist, dense 27 28 !
29 I
I
30 I I
31 l[Xl 5/9110 I I Slightly moist, medium dense
I I
32 I '
33 I 1
34 35 l
36 x 517rT 12.2
I Light brown, fine to medium grained. slightly moist,
medium dense
37 % Passing #200 sieve = 54
38 39
40 i
41 XI 6/6rT I Light brown, slightly moist, medium dense '
42 43 l I
44 45
I Slightly moist, medium dense 46 XI 618110
I I
47 48 l
49 I
SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained,
slightly moist, dense
50 x 7/15/23
Total Depth= 50', No caving, No groundwater
GEOTECHNICALBORINGLOGS
Drill Hole No. B-6
Date: 7/24/20 _ ProjectNo._2096-01
Drilling Company:___One Way Drilling Type of Rig:___CME86 Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: lbs Drop: 30" Elevation: 157.
DEPTH | TYPE | SAMPLE | BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICALDESCRIPTION (fet) OF TEST PER DENSITY %) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY. __GL, TEST 6 INCH (%) uscs SAMPLED BY:
28 111218 ML SANDY SILT: Light brown, slightly moist, dense 27 28
31 819/10 Slightly moist, medium dense
32 33
36 — Lightbrown,fineto mediim grained,slightlymoist,
12.2 mediumdense
a7 % Passing#200sieve=54
3s
39 40
4 aner7 : Lightbrown, slightlymoist,mediumdense
42 | di [ —
45 48 8/10 Slightlymoist,mediumdense
47 48
48 SM SILTY SAND: Light brown,fine to mediumgrained,
slightly moist, dense
50 » M523
Call Cunlaratian mA Ine
Total Depth= 50’, No caving,No groundwater
1598
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-7
Date: 7124120 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 75
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weioht: 140 lbs. Droo: 30" Elevation: 1576 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS ORY MOISTURE I SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY~ TEST 6 INCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY GL
1 ML SANDY SILT: Very pale brown, dry, dense
I
2 I Very pale brown, slightly moist. medium dense
3 10/19'16 108.2 13.2
4 5
6 4/12/12 111 .8 I 85 I Slightly moist, medium dense
7 I I
8 I
9 10 l I dry, medium dense 11 IX s1sn
12 I I
13 I 1 I I
14 I
I
15 16 1><1 7/14115 dry. medium dense
l
17 I I
18 I
19 20
21 C><1 5/8/10 I dry. medium dense
22 23 I
24 SM I SIL TY SAND' Light brown, fine to medium grained, slightly moist, medium dense
25 C>< 519112
I
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
~nil Cvnlnr.,.+inn t"'n lnr
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No.____B-7__
Date: 7/24/20 Project No._ 2006-01
Drilling Company: One Wi ili Type of Rig:___CME75
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: 140 ibs Drop: 30° Elevation: 1376 + DEPTH | TYPE | SAMPLE | BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICALDESCRIPTION {foet) OF TEST PER DENSITY {%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGEDBY. _GL TEST 6INCH {%) USCS _ SAMPLEDBY:
1 ML SANDY SILT: Very pale brown, dry, dense
2 3 wonens| 1082 | 132 Very pale brown, slightlymoist, medium dense 4 5
aE RE Starymt adn sr
7 8
9 10
1 a7 dry, mediumdense
12 13
14 15
18 7418 dry, medium dense
17 18
19 20
24 5810 dry, medium dense
24 SM ; Light brown, fine to medium grained,
slightly moist, medium dense
28 sigNn2
TotalDepth=25’,Nocaving,No groundwater
nil Bvnlaratinn "An Ine
1599
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-8
Date: 7/24/20 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company: _ ___.O""'n=e~W'-=ay--=D~ri=lli~na..___ Type of Rig: CME 75 Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weiaht: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Elevation: 1576 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS ORY I MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY ('.4) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY _g__ TEST 6 INCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY GL
1 ML SANDY SILT: Light brown, dry, medium dense
2 3
-- x 51615 86 Slightly moist, medium dense
4 5 . 6 XI 515n 10 4 I Slightly moist, medium dense
7 8
9 10
11 C>< 12/12111 Slightly moist, medium dense
12 13
14 15
16 !X 5/8/12 Light grayish olive, slightly moist, medium dense . 17 I
18 l
19 I
20 21 >< 41518 Light gray olive, slightly moist. medium dense 22 23
24 25 x 5nl9 J slightly moist, medium dense
I
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
C:nil C:vn1,,,,.,,.+;,,,,.. (".,,, lnr
GEOTECHNICALBORINGLOGS
Drill Hole No. B-8
Date:__ 7/24/20 Project No._ 2006-01
Drilling Company: ne Wa lin, Type of Rig:__ CME 75
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: 140]bs Drop: — Elevation: 1576 + DEPTH | TYPE | SAMPLE | BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION {fent) OF TEST PER DENSITY {%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: _Gl TEST 8INCH {%) USCS SAMPLEDBY:
p ML SANDY SILT: Light brown, dry, medium dense
2 3 80 8.6 Slightlymoist,mediumdense
4 8
6 ss 10.4 Slightly moist, medium dense
T
8 |]
10 1" 1211311 Slightlymoist,mediumdense
12 13
14 15
18 S112 Light grayish olive, slightly moist, medium dense 17 18
19 2
2 pn Light gray olive, slightly moist, mediumdense
22 23
24 slightly moist, medium dense
25 51719
Cail BEvnlarvatinn CA Ine
TotalDepth=25’,Nocaving,No groundwater
1600
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-9
Date: 7/24120 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 85
H ole Diameter: 8 ' D nv. e W e1g . h t: 140 lb s D rop: 30" Elevation: 1578.5 ± DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS ORY MOISTURE l SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY ("h) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY __g_.i.__ TEST 6 INCH 1%) uses SAMPLED BY GL
1 ML SANDY SILT: Light brown, slightly moist, loose
2 3 x 21212 16.7 Slightly moist, loose
4 I
5 l
6 x 6/8/8 9.9 I Slightly moist, medium dense
7 I
8 9
10 x 6/10/10 medium dense
11 12
13 14
15 I Very pale brown, slightly moist. medium dense 16 IX 315/8 I 17
I
18 I
19 20 I
21 IX 316/7
Pale brown, slightly moist, medium dense
22 23
24 SM I SIL TY SAND: Yellowish, fine to medium grained, slightly moist, medium dense
25 IX 10110/10 I
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
~nil l=Ynlnr~tinn Co .. Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No.___ B-9
Date: 7/24/20 _ Project No._2096-01__
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME85
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: 140 ibs. Drop: 30 Elevation: 1578.5 DEPTH | TYPE | SAMPLE | BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION {toot) OF TEST PER DENSITY %) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: _ GL TEST 6INCH {%) USCS SAMPLEDBY:
4 ML SANDYSILT: Light brown,slightlymoist,loose
2 3 J 16.7 Slightly moist, loose
4 ]
8 oo 9.9 Slightlymoist, medium dense
7 8
9 10 81010 mediumdense
11 12
12 14
15 16 I Very pale brown, slightly moist, medium dense
17 18
19 20
249 - Pale brown, slightly moist, medium dense
22 23
24 SM SILTY SAND: Yellowish,fineto mediumgrained,
slightlymoist,mediumdense
28 10/10/10
Kail Fyniaration Co... Inc.
Total Depth=25', No caving, No groundwater
1601
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-10
Date: 7/24120 Project No. 2096·01
Drilling Company :_~O~ne~W~av~Dri~lli_ng __ Type of Rig: CME 75 Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weii:iht: 140 bs. Drop: . 30' E . 0 levatton: 158 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS ORY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY GL TEST 61NCH 1%\ uses SAMPLED BY·-m:--
1 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown. fine to medium grained,
slightly moist, medium dense
2 I slightly moist, medium dense 3 51817 103.5 14.6
4 5
6 6/9/9 93.4 I 3 1 I slightly moist, medium dense
7 I
8 9
10 11 x 2/4i4 Dry. loose
12 13
14 l
15 I
16 x 9/10/12
1 Fine to coarse grained, dry, medium dense
17 I 18 I
19 I
20 j .... 21 x 7/9/9
Fine to medium grained, slightly moist, medium dense
22 I
23 1
24 I slightly moist. medium dense
25 x 71919 I
I I
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
~nil l=vnlnr:dinn r.n lnr.
Date
Drilling
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: _1401bs. Drop: 30
DEPTH
(feat)
7/2
GEOTECHNICALBORINGLOGS
Company:___ One Way Drilling___
TYPE
OF
TEST
SAMPLE
TESY
BLOWS
PER
6INCH
ORY
DENSITY
0]
Drill Hole No.
MOISTURE
(*%)
B-10
Project No.__ 2098-01
Type of Rig: CME 75
Elevation: 1
CLASSIFICATION
USCS
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
LOGGED BY. _GL
SAMPLED BY:
1 10
1 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
ry)
23 ar1o/t2
7/918
78 103.5
93.4 14.6
3.1 SM SILTY SAND: Lightbrown,fineto mediumgrained,
slightlymoist,mediumdense
slightlymoist,mediumdense
slightly moist, medium dense
Dry,loose
Fine to coarse grained, dry, medium dense
Fine to mediumgrained, slightly moist, medium dense
slightly maist, medium dense
Rail Fynlaratinn Cn Ine
TotalDepth=25',No caving,No groundwater
1602
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-11
Date: 7/24/20 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 85
H oe I D" 1ameter: 8" D. nve W e1g . h t: 140 lb s. D rop: 30" Elevation: 1594.5 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY _fil.__ TEST 6 INCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY GL
1 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, dry, loose
2 I I
3 rx 21212 52 I Dry, loose
4 l I
I
5 I I
6 IX 3/3(7 3 1 I Dry, medium dense
% Passing #200 sieve = 21
7 I
8 I
9 I
10 I
11 x sms I
1 Dry, medium dense
12 l
13 14
15 16 x 7f7f7 Dry, medium dense
17 18
19 20
21 IX 515/5 75 Slightly moist, medium dense
1 % Passing #200 sieve = 23
22 23
24 25
~nil t=vnlnr:atinn r.n lnr
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-11
Date: 7/24/20 Project No._2096-01
Drilling Company: Ona Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 85
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: 140 lbs, Drop: - Elevation: 1504.
DEPTH TE SAMPLE | BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (faut) TEST PER DENSITY {%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: _GL TEST 6 INCH 1%) USCS SAMPLED BY
1 SILTY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, dry, SM loose Dry,loose
Dry, medium dense
% Passing #200 sieve = 21
10 1" 57775 Dry, medium dense
12 13
14 15
18 — Dry. medium dense
17 Slightly moist, medium dense
81516 7.5 % Passing #200 sieve = 23
Qnll Fenlaration Cn Ine 1603
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-11
Date: 7124120 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company· One Wav Drilling Type of Rig· CME 85
Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight : 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Elevation: 1594.5 ±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS ORY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY~ TEST 6 INCH 1%1 uses SAMPLED BY Gl
26 x 3f7/7 SM I SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, slightly moist. medium dense
27 28
29 I
30 I
31 x 7/8111 8.7 Slightly moist. medium dense
% Passing #200 sieve = 32
32 33
34 35
36 x 8191 10 Slightly moist. medium dense
37 38
39 40
41 x 518/11 73 Slightly moist, medium dense
% Passing #200 sieve = 27
42 I
43 I
44 45
I I Slightly moist, medium dense 46 IX I
919/12
47 I
48 I
I
I
49 50 [X 9/15121 I Sllghlly moist. dense
Total Depth= 50', No caving, No groundwater
~nil ~vnlnr~tinn r.n lnr.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-11
Oate:___7/24/20 _ Project No._2006-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig:___CME 85 Hole Diameter: 8" DrivePog 140 lbs. Drop: 30° Elevation: 1594.5 + DEPTH | TYPE | SAMPLE DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICALDESCRIFTION {foet) OF TEST Cher DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGEDBY’ _ GL TEST § INCH {%) Uscs SAMPLEDBY:
26 SM SILTY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained,
ar slightlymoist,mediumdense
27 28
28 a0
Slightlymoist,mediumdense
i Hen 8.7 % Passing #200 sieve = 32
32 a3
34 35
a8 so Slightlymoist,mediumdense
37 as
39 40
Slightly moist, medium dense “ sem 73 %Passing#200sieve=27 42 43
44 45
46 I Slightly moist, medium dense
47 48
49 50 11521 Slightly moist, dense
TotalDepth=50°,No caving,No groundwater
Rail Fyniaration Cn Ine 1604
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-12
Date: 7124120 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company :_-'O"""n"'"''-.....,. ay D ..... ri""lli na...__ Type of Rig: CME 85 Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weiqht: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" El evation: 1 588 i
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS ORY I MOISTURE SOIL I GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY __fil__ TEST 6 INCH (•lo) uses I SAMPLED BY. GL
1 ML J SANDY SILT: Very pale brown, dry, medium dense
2 3 8110112 109.8 5.0
4 SM I SIL TY SAND: Light brown. fine to medium grained, dry medium dense
5 6 618/1 2 107.1 I 36 Dry medium dense
7 I
8 9
I
10 I
11 x 61818
I Fine to coarse grained. dry, medium dense
12 13
14 15
16 x 10/10110 J Fine to medium grained, slightly moist. medium dense I
17 I 18
I I
19 20 l
21 ~x 6i6/10
I Fine to coarse grained, slightly moist, medium dense
22 l
23 24 I
25 x 1or10n
I Fine to coarse grained, slightly moist, medium dense
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
So il F x n lnr:.t inn Cn .. lnr:.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-12
Date: Project No._2096-01 _ Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 85 Hole Diameter: 8" Drive Weight: 140 Ibs. Drop: 30° — Elevation:
DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS pay MOISTURE c SON ON GEOTECHNICALDESCRIPTION fleet TEST 8 INCH %) uscs SAMPLEDBY: GL
’ ML SANDY SILT: Very pale brown, dry, medium dense
2 3 sionz | 109.8 5.0
“ SM SILTY SAND: Lightbrown,fineto mediumgrained,dry
mediumdense
[]
- ne NO I Dry medium dense
7 8
8 10
7 J. Fine tocoarse grained,dry,mediumdense
12 13
14 18
16 — Fine to medium grained, slightlymoist, medium dense 17 18
19 20
21 610 Fine to coarse grained, slightly moist, medium dense 22 23
24 28 - Fine to coarse grained, slightly moist, medium dense Soll Exnloration Cn.. Inc.
TotalDepth=25',Nocaving,No groundwater
1605
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-13
Date: 7/24/20 Project No. 2096-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig: CME 75
H oe I o· 1ameter: 8" D rive . W e1g . ht 140 lb s. D rop: 30" El evat1on: 1 60 5± I DEPTH TYPE SAMPLE BLOWS ORY I MOISTURE SOIL I GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICA TlON I LOGGED BY _QL_ TEST 6 INCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY G l
1 I SM I SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, dry, I loose 2 I Fine to medium grained, dry, loose 3 x 31212 4.8
4 5
6 x 5/3/3 3.7 Fine to medium grained, dry, loose
7 8 I
9 I 10
11 x 619'10 I Fine to coarse grained, dry, medium dense I 12
13 14
15 16 x 5nl9 Fine to coarse grained, dry, medium dense
17 18
19 20
21 C>< 6/12/1 4 Fine to coarse grained, dry, medium dense 22 23
24 I
25 IX 8/8/17
Fine to coarse grained, dry, medium dense
Total Depth= 25', No caving, No groundwater
~nil Fxnlor~tinn Co .. Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-13
Date: 7/24/20 Project No._ 2006-01
Drilling Company: One Way Drilling Type of Rig:___CME 75 Hole Diameter: _8" Drive Weight: 140Ibs Drop: Elevation:
DEPTH | TYPE | SAMPLE | BLOWS DRY MOISTURE cLASSOGATION GEOTECHNICALDESCRIPTION (feet) OF TEST PER LOGGEDBY: __GlL, TEST 6INCH (4) uscs — SAMPLEDBY:
4 SM SILTY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, dry, lvose
2 3 22 48 Fine to medium grained, dry, loose
4 5
6 sa 37 Fineto mediumgrained,dry,loose
7 8
9 10
1" 6/0010 Fineto coarsegrained,dry,mediumdense
12 13
14 15
18 — Fine to coarsegrained,dry,mediumdense
17 18
19 20
21 6112/14 Fine to coarse grained, dry, medium dense
24 25 8/817 Fine to coarse grained, dry, medium dense
Knil Fxnloration Co. Inc.
Total Depth= 25’, No caving, No groundwater
1606
APPENDIX APPENDIX CC
1607
SIEVE SIZE
3/8"
No. 4
No. 8
No. 16
No. 30
No. 50
No. 100
No. 200
SIEVE SIZE
3/8"
No. 4
No. 8
No. 16
No. 30
No. 50
No. 100
No. 200
SIEVE SIZE
3/8"
No. 4
No. 8
No. 16
No. 30
No. 50
No. 100
No. 200
Soil Exploration Co., Inc.
Cactus Avenue (Parcels A, B, & E)
City of Moreno Valley, CA 92555
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
B-1 @5' B-1 @15' B-1 @30'
% PASSING % PASSING % PASSING
100 100 100
100 100 99
99 98 99
97 93 97
94 88 95
89 ' 83 85
80 74 64
62 58 44
SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST DATA
B-6@35' B-11 @ 5' B-11 @20'
% PASSING % PASSING % PASSING
100 100 100
99 98 93
98 90 80
95 76 69
93 61 58
88 46 46
76 32 33
54 21 23
SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST DATA
B-11 @40'
% PASSING
100
96 88 I
72 60 I
47 35
27 I
SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST DATA
Project No. 2096-01
B-6@5'
% PASSING
100
100
99 97
93 87
78 65
B-11@ 30'
% PASSING
100
96 88
77 66
53 42
32 Appendix C
Project No, 2086-01
Cactus Avenue (Parcels A, B, & E)
City of Moreno Valley, CA 92555
LABORATORYTESTRESULTS
SIEVE SIZE B1@5%’ B-1 @15’ B-1@ 30’ B6@§&
% PASSING % PASSING % PASSING % PASSING
378" 100 100 100 100
No. 4 100 100 99 100
No. 8 99 98 99 89
No. 16 97 93 97 87
No. 30 94 88 95 93
No. 50 89 83 85 87
No. 100 80 74 64 78
No. 200 62 58 44 65
SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST DATA
SIEVE SIZE B-6 @ 35’ B-11@5' B-11 @ 20’ B-11 @ 30’
% PASSING % PASSING % PASSING % PASSING
3/8” 100 100 100 100
No. 4 99 98 93 96
No. 8 98 80 80 88
No. 16 95 76 69 77
No. 30 93 81 58 66
No. 50 88 48 46 53
No. 100 76 32 33 42
No. 200 54 21 23 32
SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST DATA
SIEVE SIZE B-11 @ 40’
% PASSING
3/8" 100
No. 4 96
No. 8 88
No. 16 72
No. 30 60
No. 50 47
No. 100 35
No. 200 27
SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST DATA
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Appendix C
1608
v1ro - Chem Inc.
9115e- Tei 9091 590·5905 Fax 1909) 590-5907
LABORATORY REPORT
CUSTOMER: Soil Exploration Company
7535 Jurupa Ave. , Suite C
Riverside , CA 92504
Tel: (909)374-5429 E- Mail: [email protected]
?ROJSCT : Pacific Investments
MATRIX : sor::.,
I 2096-01
SAMPLING DATE : 07/28/20
REPORT ':'O : Mr. GENE !< . I...Ut:
SAMPLE ::::.C.: B-2 @ 0-2
PARAMETER SAMPLE RESULT
RESISTIV:TY 6330
$l,;LFAT!-~ ?0 . 0
CHLORIDF. 45.0
UNIT
OHMS- CM
mgL K_
mg/i\ •
DATE RECEIVED :07/28/?0
JATE AXALYZED :07/28&30/20
JATE REPORTED :07/30/20
LAB i . D.: 200728-3
TEST
PQL DF METHOD
100000" CALTRANS
10 F:PA _C303f!
i O EPA 9253
~-.. "-: ~6 ··HLUNIT EPA 9045C
COMMENTS
c= = DILUTION FACTOR
PQL = PRACTICAL QUANTI~ATION LIMIT
ACT;AL DETBC~TON MT m ~. X PQL
rrg/l(g - :--11:.r.IGRAM J?F'R KI:.OGRAM -= ?l':-i
OHMS C~ = OHMS-CEKTi~E~ER
RES!S~:V:TY = CO~ UC~I~IT~
• = HIGH !.::::M::::T
pH ANALYSIS CONDUCTE:D ON l: 1 S [. ' ~ J,, .•· : I ... , ER !::X1'RAC'l'ION , I DA'~ !-. i{EV::: ENEC AND 7'.PPROVED BY: .. ~ 1.
CAL-DHS ELA? CERTI21CA':'E No .: ~5 5
Enviro - Chem, Inc.
torr Lexngror Avgue Bamanz TA 91744 Tey 1909) 590-5905 Fax (909) 590-5907
LABORATORY REPORT
CUSTOMER: Soll Exploration Company
7535 Jurupa Ave., Suite C
Riverside, CA 92504
Tel: (909) 374-5429 E-Mail: [email protected]
PROJECT: Pacific Investments / 2096-01
MATRIX: SOIL DATE RECEIVED:07/28/20
SAMPLING DATE:07/28/20 DATE ANALYZED:07/28&30/20
REPORT TO:Mr. GENE XK. LUU DATE REPORTED:07/30/20
SAMPLE I.D.: B-2 @ 0~2' LAB I.D.: 200728-
TEST
PARAMETER SAMPLE RESULT UNIT PQL DF METHOD
RESISTIVITY Ed * - I CALTRANS
SULFATE 20.0 _ma/lK. 10 FPA _9038
CHLORIDE 45.0 ma/K: 10 . EPA 9253
Pa Co 7.86 ~H/UNIT ~~ EPA 9045C
COMMENTS
DF = DILUTION FACTOR
PQL = PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT
ACTJAL DETECTION LIMIT = Dt X PQL
mg/Kg = MILLIGRAM PER KILOGRAM = PPM
CHMS-CM = OHMS-CENTIMETER
RESISTIVITY = 1/CONDUCTIVITY
* = HIGH LIMIT
pH ANALYSIS CONDUCTED ON 1:1 SiBT/ff Liv iUii- wd ER EXTRACTION DATA REVIEWED ANC APPROVED BY: _ %/.
CAL-DHS ELAP CERTIFICATE No.: 15358
1609
Fnvlfo - Chem, Inc
'"I .,, CA • 6 Tel 909J 590 5905 Fax (909) 590-5907
LABORATORY REPORT
CUSTO'."IER : Soil Exploration Company
7535 Jurupa Ave. , Suite c
Riverside , CA 92504
Tel: (909) 374-5429 E-Mail: [email protected]
PROJf:.Cr: Pacific Investments
:-1ATRIX :sor:.
I 2 0 96-01
SAMPLING DATE : 07/28/20
R~PORT TO ~r . GENE K. LUu
SAMPLE I . D.: B-10 @ o-s·
PARAMETER SAMPLE RESULT
RESISTiv:::·ry J 1:
su:..:A'!'E 1~. .
CH:.ORIDE '-.
'nlIT
OHMS-CM
tidl I,·:
_lll.L'.l....~:
DATE RECSIVED : 07/28/20
JATE ANALYZED:07/28&30/20
JATE RE?ORTED:07/30/20
LAB:.~ : 200728-4
PQL OF
lCO~
1 I
] l
TEST
METHOD
EPA 9038
EPA 9253
rl -: . ., ·1 _.:_,H/U" I':' F.PA 9045C
COMMENTS
~F = DILUTION FACTO~
?C- ~ ?RACTIC.l\L QUAN'l'ITl\TION LTMI'I'
ACTUAL DETECTION LIM!'!' = Df X ?QI.
mg/Kg=- ~ll.LTGRAM PER K:lOGR!,).1 - ??M
OHMS-CM = OHMS-CENTIMETER
RESIST1VITY = l/CONJUCT!V!TY
· = HIG!i LlMIT
pH ANALYSIS CONDUCTED ON 1 : 1 S0 .1.·-~ 0N:~~D WATER EXTRACTION / / Dtl.T.ll. REV: EWE::> AND APPROVED BY:----
CA~ OHS ELAP CER~IF!CA7E No .: 1555
Enviro- Chem, Inc.
00d FE Lexnplon Avenue Pomiong CA 31756 Tel (908) 590-5305 Fax (909) §90-5907
LABORATORY REPORT
CUSTOMER: Soil Exploration Company
7535 Jurupa Ave., Suite C
Riverside, CA 92504
Tel: (909) 374-5429 E-Mail: [email protected]
PROJECT: Pacific Investments / 2096-01
MATRIX:SOlL DATE RECEIVED:07/28/20
SAMPLING DATE:07/28/20 DATE ANALYZED:- [28830720
REPORT TO:Mx,GENE K. LQU DATE REPORTED:07/30/20
SAMPLE I. D.: B-10 @ 0~5' LAB I.D.: 200728- 4
TEST
PARAMETER SAMPLE RESULT UNIT PQL DF METHOD
RESISTIVITY = ution QHMS-CM 100000= _-- _ CALTRANS _
SULFATE ds we He pal : EPA 9038
CHLORIDE YR miaibg 1 EPA 9253
gt ] T.4 $.H/UNTIT _ == == EPA 9045C
COMMENTS
DF = DILUTION FACTCR
PCL = PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT
ACTUAL DETECTION LIMIT = DF X PQL
mg/Kg = MILLIGRAM PER KILOGRAM = PPM
OHMS-CM = OHMS-CENTIMETER
RESISTIVITY = 1/CONDUCTIVITY
* = HIGH LIMIT
pH ANALYSIS CONDUCTED ON 1:1 SO.L/iLONIZED WATER EXTRACTION Pe
DATA REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: 77
CAL-DHS ELAP CERTIFICATE No.: 1555
1610
PROJECT No.
DATE:
BORING NO.
R - VALUE
46253
8/5/2020
Pacifica Investments, 7 /31/2020
P.N. 2096-01
DATA SHEET
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: _____ B_r_o_w_n_S_il-'ty'-S_a_n_d ____________ _ ........ - ................................................... ' .... . .. .
ESTIN(fo~~ ;.Qhi:Es ,,. Qr
Mold ID Number
Water added, grams
Initial Test Water,%
Compact Gage Pressure,psi
Exudation Pressure, psi
Height Sample, Inches
Gross Weight Mold, grams
Tare Weight Mold, grams
Sample Wet Weight, grams
Expansion, Inches x lOexp-4
Stability 2,000 lbs {160psi)
Turns Displacement
R-Value Uncorrected
R-Value Corrected
Dry Density, pd
Traffic Index
G.E. by Stability
G. E. by Expansion
Equilibriu m R-Value
Gf =
SPECIMEN ID
a b
1 2
80 60
11.1 9.3
55 3SO
203 413
2.62 2.52
3140 3114
1954 1946
1186 1168
14 32
30 I 61 20 I 37
5.53 4.76
42 64
45 64
123.4 128.5
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA
Assumed: 4.0
1.25 0.56
047
47 by
EXPANSION
4.0 0.37
1.07 Examined & Checked:
0.0% Retained on the
REMARKS: 3/4" Sieve.
c
3 55
8.8 350
756
2.52 3126
1958
1168
49 17 I 30
4.71 70
70 129.1
4.0 0.31
1.63 8 /5/ 20
The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as received from the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of Transportation, State of California, Materials & Research Test Method No 301.
LaBelle Marvin Inc I 2700 South Grand Avenue I Santa Ana, CA 927051 714-546-3468
R-VALUE DATA SHEET LM
LaBelle ~1arvin
PROJECT No. 46253
DATE: 8/5/2020
BORINGNO. PacificaInvestments, 7/31/2020
P.N. 2096-01
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown Silty Sand
e ve 4 6 = » 4 as e a 8 = ba so a a ss moa e a eos sow moa ox N 8 se 8 a e ee 8 4 es se + = 3 oes 8 bos 8 ss oe nos oe ow ose sw R-VALUE TESTINGDATA | CA TEST 301
SPECIMEN ID
a b c
Mold ID Number 1 2 3
Water added, grams 80 60 55
Initial Test Water, % 111 9.3 8.8
Compact GagePressure,psi 55 350 350
ExudationPressure,psi 203 413 756
Height Sample, Inches 2.562 2.52 2.52
Gross Weight Mold,grams 3140 3114 3126
Tare Weight Mold, grams 1954 1946 1958
Sample Wet Weight, grams 1186 1168 1168
Expansion, Inches x 10exp-4 4 32 49
Stability 2,000 lbs (160psi) 30 / 61 20 / 37 17 / 30
Turns Displacement 5.53 4.76 4.71
R-Value Uncorrected 42 64 70
R-Value Corrected 45 64 70
Dry Density, pct 123.4 128.5 129.1
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA
Traffic index Assumed: 40 4.0 4.0
G.E.by Stability 0.56 0.37 0.31
G.E.by Expansion 0.47 1.07 1.63
47 Examined& Checked: 8 /5/ 20
Equilibrium R-Value by
EXPANSION
Gf = 1.25
0.0% Retained on the
REMARKS: 3/4" Sieve.
The data above is based upon processing and testingsamples as received from the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of Transportation,State of California, Materials & ResearchTest Method No. 301.
LaBelle Marvin, Inc. { 2700South Grand1611 Avenue | Santa Ana, CA 92705 | 714-546-3468 u R-VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION
LaBelieM "''"
PROJECT NO
DATE:
BORING NO.
800
]
46753
8 /5/ 2020
Pacifica Investments, 7 /31 /201.0
P.N. 2096-01
700 GOO 500
I 1_; __
1_
REMARKS:
400 ]00 100 100 0
I ._l_'.. I.· I [ 40 - I ----l ---J 80
i;: H 70 z'
~ I 0
::>
~ 30 ---- ' 60
..
... . ' ' ..
::: t z ' . + 1S
x 2.S · "---'- -- so ... . a:
.. ' + > 0
u t
40 30
20 10
o.o.V-.- L I t I I ,. : I .. t I w .
t t.. I . t 1 ~ I o
00 o.s 10 l.S 20 2.S 30 l.S 4.0
COVER TIUCKNESS BY EXPANSION, fl.
• fXUO. T vs E•pan T & R-VALUE vs. EXUO. PRES.
400
50 ..
~
.. <OD
a "'
:::
~
a: 100 0
~ :i;
0 u 100
0 78 88 9.8 108 11.8
MOISTURE("! Al fABlllCAITOH
11 so
11 tM
II z 0
~ 0
::>
x
~ z
0 ~ ~.O ..
x
..
,...
..
E
z
"' u
i
... I • l
~ 2.0 :>
0 u
11 1.0
00 18 8 8 9.8 10.8 ll8
MOISTURE(")
&EXPANSION aCXUOAllON
L
aBelle Mia vin
R-VALUEGRAPHICALPRESENTATION
PROJECT NO. 46253
DATE: 8 /5/ 2020 REMARKS:
BORINGNO. Pacificainvestments, 7/31/2020
P.N.2096-01
COMPACTORPRESSUREvs MOISTURE%
COVER THICKNESSBYEXUDATIONvs COVER THICKNESSBYEXPANSION 800 700 &00 500 400 00 200 100 o
54 100
+ 1 4 . .
45 . - 90
[I i . ' |
f H— H - |
: : : \ Oo ; an . H A Jey
. Lo | . . PENI . . t Lo FT
PE i | 4. li ‘
15 ih
I EE I ETE NI RE IIS
COVERTHICKNESS8YEXUDATION,FT.
||
5 1] . Ce 1 N ,
. - 1 | . - . -
a ' - 0 i H Ps CY : :
{ : by
er - vo LE Fs ro t : oN IRE
1.5 F L 1 H i 0
Co eo. . . Chee _ M r 1 1 T cb [} |
{ | ‘ ‘ NN ESE FER Zul BERR BREESE EERE al El ~N. Lf EE Co . , Co i | . poe NG dO REE SU DERNBEE EE
08 dl : NESE NO. te J RENTRAS EN IPS
TTA
4 ee a
- ee — 8
1 ERD
be BY — + ~~“ I i 1 RR a] IEE J ES I
on i | 1 : Pt : i ir ft 0
a9 05 10 15 in 25 10 15
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION,FT. WMEXUD,T vs. Expan. T AR-VALUEvs.EXUD.PRES. 40 —- _—
10 .— = w Co - . C304 FURUEDUINYIEalies= EEE
SN 2 |. BREENEEEERENEES ES ERS
EE NURS Ao BER _ £ | 2 ONL
A FE BREE No | ¢
SN EEE E BE CHING
8 polio SN SER 5 VERERENYES
In
orto HARE i HE be SEEEE HE IH Po : 0
18 as In 08 51.8 MOISTURE[%] ATFABRICAITOR COVER THICKNESSvs MOISTURE % 50 |
by ' ' I
: Cb
SY : & -! x se 2
F3a
Z 20 8
»
3=z3 ; £
20>8
”
-
| =s
0 3a
1612
Cal Land Engineering, Inc.
dba Quartech Consultants
Geotechnical, Environmental & Civil Engineering
576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, CA 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050, Fax: 714-671-1090 August 14, 2020
Soil Exploration Company Inc.
7535 Jurupa Avenue, Unit C
Riverside, California 92504
Attn: Mr. Gene Luu
RE: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS/REPORT
Client: Pacific Investments
Project No.: 2096-01
QCI Job No.: 20-183-008b
Gentlemen:
We have completed the testing program conducted on sample for above project. The tests were performed in accordance with testing procedures as follows:
Direct Shear: [Figure 1]
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 (QCI)
_____________ __ ____________________________
Jack C. Lee, GE 2153 Giovani Valdivia
Principle Engineer Project Engineer
Cal Land Engineering, Inc.
dba Quartech Consultants
Geotechnical, Environmental & Civil Engineering
August 14, 2020
Soil Exploration Company Inc.
7535 Jurupa Avenue, Unit C
Riverside, California 92504
Attn: Mr. Gene Luu
RE: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS/REPORT
Client: Pacific Investments
Project No.: 2096-01
QCI Job No.: 20-183-008b
Gentlemen:
We have completed the testing program conducted on sample for above project. The tests were performed in accordance with testing procedures as follows:
Direct Shear: [Figure 1]
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 (QCI)
W/o Lee
Jack C. Lee, GE 2153
Principle Engineer
Giovani Valdivia
Project Engineer
576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, CA 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050, Fax: 714-671-1090 1613
Dry Density: 88.4 pcf
QCI Project No.: 20-183-008b
500 9.6 33.3
1000 9.6 32.9
2000 9.6 32.6
8/20
□
Moisture
Content After
Test (%)
N/A N/A RING 210 23
Pacific Investment
ML
SYMBOL
BORING
NO.
SAMPLE
TYPE
SOIL
TYPE
COHESION
(PSF)
FRICTION
ANGLE
(DEG)
Vertical Loads
(PSF)
Moisture
Content
Before Test
(%) 2096-01
DEPTH
(FT)
SAMPLE
NO.
N/A
FIGURE 1
DIRECT SHEAR
(ASTM D3080)
CalLand Engineering, Inc
dba Quartech Consultants
Geotechnical, Environmental & Civil
Engineering Services
Project:
Soils Exploration Co, Inc.
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
Peak
4000
3500
3000
2500
[TH
[72]
a
[7,]
[Ve]
& 2000
ir
S Peak _—] w
& 7
1500
1000 god
=
AT
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
FRICTION
BORING SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL COHESION
SYMBOL ANGLE
NO. NO. (FT) TYPE TYPE (PSF) (DEG)
0 N/A N/A N/A RING ML 210 23
Dry Density: 88.4 pcf
QCl Project No.: 20-183-008b
CalLandEngineering, Inc Project:
Moisture H H
; Soils Exploration Co, Inc. Vertical Loads | Content Moisture dba Quartech Consultants S P (PSF) Before Test Content After | |Gagtechnical, Environmental & Civil Pacific Investment (%) Test (%) Engineering Services 2096-01
500 9.6 33.3
1000 9.6 32.9 DIRECT SHEAR
2000 9.6 32.6 (ASTM D3080)
8/20 FIGURE 1
1614
APPENDIX APPENDIX DD
1615
7117/2020 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters U.S. Geological Survey- Earthquake Hazards Program
2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters
Now Search
2.36 San JaC1'1IO:SB\i+SJV-h CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip
0 16 134
2.36 s~,, Ja:c1~to:SJV-A -CC CA n1a 90 v
strike
slip
0 16 136
2.36 Sa .. 'a/ .. tc~ CA 18 90 strike v slip 0 16 43
2.36 S?~ Jaci~;Q :S '.'•S.'V-A CC-~-s· ~ CA n'a 90 v
strike
slip
0.1 15 241
2.36 Sac JaCi'ljO;SJ\:-A-CC-8 CA n, a 90 v strike
slip 0.1 15 170
2.36 San JacjQto;SBV+SJV-A .. CC-B CA r./a 90 v
strike
slip 0.1 15 21S
2.36 Sil~ t.:;ri..,tc;Sfilb-SJ\~ CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip 0 16 181
2.3E Sati Ja,..in~o;SS\· -s 1v-~-c CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip
0 17 181
2.36 s~n J3d ... to:~ CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip 0 16 88
2.36 Sa" Jaci~to:S., "t- C CA n·a 90 v strike
0 17 136 slip
2.36 S?r'\ acmto;SJV+A CA n·a strike 90 v 0 17 89 slip
2.36 Sar. Jacinto:S.'V-A-CC-tB-SM CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip
0.1 15 196
3.2: ~~r Jac .... :o;6 CA 9 90 v
strike
slip 0 17 71
3 2: Sa~ Jaci ... ~p;A-CC-s CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip 0.1 15 152
3.21 Sa" JacirtoA<C•B+S~ CA nfa 90 v
strike
slip 0.1 15 178
3.21 53-. .. ac.i"tO~ CA n.'a 90 v
strike
slip 0 17 118
3.21 Sar Jafr1to;&.Q; CA n,a 90 v
strike
slip 0 16 ll8
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusionlhazfaults_2008_search/query_results.cfm 1/5 7/17/2020 * . 2008NationalSeismicHazardMaps-SourceParameters U.S.Geological Survey - Earthquake HazardsProgram
2008 NationalSeismic HazardMaps - SourceParameters
haw Search
strike 2.36 San Jacinto;SBVSJV+A CA n/a 20 v slip 0 16 134
2.36 San_tacingo: SIVA CA n/a 30 Vv i 0 16 136
rire ] strike
236 San JaCingiSy CA 18 90 v slip 0 16 43
2.36 SanJacinto:SBYSS VrA+CCR+SM cA n'a 30 v i 0.1 15 241 - strike } 2.36 230 Jacinto:SIV+A-CC+B CA na 90 Vv slip ol 15 170 236 SanJaCintoiSBYSIV=A+CCx cA nla 9% v ne 01 15 21s
’ strike 2.36 San Jacinto:SBY«SJV=A+LC CA n/a 90 Vv slip 0 16 181
2.38 rn 1aCinio:SBY +S J+A CA n/a 80 Vv strike 0 17 181 slip
2.36 into SRY : strike SanJaginto:SBY+SJV CA n/a 80 Vv stip 0 16 88
2.36 -S Veh strike . SagJacinto SVsAC CA nja 50 v slip 0 17 136
2.36 Sap4acinto;SIVA cA na 90 v Se 0 17 89 stip
236 SanJacintoiSIv+A-CCeBrSM cA na % v He 01 15 19
321 Ssn ia CA 9 90 v strike 0 17 n
stip
3.21 n Hal {opt -! " strike San Jacintgia=CC~8 CA n/a 90 Vv lip 0.1 15 152 Crp” , strike ir S80 Jacinto A-CC-B+OM CA n/a 90 Vv slip 0.1 15 hy] au San JacintoA+C cA n/a 90 Vv pi I] 17 118
, strike 32 San Jacipro:A+CC CA n/a 90 v siip 0 16 18
hitps://fearthquake.usgs.goviciusionhaziaulls_2008_search/query_results.cim 1616 7(1712020 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters
8.59 Sa" Jacinp;~ CA 6 90 v strike 0 16 45
slip
13.57 S. Sari "nrh·a<:CC-t-BB+'l~.l·S'.~+"ISB-SS5 · SG+CQ CA n1a 86 strike 0.1
slip
13 449
13.57 S. San Andreas:CC+SB•NM .. 5~1-r.;SE•SSB•BG CA nia 85 strike
slip
0 14 380
: 3.5"' S. s~~ ;,,Q'?•< !""+31'l-""l•S\h'JS6 .. SSB CA n.'a 90 str;ke v
slip
0 14 322
13.57 c:. Sa"
~;CH-CC-BB NM-rSr. -NSB-SSB-BG+CQ nfc 86 strike 0.1 13 512 slip
13.57 S. San r.r:dreas;SSS+BG CA nfa 71
strike
slip
0 13 101
13.57 s. San AOdreas:NSS-SSB-BG-CO CA n/3 79
strike
slip
0.2 12 206
13.5i S. San -<ridreas:NM+SM+NSS+SSB•BG-CO CA n:a 84
strike
slip 0.1 13 340
13.57 s Sa:i !rd•eas:Be-·~ J-S .'-NSB-SSEl-3G+CQ CA n1'a 85 strike
slip
0.1 13 390
13.51 s. San ;r:;i-eas;Bc- . -s !S3-SC:E-3G CA n}a 84 strike slip
0 14 321
13.ST s. Sa:i ..\r veas:B5-'~M-S '.H6!;.-SSe CA r/a 90 v strike
slip
0 14 263
13.57 S. San 6ndreas;SSB+6G-CO CA nfa 77
strike
Slip
0.2 12 170
13.57 s. San AilC'f:iU:ss.6. CA 16 v
strike 90 0 13 43 slip
13.51 s San ~nd·eas SM•NSB+SSB+BG-CO CA n/a 83 strike
slip 0.1 13 303
13.57 s Sen .,rQ·eas;sv-~s2-sss-s;; CA n1a 81 strike
slip 0 13 234
12.57 S s~., ;nc~i;as;s•.~ ... o..;53+553 CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip
0 13 176
13.57 S.San
CA strike
~;PK+CH+CC-BB+NM+S: .. ~l\SS+SSB+BG-·:O n/a 86 0.1 13 548 slip
13.57 ~
jrgr .. as;PK-C '-1-CC-BB+N '.hS!M tJ,SS~sss+eG CA r./a 86 strike slip
0.1 13 479
13.57 S. San Aogreas;PK•CH .. CC+BB-NM .. SM+f\JSB+SSB CA n/a 90 strike v
slip 0.1 13 421
13.57 s. S?" .:.ri;;;•eas:t\Se-sss-eG CA n1a 75 str1ke
slip
0 14 136
13.57 S San ~nd·eas:NSf:.-555 CA n/a 90 v
str:ke
slip
0 13 79
13.s~ S. San ~nd~eas:N'.'~$~.·~~:$3-SSB•BG CA n/a 83 strike 0 14 271 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfus1onfhazfaults_2008_search/query_ results.cfm 215 7/17/2020 2008NationalSeismicHazardMaps -SourceParameters 8:59 SanJacinto;SBV cA 6 90 v stk @ 16 45
slip
strike . 13.57 {CL+BB+NM-SM-NSB-+SSB+BG+ ca n/a 86 slip [18] 13 449 strike
13.57 5 AndreasTCeBB-NM+SMeNSB+SSBrBG San A ne 8s i 1 380 strike
1357 S530Andreas:CC4BR-NM-SMrNSA-SSA CA na 90 vo TE 0 1 a ssn strike
.. 512
1.57 Andreas;CH+CC+BB-NM+SM+NSB-S$8+BG+CO cA na 8 slip od 3 1357 S520Andreas:SSB+BG cA nis 7 oe 0 13 101
1357 §.SanAndreasiNSB-SSBSBC.CO A ne 79 on 02 12 206
1357 5 AndreasNMeSMeNSB+SSBBG-CO San a na 84 a 01 3 240 1357S Son Andreas:BBeNM-SMeNSBSSBeBG+CO A na 85 01 13 290
13.57 San BE~NM+SH + ~ + CA va 84 strike [+} 14 21 slip
13.57 1235; +S +NS B= CA r/a 90 Vv strike [+] 14 263
slip
Tik 1357 5.Sa0Andreas:SSB+BGACO A 7 oh ® 02 12 170
1357 5.SanAndreas:SSB cA 18 9 v ne 0 13 a
13.57 5.5an Andreas:SMeNSB+ - cA n/a 83 Toe 0.1 13 03
1357 S.5anAngreas;SMenSBSSBeBG cA na 81 ne 0 13 234
1357 §.5anAndreas:SHoNS34SSE CA na 90 v ria 0 13 178
S.5an strike 57
13 Andreas;PKCHCCrBRINMISMENSBISSBBGCO n/a od slip ot B - . 5.San strike 13.57 PK CH-CC BR NM SIs NSB+5SEs CA n/a 86 slip 0.1 bk} 478 1357 S.SanAndreasiPHeCHsCCoBB-NMeSMINSBSSSECA n/a 9% v pe 0.1 13 a 1357 5 AndreasNSBeSSBBG San A na 7s a 0 1 13
1357 5 .SanApdreasNSB-SS8 CA na 50 v ri 0 13 1
13.57 reas:HM SM+ +88 8+ CA n/a £83 strike 0 14 7
hitps:/iearthaguake.usgs.govicfusion/hazfaults_2008_ssarchiquery_results.cfm1617 7/1 7/2020 2008 National Seism c Hazard Maps - Source Parameters slip
13.57 S. Sa., ~rcreas:N'-'•S'.'+NS8 .. SSS CA nia 90 v strike shp
0 13 213
13.57 S, Sqn .:.roreas;C'"t+CC•BB•NM- SM-!\.!S6•SS3•3G CA ~fa 86 strike
slio
0 14 442
13.57 S $?r • .:.nd·eas:CH·CC •BB-1\;M-SM·NSB+SSB CA ri/a 90 strike
v
slip
0 14 384
16.87 5. Sa,. Anc•eas:~ CA 22 90 v stri~e
slip
0 13 35
16.87 S. S:n Anci•eas:Po<<"i•CC-Bs-·~. ·S'-'·~;SQ CA n1'a 90 v strike
slip
0.1 13 377
16.87 5. S-?~ Ar-:reas::9"""'~'-"·S· •..-f\!SE CA n'a 90 v strike
slip
0 14 220
16.87 S Sa" A"dreas:SM+NSS CA n/a 90 v Strike
slip 0 13 133
16.87 S. Sar· Andrtas:CC•BB·NM -,5 11.•-~1SB CA r/a 90 v strike
slip 0 14 279
16.87 S. San Aodreas:CH CC+BB•NM-S'.HJSB CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip
0 14 341
16.87 S San Aodreas:NM·S1
.!•NS6 CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip
0 13 170
19.83 ~;~ CA 5 90 v
strikQ
shp
0 13 37
l9.S3 i's• 1'0'?:W-Go CA Dia 81 NE strike
slip
0 14 83
19.85 ~:W·Gl-T CA nia 84 NE strike
slip 0 14 124
19.85 Ets;1:re;~ CA s 90 v
strike
s!ip
0 14 78
19.SS ='s ~o~e~G'·T· .. CA o/a 86 NE strike
sup
0 17 153
19.85 ~.~-"'!)re·Gl-1"- CH CA nla 86 NE strike
slip
0 16 195
19.SS E'" ,..~ .. ,.. \•V- G ·-~,. CA a.la 84 stri~e NE slip 0 16 199
19.SS Els'nore:W-GI• T-x .. CM CA o/a 84 NE strike
slip
0 16 241
20.72 S. San ..\pdreas:~ CA o/a 58
strike
slip 0 13 56
20.72 S San Ardreas;~ CA n1 a 72
strike
slip 0.3 12 125
21.20 lli.:.:lQre:~ CA nla 86 NE strike 0 17 127
slip
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_results.cfm 3/5 TH712020 2508NationalSsismicHazardMaps-SourceParameters slip
13.57 S. Andreas; San NM-SMNSB». cA n/a 90 vy Ske 12 213 slip
) strike 13.57 5. Andreas: San CH-CC+ M + CA n/a 86 slip 0 18 442 ~ strike 13.57 S.San Andreag:.CH+CC+BB-NM+SM+NSB+SS8 CA nfa 80 Vv stip 0 14 384
16.87 5.SanAndreas:NSB cA 2 30 v a 0 13 25
16.87 +CHeCCBRANMESMH cA nia %0 v nn 0.1 13 mn
strike 16.87 S$.5an Andreas:B8+NM+SU-NSR CA n/a 80 Vv slip 0 14 20 strike 16.87 5. San Andreas;SM+NSB CA n/a 2 \J ship 0 n 133 strike 16.87 5. San Andreas;CCrBRyNM+SM+NSB CA r/a 20 Vv slip 0 14 bg
16.87 5.SanAndreas:CH+CC+BBYNM+SM-NSR ca n/a 30 v i 0 14 M1 - strike } 16.87 £, SanAndraas;NM+SMPNSB CA na 90 v stip 0 3 ito 1983 ElsinoreGl ca 5 50 v po 0 13 37
, strike A 18.83 Elsinore:W+Gi CA n/a 81 NE slip 0 14 a
18.85 Elsinore;W+GieT . strike N CA n/a 84 NE ” 0 14 124 Pp
a strike 19.85 Elsinore;Gi=T CA 5 80 v slip 0 14 78
ee strike 19.85 Elsinore:Gl+T+) CA n/a 86 NE slip [J 17 153 Elsi . . strike 19.85 Elsinore:GleT+ CM CA n/a 86 NE slip 0 16 195 } 8 strike 19.85 Elsinore: W-GI~T-, CA nja 84 NE slip ] 16 198 NN strike 19.85 Elsinorg;W+GI-T- CM ca n/a 84 NE slip 0 16 241
20.72 S.8an Andreas;BG CA n/a 58 a. 0 13 56
’ strike 20.72 S.5anAndreas;BG+CO ca n/a 7” slip 0.3 12 125
21.20 Elsinore:T+) Cx n/a 86 NE strike 0 17 127
slip
hiips://sarthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/nazfaults_2008_search/query_results.cim 1618 711712020 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters
21.20 ~::::: CA 5 90 v
strike
slip
0 14 52
21.20 ~;7•J-CM CA n1a 85 NE strike
slip
0 16 169
24.:6 ~.E,l CA 65 sv.
strike
slip
0 14 29
24.67 C!.(i!Oj)IC.~Q CA 5 45 N thrust 0 8 28
25.L.5 ~:"11 CA 2.5 75 NE str;ke
slip
0 14 46
25.54 Chj,..a.kl.l CA l 50 SW
strike
0 9 24
slip
25.67 ~g~ CA 3 90 v
Str1i<e
slip
0 16 25
27.03 =>in~o Mtn CA 2.5 90 v
strike
slip
0 16 74
28.69 •Jc-;h cr::Na ~ CA 49 s reverse 0 16 50
33.57 ~ CA 0.5 74
strike
NW
slip
0 15 20
34.66 l-lelendale-So 1 ockn1Jrt CA 0.6 90 v
strike
slip
0 13 114
35.80 S San Ar.dreas;~ CA nfa 90 v
str;ke
slip 0 14 134
35.80 S 'an A.rdreas;BB-Nv-sr.,~ CA n,'a 90 v
str;ke
slip
0 14 184
35.80 S. San Andreas:CH~CC+BB-NM•S\1 CA 11a 90 v
strike
slip
0 14 306
35.SO S. San !r.dreas~P~-C-l-:C+BS•NJ/,• $\., CA n1a 90 v strike
slip
0.1 13 342
35.SO 5. S?"' !..,..,d'eas:CC-96-N>-•-S". 1 CA n/a 90 v S!rike
slip
0 14 243
35.80 S. San Af'ld"eas:SM CA 29 90 v
strike
slip
0 13 98
35.83 Non.ti F'ron:vl ~ CA 0.5 41 s thrust 0 16 27
36.44 s·e•ra '·'aon• Co,,~ecteo CA 2 51 reverse 0 14 76
36.44 S:erra Madre CA 2 53 N reverse 0 14 57
36.73 ~~ CA 0.5 23 SW thrust 2 13 27
4:l.24 ~;J-;'.'.I CA 3 84
striKe NE
slip
0 17 118
40.24 ~;,!. CJ.. 3 84 NE strike
slip
0 19 75
https:J/earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_results.cfm 4/5 T117/2020
21.20 220
24.16 24.87
25.45 25.67
27.03 28.69
33.57 34.66
35.80 35.80
35.80 35.80
35.80 36.44
36.44 36.73
40.24 40.24
Elsinore:T
Elsinore;T+J+CM
Lucamanga
Elsinore
Ching.atl
Sleghom
Merth Frontal Weer’
S.5an AndeeagiNM+SM
S.San Andreas:BB-NM-SM
+CCrBR+NM+
3. Andreas:PR-CH+CI+BR«NI-GM 5an
4.San Andreas; CC+RB-NM-SM
S.San Andreas:Sid
North Frontal (East!
San JoaquinHills
Elsinore, 4CM
Elsiqgre:s
2008NationalSeismicHazardMaps-SourceParameters
CAcc £2 2
¢
S
n/a
25 25
0.5 0.6
nfa
n/a
nfa
n/a
n/a
29 0.5
05 hitps:/iearthquake.usgs.govicfusionhazfauits_2008_search/query_results.cfm 80 45
78 49
74 a
51 NE
NE
NW
NE
NE
strike
slip
strike
slip
strike
slip
thrust
strike
slip
strike
slip
strike
slip
strike
slip
reverse
strike
slip
strike
stip
strike
slip
strike
slip
slip
strike
slip
strike
stip
strike
stip
thrust
reverse
reverse
thrust
strike
slip
strike
slip
0.1 1
15 14
14 16
16 16
14 14
14 16
14 14
13 17
19 52
169
25 bl}
24 23
74 114
184
306
342
243
1 76
57 7
18 75
1619
7/17/2020 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters
40.75 P•iep:~ f'. s 1:::cy~ CA 0.7 26 N thrust 2.8 15 17 4:.22 '."n1.,coC .o~i<ha<J-Old woman SQ!ing~ CA 0.9 90
strike
v
slip
0 13 145
!4.C4 2Jrnt J.~ .... CA 0.6 67 w
strike
slip
0 16 21
45.48 Cla,..,sherl.Sa\\ ~ CA 0.5 50 NW reverse 0 14 16
45.83 Landers c;, 0.& 90 v
strike
shp
0 15 95
46.05 ~QQ!l.!nglewood Connected alt l CA 1.3 89
strike
slip
0 11 208
46.05 ~;{;;'i··"g~ o~shore CA 1.5 90
strike v slip 0 10 66
46.05 ::!!fi...;:c-1;"'!ge·.-1ol"':: Crv ... r-:er!e.;1~-'2 CA 13 90 v strike
slip
0 11 208
46.20 E~rf><? P,;a" CA C.6 90 v
strike
siip
0 15 19
46.75 Sa~ Jacjrto:CW CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip
0.2 14 77
46.75 sa~ Jacl:'lto:" CA 4 90 v
strike
shp 0 16 43
46.75 Sa~ J"c;nto;CC~B~C::M CA n/a 90 v
strike
slip
0.2 14 103
.!7.17 sa~ .aci--t.::C CA 14 90 v
strike
slip
0 17 41
48.60 . onnso.., Vai.e)'_ /:.!Q CA 0.6 90 v strike
slip 0 16 35
49.15 tlmRQ..!::t:!ag~ • .2.GJ. CA 1 88
strike
slip
0 15 65
49.40 "us;nt~ Hi!,~ SaMc ~ .. S;;r·r:g$ CA 0.7 29 N thrust 2.8 15 11 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_results.cfm 515 7/17/2020
40.75 4228
45.83 46.05
46.05 46.05
46.20 46.75
46.75 48.75
47.17 48.60
49.15 49.40
Fuente Hills (LoyoreHills!
Burnt Min
Clamshell-Sawpit
Landers
Newport Inglewood Connected ait1
Newpgrt-inglev.ood ‘Offshore:
NewportIngiewiood Connecteg aid
EurekaPeaj
San Jginte:CC+8
San Jcinto:CC
2/ALCINQCCIBYSN
Pe . ~
Newgort-Inglewgod. alt]
PuenteHilig (Santa FeSprings!
2008NationalSeismicHazardMaps~SourceParameters
CA
CA
0.7 0.9
0.6 0.5
0.6 13
15 13
06 n/a
n/a
14 0.6
0.7 hips/fearthquake.usgs.gov/clusion/haziauits_2008_search/query_results.cfm 26 20
50 83
90 20
90 90
N
NW
thrust
strike
slip
strike
slip
reverse
strike
slip
strike
slip
strike
slip
slip
strike
slip
strike
slip
strike
slip
slip
strike
stip
slip
strike
slip
thrust
2.8 0.2
0.2 28
16 14
10 11
14 16
14 17
16 17
145
16 95
208
12 43
103
47 35
65 11
1620
'SWC ot cactus Ave. & Redlands Blvd.
Moreno Valley, California
CBC (2019) Seismic Parameters
The CBC 2019 update is tabulated as follows
Pro1ect No. 2096-01
August12, 2020
2019 CBC- SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Site Coordinates Latitude I Longitude
I 33.9111 I -117.1593
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Ss = 2.046 S1 = 0.811 Site Coefficients (Class " D") Fa=1.00 Fv = 1.7
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) SMs = 2.046 SM1 = 1.379 Spectral Response Acceleration Design Spectral Response Acceleration Sos = 1.364 So1 = 0.919 Parameters Seismic Design Category E
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.864
Site amplification factor at PGA 1.1
Site modified peak ground 0.95 acceleration (PGAM)
• Earthqua1<e.usgs.gov/resea1 ch/haz.maps/design
• 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations. Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads
Soil Exploration Co. Inc.
BWC of Cactus Ave. & Redlands Blvd.
MorencValley,California
Project No. 2096-01
August 12, 2020
CBC (2019) SeismicParameters
The CBC 2019 update is tabulated as follows:
2019CBC- SEISMICPARAMETERS
. Latitude Longitude
Site Coordinates 33.9111 117.1593
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration S, = 2.046 $+ =0.811 Site Coefficients (Class “D") Fa=1.00 Fe=17
Spectral Response Acceleration
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Sus= 2.046 Su = 1.379 Design Spectral Response Acceleration
acceleration (PGAM)
Parameters Sos=1.364 Spi = 0.918
Seismic Design Category E
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.864
Site amplification factor at PGA 11
Site modified peak ground 0.95
s Earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design
s 2019CaliforniaBuildingCode,CaliforniaCodeof Regulations,Title24,Part 2, Volume2 of 2, Section1613,EarthquakeLoads
SoilExplorationCo.Inc.
1621
APPENDIX APPENDIX EE
1622
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 gradi'lg 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 approveo 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 1n a quality of work less than required in these specifications. the consultant will be empowered t:> 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 01557-09.
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 fill shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which 1s not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall conbnue 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, dned-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. Appendix E-1
GENERALEARTHWORKANDGRADINGSPECIFICATIO!
10 G6 INTE!
These specificationspresentgeneralproceduresandrequirements for gradingandearthwork as shownon the approvedgradingplans,including preparationof areas tobefilled,placementof fill,installations of subdrains,andexcavations. Therecommendations containedin thegeotechnical 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 specificationsortherecommendationsofthegeotechnicalreport. 20 EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONSANDTESTING
Priortothecommencementofgrading,aqualifiedgeotechnicalconsultant(soilsengineerandengineeringgeologist,andtheirrepresentatives)shall beemployedforthepurposeof observingearthworkproceduresandtestingthefillsfor conformancewiththerecommendationsofthegeotechnical reportandthesespecifications. 1twillbenecessary thattheconsultantprovideadequatetestingandobservationssothathemaydeterminethatthe workwasaccomplishedasspecified. It shallbetheresponsibilityofthecontractorioassisttheconsultantandkeephimapprisedof workschedules andchangessothathemayschedulehispersonne!accordingly.
Itshallbethesoleresponsibilityof thecontractortoprovideadequateequipmentandmethodstoaccomplishtheworkinaccordancewithapplicable gradingcodesor agencyordinances,thesespecificationsandapprovedgradingplans. If,intheopinionoftheconsultant,unsatisfactoryconditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture conditions, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, efc., are resulting in a quality of work leas than required in these specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped uni the unsatisfactoryconditionsarerectified.
Maximum dry density tests usedto determine the degree of compactionwillbe performedin accordance with the AmericanSociety of Testing and Materials,testmethodASTMD1557.09.
30 PREPARATIONOFAREASTOBEFILLED
3.1 ClearingandGrubbing
Allbrush,vegstation,anddebrisshallberemovedorpiledandotherwisedisposedof. 32 Processing
The existinggroundwhichisdeterminedto besatisfactory for support offill shallbe scarifiedto aminimumdepth of 6inches, Existing ground which is notsatisfactory shallbeoverexcavatedas specifiedin the followingsection. Scarificationshall continueuntil the soils are broken down andfree of largeclaylumpsorclodsanduntiltheworkingsurfaceisreasonablyuniformandfreeofunevenfeatureswhichwouldinhibituniformcompaction. 33 Overexcavation
Soft,dry,spongy,highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground,extending fosuch depththat surfaceprocessing cannot adequately improve the condition,shaltbeoverexcavateddownIofirmground,approvedbythaconsultant. 34 MoistureConditioning
Overexcavatedandprocessedsoilsshallbewatered,dried-back,blended,and/ormixed,asrequiredtoattainauniformmoisture contentnear optimum.
35 Recompaction
Overexcavation andprocessed soils which have been properly mixed andmoisture-conditioned shallbe recompacted to a minimum relative compactionof90percent.
SoilExploration Co., Inc. AppendixE-1
1623
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 lec:st 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 MA TE RIAL
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 v.ith 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 nesbng 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 specifcally 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
Approved fill matenal 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 shal be adequately sized and shall be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficienUy achieve the specified degree of compaction.
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Appendix E-2
36 Benching
Where fills are to beplacedongroundwith slopes steeper than5:1(horizontal: vertical), thegroundshallbe steppedor benched.
Thelowestbenchshallbeaminimumof15feetwide,shallbeatleast2feetdeep,shallexposefirmmaterials,andshallbeapproved by theconsultant. Otherbenchesshallbeexcavatedinfirmmaterialsforaminimumwidthof4feel. Groundslopingfiatterthan5:1 {horizontal: vertical)shallbebenchedorotherwiseoverexcavatedwhenconsiderednecessarybytheconsultant. 37 Approval
Allareas foreceivefill,includingprocessedareas,removalareas and toe-of-fillbenches shallbeapprovedby the consultantpriorto fillplacement.
40 FILLMAT
41 General
Materialtobe placed as fill shallbe freeof organic matter and other deteterious substances, and shall beapprovedby the consultant.
Soilsof poor gradation,expansion,or strengthcharacteristicsshallbeplacedinareasdesignatedby consultantor shallbemixed with other soils toserve assatisfactory fill material.
4.2 versize
Oversizematerialsdefinedasrock,orotherirreduciblematerialwithmaximumdimensiongreaterthan12inches,shallnotbeburied orplacedin fills,unlessthelocation,materials,anddisposalmethodsarespecificallyapprovedbytheconsultant. Oversizedisposal operations shall be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surroundedby compactedor densifiedfill. Oversizematerialshailnotbeplacedwithin10feetverticallyoffinishgradeorwithinthe rangeoffutureutilitiesorundergroundconstruction,unlessspecificallyapprovedby theconsuitant. 43 import
ifimportingoffillmaterialisrequiredforgrading,theimportmaterialshallmeettherequirementsofSection4.1. $.0 FILL PLACEMENT andCOMPACT
51 FillLifts
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 thoroughlymixedduringspreadingtoattainuniformityofmaterialandmoistureineachlayer. §.2 FillMoisture
Fill layers at a moisture content less than opimum shall be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers shall be aerated by scarification or shallbe blendedwith drier material. Moistureconditioningandmixingof fill layers shallcontinueuntil the fill materialisatauniformmoisturecontentatornearoptimum.
53 CompactionofFill
After each layer hasbeen evenly spread,moisture-conditionad,andmixed,it shallbe uniformly compactedtonotless than90 percentofmaximumdrydensity. Compactionequipmentshalbeadequatelysizedandshallbeeitherspecificallydesignedforsol compactionorofprovenreliability,toefficientlyachievethespecifieddegreeofcompaction.
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. AppendixE-2
1624
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 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed 1n 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 consultan~ 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 othel"Wlse 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 01557-09 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
54 Fill Slopes
Compactingof slopes shallbeaccomplished,inadditiontonormalcompactingprocedures,bybackrofiingof slopes withsheepsfoot rollers at frequentincrements of 2to3feetin fill elevationgain,or byother methods producing satisfactory results. At thecompletion of grading,therelative compactionof theslope out to theslope face shallbeatleast 90 percent.
8.5 orm, Tastin
Fieid-tests fo check the fill moisture and degree of compaction wilbe performed by the consultant. The locationand frequencyof testsshallbeattheconsultant'sdiscretion. Ingeneral,thetestswillbetakenatintervalsnotexceeding2feetinverticalriseand/or 4,000cubic yardsofembankment.
6.0 SUBORAININSTALLATION
Subdrainsystems,if required, shallbeinstalledinapprovedgroundtoconformto theapproximatealignmentanddetailsshownon fheplansorherein. Thesubdrainlocationor materialsshallnotbechangedormodifiedwithouttheapprovaloftheconsultant.The consultant,however,mayrecommendanduponapproval,directchangesinsubdrainline,gradeormaterial. Allsubdrainsshouldbe surveyedforlineandgradeafterinstallationandsufficienttimeshailbeallowedforthesurveys,priortocommencementof fillingover thesubdrain.
70 VATIO
Excavationsandcutslopeswillbeexaminedduringgrading. Ifdirectedbytheconsultant,furtherexcavationoroverexcavationand refillingof cutareasshallbeperformed,and/orremedialgradingof cutslopesshallbeperformed. Wherefill-over-cutslopesareto be graded,unlessotherwiseapproved,thecut portionof theslope shallbemadeand approvedby the consultantprior toplacement of materials for constructionof the fill portion of theslope.
8.0 TRENCHBACKFILLS
Trenchexcavationsforutilitypipesshallbebackfilledunderengineeringsupervision, Aftertheutility pipehas been laid, the space under and around thepipe shallbebackfilled with clean sand or approvedgranular soit to a depth of atleast one foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfillshallbeuniformly jetted into place before thecontrolled backfill is placed over the sand.
The onsitematerials,or other soils approvedby the soilengineer,shallbe watered andmixedas necessarypriorio placementinlifts overthe sandbackfill,
The controlledbackfillshallbe compacted to at least 90percentof the maximum dry density as determinedby the ASTM D1557-08 test method.
Field density testsandinspectionof thebackfillproceduresshallbemadeby thesoilengineer duringbacifilingtoseethatproper molsture content and uniform compaction is being maintained. The contractor shallprovidetest holesand exploratorypits as requiredbythe soilengineerto enable samplingandtesting.
SoilExploration Co.,Inc. AppendixE-3
1625
APPENDIX APPENDIX FF
1626
NWC of Cactus Ave. & Redlands Blvd.
Moreno Valley, California
Infiltration Test (Boring Percolation Test Procedure)
Project No. 2096-01
August 12, 2020
The percolation test data from 1-1 thru 1-6 was used to estimate infiltration rates using the Porchet Inverse Borehole Method, in accordance with Riverside County Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low Impact Development, dated June 2014.
Six 8-inch diameter, 6-deep test holes (1-1 thru 1-6), were drilled at the random selected locations. The soil at the test locations was visually classified as sandy silt and 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 more than 25 minutes. The tests were therefore run an additional six hour with measurements taken at 30 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 Design
No. Test Earth Material (in/hr) Infiltration Rate
(feet) (in/hr)
1-1 6 Sandv Silt <MU 0.43 0.215
1-2 6 Sandv Silt (ML) 0.46 0.23
1-3 6 Sandv Silt (ML) 0.16 0.08
1-4 6 Silty Sand !SM) 0.61 0.31
1-5 6 Silty Sand (SM) 0.48 0.24
1-6 6 Silty Sand (SM) 0.53 0.27
• A minimum required factor of safety of 2 was applied to the measured infiltration rates. • The distance between the infiltration facility and t1e adjacent private property, any building and walls shall be a minimum of 10 feet
• Based on the test results, the design infiltration rate obtained from the field is less than 0.3 inches per hour. Therefore, soils are considered unfeasible for infiltration.
Soil Exploration Co., Inc. Appendix F
NWC of Cactus Ave. & Redlands Bivd. Project No. 2096-01 Moreno Valley, California August 12, 2020
1 tion Bori | T r ure]
The percolation test data from I-1 thru 1-6 was used to estimate infiltration rates using the Porchet Inverse Borehole Method, in accordance with Riverside County Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low Impact Development, dated June 2014.
Six 8-inch diameter, 6-deep test holes (I-1 thru 1-6), were drilled at the random selected locations. The soil at the test locations was visually classified as sandy silt and 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 more than 25 minutes. The tests were therefore run an additional six hour with measurements taken at 30 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.
§ T u T
Depth of Nn Design ost Test Earth Material ny Infiftration Rate : (feet) (in/hr)
1-1 6 Sandy Silt (ML) 0.43 0.215
-2 6 Sandy Silt (ML) 0.46 0.23
1-3 [3] Sandy Silt (ML) 0.16 0.08
I-4 6 Silty Sand (SM) 0.61 0.31
I-8 6 Silty Sand (SM) 0.48 0.24
I-6 6 Siity Sand (SM) 0.53 0.27
« A minimum required factor of safety of 2 was applied to the measured infiltration rates. + The distance between the infiltration facility and the adjacent private property, any building and walls shall be a minimum of 10 feet
» Based on the test results, the design infiltration rate obtained from the field is less than 0.3 inches per hour.Therefore, soils are consideredunfeasibleforinfiltration.
SollExptorationCo.,Inc. AppendixF
1627
Percolation Test Data Sheet .
Project~ 1./C""'"'.tf( c.. -~ v~ ~ n~ ProJect No: I ,;w Si 6 ..-a I Date: 17/s J J-;v Test Hole Nd: I 1:--1 Tested ay: -,:;, l) I ,
Depth of Test Hole, &1 : I 6 I USCS Soil Classification: µl Test Hole Dlm~nsions (inches} Length Width
Diameter Of round}= cr11 Sides (if rectangular~=
Sandv Soil Criteria Test*
I Greater
Time tnitia; ::1na! Change in than or
Interval, oepthto Depth to WC'!ter Equal to 611 ?
Trial No. start Time Stop Time (min.} Water (in.} Water {in.; Level {in.} (y/n} 1 /o ,,~~-: /v /IJ :(fj~·j-r, 9A 5::2 ~4.s7{ ) .<;;,/ { n 2 /; '}:; (.;,~ If I./ f'lf ~1 \ <11-- 2 ,, I
*If two~onse.cutive measurements. show that six inches of water seeps aviJsy In less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional ho;.ir with measurements taken every 10 minutes.
Other wjse, pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hoµ rs (approximate! 130 minute intervals) with a precisio:l of at least 0.2511 •
r.:. ... Gt I .:::~, '"""' -··
Time Initial final Change In Percoiatlon
nterva ~ Depth to Oeo1h to Water Rate
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.} \Nater (in.} Water(in.) Level (in.} {min.fin.~ 1 'f-{?);j..:> J ./; 2--0 ; fJ. u 2,. ..:> 1:):1 ~4.v( .2. 1--1 2 2il,2: I 0 '], trJ:J 0 "I \1 i \.I d
3 I/ ]:[i··1.;( /}),~;:4( \f \I \/ \. f
4 / >}/.( ; 50 ) .rJ;Cb Lt \I
slf>J7:(jR " "' J.; ),1:(}f \1 \I ; \/ ,, 61.J~J'J; )'\? _7> {'1 ~ '),-<) 'I ,, \f l f 1,:.i ~c I: 3 2 :,;~/'s v " ,, tr \/
8 ~ ~?~~ 4 f ~ J0~--4f 1..1 "I \I \I
9 ) ;().(: {1 t. , ~f;. r1 \t I "I \.I \.I
10 /_ ·<6]. irV [ : () l) ()(} \.f \j \)
11 \ -<JJi; 16 p{fl;/ 3 '1 \,/ " ,, \.'
12 £;" ~ If 0 ) /'(., 6- lo -..;£ \j \I \\
"' /3.3 - . .13
·14
15 COMMENTS: 4 v b.-0 l. ~-~ O·lf S.-1)'1r 71f!frd1n u 7 _;;,.. 315 (4:1' (J,v-+ (~~2 KJ2)
Table 5 - Sample Test Data Form for Percolation Test
Riverside County - low Impact Ol!Ve/opmem BMP Design Handbook rev 91201 I PercolationTestDataSheet
project: |1%kihice Fave| ProjectNo:| 207 (6-0 |Date: [72/3]3% TestHoleNG: —| [Tested By: “B 7 Depth of TestHole,5: | © & / [USCSSoilClassification: ML Test Hole Dimensions {inchas} Length Width
Diameter(ifround)=] &" | sides(if rectangular)=
Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
Greater
Time initial Final Change in| thanor
Interval, | Depthto | Depthto | water |Equalto6"?
TrialNo. | Start Time | StopTime | (min.} |Water in.) |Water{in.}| Level{in.) {y/n} 11/0.28:0119-44)» 2 [CUKv APYLAI
2 53)2 gle Y 2 “
*1f twoconsecutivemeasurementsshowthat six—— of waterseepsawayin lessthan 25 minutes, the test shall berun for an additional hour with measurements taken avery16minutes, Other wise,pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtain at ieast twelve measurementsper hole over atleast Priel ffm 12d
rd
30(lp (Bo(24-220)
six hours (approximately 30minuteintervals) with aprecisionof atleast 0.25". 4 Z. 5; AD
Time Initial Final ChangeIn |Percolation
Interval | Depthto | Depthto Water Rate
TriglNo, | Start Time | Stop Time| (min) [water {in.}|water{in.})| Level {in.} | {min.fin.} UJ) 503) [12004d 20 52 543K [2.28
2/202: Tol [240-00 \ x \J
32.030 [23134 fy \ y Nl
aC Sh sR] y \ \ N
Sio5:0k 12:27:08] \) \ \
6.012920 (2: (9:20 \4 \( \f
3:0 /-32[373/360 \ ul J)
83-93: 4¥| 4:03:44 | \f Ly
olf £714:356]1 yf | \J N
100,36: 00 |Cobia| Ml \ \ \
Nel 3) Fata131 9 y v \)
RIL-40 6-026] \ W u [3.5
33] “34
15 COMMENTS:
> ou3b/hy
Table § —SampleTestDataForm for Percolation Test
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook1628 rev. 92011 Percolation Test Data Sheet
Project: 'vPt-...,:frr~ z,,,,. • .r,,,u, .:A Project No: ~~'(.,~/ Date: 'r7 /?I /?--\J Test Hole Nb: " L. --v Tested By: ~ I I
Depth of Test Hole, Dr: 6' USCS Soil Classification: JA~ Test Hole Dimensions (inches} Length Width
Diameter (if round}= JI h Sides (if rectangular)=
Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
Greater
Time lnitial ::1nal Change if" 'than or
Interval, Depth to Depth to w ater Equal to 5"?
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.} Water (in.} Water (in.j Level {in.} {y/n} 1 01kf; (.o I ()-fl): )A) -rf 5"'2- 1\4. (' ~·J y\
'l iu rl-4R l//i-Y/: lri l/ i\ K?i.rz,-5 ,:J./?A I'
•1f two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away In less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes.
Other wjse, pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtain at least tv.tetve measurements per hote over at least six hours (approximate) ' 30 minute intervals} wii:r a precisio"1 of at !east-0.2511 • r.;.
....... I"'
-': 91 ,:_\('1
Time Initial flnal Change In ?ercoiation
Interval Depth to Depth to Water Rate
Trial No. Start Time. Stop Time (min.} Water (in.) Water fin.), Level (in.J (min.fin.) 1 I /:Jb;zo ;Jb: /\) A v i;-v §Z;.~7.1 "9.s7S
2 I />ftP: (} 3 /!J, JJ;o] \I tr '-I \I
3 l,2;1 ~ :,(0 /~/·n-JO \I \I \ I \f
4 ~a.J. ~ o ; <..J-:-a I ( ( ll \I \.f
5 ; <,l.t: I l ..,.GJ:: o~ ; /1' d I \.I \ I \I
6.~~; 0 ; ,_ 1 ::-~, , , ?, lf l' \ I \. f
7l), ~ 1, {) !( i::oA /(J{ \..f \{ \I \I
8 '?·/0;/'1 ~-H 0., ~
t ( d I.( \f
9 :<. tJJ1r-1 1 !.f;/1; 7} ,, I \.I \I \.f
10 L.r,,/ih 41 ii; /J.1.f ;tJ. '' t( \I q \I . •
It,_~ l6;.\3 p/6:J1 \,( "' ' 11 \../ u
12 ~/, ~.;. o1 r,4f ;o· v• .... Vl \, l }~ \,h
13 I , .
14 15
COMMENTS: ~ L{ )( b ) f ) 1..f} -- 0 ,4- 6 ,Aft.,,.. f tf ruh'~ ~ " z. U, · ~{4-t (h1(-vo--;.r:.7r11) Table 5 - Sample Test Data Form for Percolation Test
Riverside Ccwuy- low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 9no11 PercolationTest Data Sheet
Project: Pi dra Ivete ds Project No: 203 t—o[ Date: F173]720 TestHoleNb: ' 7-2 [TestedBy: BR rl
Depthof TestHole, Dy: | 4 ' [USCSSoil Classification: ML TastHole Dimensions (inches) Length Width
Diameter(ifround)=] §* | sides(ifrectangularj=
Sancly SoilCriteriaTest*
Greater
Time Initial Final Change in | thanor
interval, | Depthto | Depthto Water |Equalto 6"?
TrialNo. | Start Time| Stop Time| (min.) |Water{in.)| Water{in.}| Level{in. {y/n} (QU:20 Yog0°9° | Fr (A4y J 25 | nN
2jusl-44Y-4) M " KYpnd 2.4248 1 ©
*if two consecutivemeasurementsshowthat sixinchesof waterseepsawayin Jessthan 25 minutes, thetest shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every10minutes.
Other wise,pre-soak (fill) overnight.Obtain atleasttwelve measurementsper-hole overatleast six hours{approximately 30minuteintervals) with a precision of at least 0.25". 4% S: 5s ap
Time initial Final Changein [Percolation
interval | Depthto | Depthto | Water Rate
Trial No. | Start Time | StopTime | (min.} |Water{in.) water (in) Level{in} | {min.fin.) A [267° [:00-/0] BO 54.375 [9.375
aly8 y322408] wm u \ \
3 9700:40|2/:00:09 1 Al IV \
80-0] [30-0] u! \J |
5 [34:12 2X oda JY Af AJ MJ
6x:05023 Ra u Y] N \
1:3 ec K130d70 ul Nl ul \
82/02 /7|3M0[| a \ \l
92:4):394:2:24] J \ N
0s bef (4:boa] g ¥ | “uL863| 0/68] vu x \ A wie oll 0) v v v V) JA vo “13
ZT:
15 . COMMENTS: 4y 6+f2.375 ‘ Dfptr AL ’ < 0b Ahr Soru+ (Zt (20-2 35) Table 5 —~SampleTestDataForm for PercolationTest
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP DesignHondbook --
1629 rev.92011
Percolation Test Data Sheet
Date:
Test Hole Nb: ' 1-r - s Tested By: 74.Af I I
Qe,pth ofTest Hole, 01 : l"f" h 1 USCS Sail Classification:
Test Hole Dimensions (inches} Length Width
Diameter (if round}= t¥' ·r Sides (If rectangular)=
Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
Greater
Time Initial Final Change in than or
Interval, Depth to Depth to Water Equal to 6"?
Trial No. start Time St<>PTime (min.} Water (in.) Water (jn.t Level {in.} (y/n} 1 / 'i5 j-:: /f o I!; f07 ~v }/) 51.. i~f- .f7},,. O JI? >( / r" *If two cons~cutlv'e measurementS show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measiJrements taken every 10 minutes.
Other wise, pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtain at ieas.t w11elve measurementS per hole over at least six hours (a ~proximate! 130 minute intervals} with a precision of at !east-0.25". ~t I""
-·· Di £',!)
Time Initial final Change In Percofatton
Interval Depth to Depth to Water Rate
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.} Water (in.) Water (in.j. Level (in.) (min.fin.} 1 /!},, ?j. : ? 1,, 17 'J'('f ·'? v ~ ~/;- I))./?/{ /. /V'f 2 :'M' J'/'2, J; ~? ·J]., \I l \ t;:J.tP11 n .. -JY/f
3 ';,z0 4- ,J-:.of: !J,,/ " \I \I 1/
4~-,91i?Jl: oz.... 9.,5d ~ \I d " l'
s ,_q , ti. : I 3 If; J..3 l I l/ \I \/
6. 12.-: /(J J. J-2.f ~'4'-f-;;")A.I \f \f If d
7 ":?; t.j.);j( a;.;7; 35 II ti l(
s1 ~ ~J-t:za~ 4:t;7J·'k \ ( l( \.( "'
s /.. ;.-r:Z" S"t P23 =r=J \I I \./ 'I \I "'
10 ~;J.-1;.f::!. d').-57;./1£.-, l ( l( \, ,,
ti r:·.r'; x {,)- 1)~ y I \I q ,,
12 t. 2"i ;- >"f fp~ ~ ,.)) ' \,I \.I \.I "l -S1.f. ~
13 I
J
14 I
15 Table 5 - Sample Test Data Form for Percolation Test Riverside Cou.my - Low Impact Developmem BMP Design Handbook rev. 91201 l PercolationTest Data Sheet
project: [JuJ Invest . [ProjectNo:| oT6° | [vate: [73/2 TestHoleNd: ' 7-3 TestedBy: 212 rT
Depthof TestHole,D;: v4 uses soit Classification: M J
Test Hole Dimensions (inchas) Length Width
Diameter(ifround)=] | | Sides(ifrectangular)=
SandySoilCriteriaTest*
Graater
Time Initial Final Changein | thanor
Interval, | Depthto | Depthto | Water |Equaito6”?}
TrialNo. | StartTime | Stop Time| (min.) |water (in.} |Water {in.)| Level (in, /n [3] J:CE-3d 24 | 57% (RISES Nn
2/)47 8/1[3-20 | vw bmi lo bd] VY
*if twoconsecutivemeasurementsshowthatsixinchesof waterseepsawayinlessthan25 minutes, the test shall berun for an additional hour with measurements taken every10minutes, Other wise,pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtain atieasttwelve measurementsper hole over atleast six hours {approximately 30minuteintervals) with aprecision of atleast 0.25".
At 15 By Lb
Time Initial Final ChangeIn {Percolation
interval | Depthto | Depthio Water Rate
Trial No. | StartTime | StopTime | (min.) _|Water {in.} | Water (in.}| Level{in.) | {minfin.} lh 2: 22002078" £Y |53./24 |] [24
2 [2000/218212] v_EY P50377
3 20 ef [vf ¢fl \/ uJ v
ay’. od 0 >$ vr \f ol \ U
51.9-4/-/3|3"VESw y N| J
BERYL ARTS ca MEY ul 1g uo
N32: 314438] u y J
NIV, EY 0 Y J
94:43 591 (23: ¥ \ \ X
w! E20 4208100 TY, \/ uf
Ee dress iik y \f v
1204.29 9px? Vi ul ul Wl 32.3
13 7 — =r {
15 COMMENTS:
$70 fle ta = 0.6471, 3ofyr (2 vdTN)
Table 5 —SampleTestDataForm for PercolationTest
Kiverside Covnty ~ Low Impact Development BMPDexignHandbook rev. 92011 1630 Percolation Test Data Sheet
Pro.}~ct: ~1il'r-... 2kll..t<~ ;,.,, y Protect No: '11xt,....vf Date: -11~1/?C Test Hole Nb: ~ 'fll..·4 Tested By: ·--p ~ I '/
Depth of Test Hole, D1: I (./ USCS Soil Classification: ~---;:;/ Test Hole Dimensions (inches) Len;th Width
Diameter (If round}= )111 Sides (if rectangular}=
Sandy Soi1 Criteria Test ..
Great~r
Time initial Final Change in than or
Interval, Depth to Depth to Water Equal to 6"?
Trial No. Startnme StopTime (min.} Water (in.) Water (in.} Level (in.l Cv/n} 1 /r\ J 25'1 :3 C I v,,(l.b ~ ~ ~.:2 ,i;:c?/f\ . '?;7 ( Y' 2 1
'1 /; ?t'h ~ l!;r1;JJ \I II Vt"it. h ( ?-~ h( ~
•1f two consetutlve measure6ients show t hat six ir.ches of wat er seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes.
Other wise, pre-soak (fill} overnight. Obtain at least tv11elve measurements per hole over at least six hours {aooroxfmatel 130 minute intervals) w ith a precision of atfeast-0.25". lit r. .. Di i;D
Time initial iinal Change In Percolation
Interval Depth to Depth to Water Rate
Trial No. Start Time StopTime Cmin.} Water {in.) Water (in.} Level (in.} .... {min.fin.} 1 l.J XJ'"Q ': 'fV / .. ,i!?J: {"l =?1J St-- IK1t ~ -=?. , -..z;< 21/£>1 I·;- '( o/.:if 1 / \I l I \J II
3 I .. r/J.·ti I :37-J~ u \I \. f u
4 l;>J,.:.t; w _9 J tY1J ,')• .. /· u \ I ll \ I
s.:...9;>t' 1, ..s< ;_9, 41 :-({ LI \I ! \f u ' ' 6 LJ·»IJ.<, v 7 -:<.-1Z;a7 q \f t I 11
7. <-:Jn I< ~ ::<. )/.{': 1'1 11 \ I ' I I I
sl~ .1/. ')2. I lt..f; /7;:r1 q \r r
\r \.I
~ (..'t,;~ If, 4-i . /J.; IP1 '4-2- \.I u \.I \ /
10 C:d :.f--3 , ;,-; r1l. I .-.fl ll \( \I q
1l t:;; )-~:> o)( K:1? ;:vlf' \I \) \J \I
12 l/,;n i J.n h> u-,Jr ~ l.t \ 1 \\ v1 c.;_ ~ ,_ I
13 .14
15 COMMENTS:
, r 6 #" >3 ivf ->- o 6 I "'') ~ft,-Vfl7rl }'l;(ff Jo{ M ( ..2.v-+ { .AJ -,,: Ml}) . vi. y Table 5 - Sample Test Data Form for Percolation Test
Riverside County- low lmpac1 Developmem BMP Design Handbook rev. 912011 PercolationTestDataSheet
Project: Retina veciinadtorojecto:| 2g X10] |Date: [772d TestHoleNb: ° 273 TestedBy: Rr / DepthofTestHole, by: | (,/ |uscssoil Classification: Yi TastHoleDimensions(inches) Length | Width
Diameter (ifround)=! ¥" | sides (if rectangularj=
SandySoil Criteria Test®
Greater
Time initial Final Changein| thanor
intarval, | Depthto | Depthto Water [Equalto6"?
TrialNo. | StartTime| StopTime| (min.} |water(in.}|Water{in.}| Level{in}| (y/n) 1/2500 0AYrSo] VS 52 1&3 8 | Nn
2 /:20-28 joc J22 0 u w (2.671 WN
*1ftwo consecutivemeasurementsshowthat sixinchesof waterseepsawayin lessthan 25 minutes,thetest shall berun for an additional hour with measurements taken avery10minutes.
Other wise, pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtainat leasttwelve measurementsper hole over at least sixhours (approximately 30 minuteintervals} with aprecision of at least0.25".
At C: By an
Time Initial Final ChangeIn | Percolation
Interval | Depthto | Depthto | Water Rate
Trial No. | StartTime | StopTime | {min.} |Water {in.) | Water{in} Lavel{in.}r (min.fin.} ERE BE) £2 550 [324
2/ds3[511 6/-¢5) U \J I
3 [ro ]13 [3 1) ul \ | u
al[>31, 41.9 12f ul U uy \
5095/1,31.9 \ y u uJ
slp 3-0713-3:27 \ \ Ni \l
12-10 1913-451/4] u W i
812.42 (lef:/7231| \ \( \! \l
ER AVEEAN u \ \
10] WINE 2/43] \{ \) Yi
ar ox|5430f] \) \) \J
16:00:23 £:d9-%3] M \ \ A Ale |
13 Er
15 COMMENTS: bboy 3.01 = A
IrfelAT = “Jo at(Lo(02 nsP) 0.614%
Table 5 —SampleTestDataForm for Percolation Test
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook 1631 rev. 92011 Percolation Test Data Sheet
Project ~1i7c. h(~p,..,,._k Project No: ~7 l---o I Date: '1 I .f I/~ Test Hole N6: J -i.. - _( Tested Sy: -h1( I .,
Depth of Test Hole, Ur: 6' USCS Soil Classification: r?rl Test Hole Dimensions (inches} Lenith Width
Diameter (If round)= JI II Sides (if rectangular)=
Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
Great~r
Time lnitial Final Change in than or
Interval, Oepthto Depth to ·water Equal to 611 ?
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.} Water (in.) Water (in.} level {in.) (y/n} 1 /<):>~1 ff.::. l /:v J 1.f._ u I(!) 1t:" lJ.. (' ~ .. _< n 2 //:21i :.d ll!Jzo ;fL ~1 \ 1 ,, .-1
ll
*If two consecutive measurements show that six jnches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes.
Other wise, pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtain at least tv11elve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximate} 130 minute intervals) with a precis.ion of at least-0.2511 • r ·• r Cr .;l(> .;.H -'.:
Time initial rinal Change in Percolation
Interval Deptnto Depth to Water Rate
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.} water (in.} Water(in.j. Level {in.) (min.fin.) 1 Iii.."<> 3 "f'J I L9,~~ ~:.-0 I ~ 5.:L ). '4. ?S ..-Y.:7{' 2 I ~"?'1Ji ?< />o I ';3< ,, " tlf, ( c:i). {
3 I,;/ O , I '-I 'J ; tfo;/Y- lf \.I \1 ll
4 ifK~ » 2>/(;.» q I I \ I \f
13~/7; 13 ');<.;7; .s) \I I \I I I \I
' 6 ? :i.-fO: 41.1- <=-Jo;J.1..1- d \f t I l I
1 ":{,_)t t1 {)~ ~ ;. (lf'f}i, t I q . ,,
8 -:.r /.(' 7 ~ l, 7 bi pt, 11 \I d \I t I
9~ ~~ (;<;/~ dq \I l I \I l f
1() ~-:-J1'J,,i 'H. r;. ? '\f ) JJ:.; \.' ti ,, ,,
11 r,.< J l;. ~ h --oJJ; s I \j \) \I ll
.. 1.2 '-.: 6-2 /,,. , ... 1,,,4i,;; 4~ \1 '\ \' v\ ldl... 13 ·14
15 COMMENTS:
~fJfrofr~M ~
4-x b~~J . .C- .....
o- Lts ~YA I ,.,-
?;;i( 41 (M.f ($--0 ---.2d'} 0 -
Table 5 - Sample Test Data Form for Percolation Test
Riverside CoW1ty- Low Impact Developmelll BMP Design Handbook rev. 91201 J PercolationTest Data Sheet
Project: gn Tvl bs iprojectve| B03 (0) {Date: 12/2/23
TestHole Né: = -¥ [TestedBy: “BR [ 7
DepthofTestHole,D;: i] 7 luscssoilClassification: or
TestHole Dimensions{inches} Length width
Dismeter(ifround)=| ¥'" | sides (if rectangular)=
SanclySoilCriteriaTest*
Greater
Time initial Final Changein| thanor
interval, | Depthto | Depthto | Water |Equalto6™?|
TrislNo. | Start Time| Stop Time| (min.} |water{in.}| Water(in.}| Level{in.} | (y/n} 1] [0230.4 [of 24d 29 K4 Xx | 2-5 n
2//2f RD Drof42d \ \ " "
*if twoconsecutivemeasurementsshowthatsixinchesof waterseepsawayinessthan25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken avery10minutes.
Otherwise,pre-soak(fill) overnight.Obtainat leasttwelve measurementsper hole overatleast six hours (approximately 30minuteintarvals)withaprecisionof atleast0.25".
At Z. By ab
Time Initial final | Changein|Percolation
imerval | Depthto | Depthto | Water Rate
Trial No. | Start Time | Stop Time | {min.) [Water (in.} |Water {in} | Lavel (in.) | {min.fin.) 1 R03.0(|17:33-0(] ZO £2 57.7; Raid
2) 3%Hl[ro fz38] vo |Kh | Bf
Bly Cc/Yl/ bo¥ N vy y
agri 2¥ ul uy \l
510:]033 12:6]:351 u i] \
810200:442-20:44 Y u Y
{Et 2 3:84 30 vl Lf \/
824d [14:7] ul Al \f u
aI: 09 Gof:04] N A! u
1012500200£73420 fy \
_1ie2fs Qf > \} \) \) \)
_1214:1%: (2143 4d] WV \ v v (X
13“4A
15 COMMENTS:
Pa 4x boed Sw - 2o(Led(20+(20-951) 0-48/4y
Table 5~ Sample TestDataForm for Percolation Test
RiversideCounty- LowImpactDevelopmentBMPDesignHandbook 1632 rev. 4/2011 Percolation Test Data Sheet
Proiect! 11),.~·frcc.. 7Atv<"~~ Project No: 'Lo96-0/ Date: ~/3/fv;o Test Hole Net: I -:z_- l,, ~ I ' Tested Sy:
Depth of Test Hole, OT: (, j USCS Soil Classification: <SM Test Hole DinJensions (inches} Length Width
Diameter (if round}• »'' Sides (if rectangular)=
Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
Great1:r
Time Initial Final Change in than or
Interval, Depth to Depth to water Equal to 6
11 ?
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.} Water (in.} Water (jn.} Level {in.) {y/n} 1 /O,/JJ),,J..O /h/3))-o ?A'° ~.L n ..3--=> i1>1.s:i~ i "' // ;JL/1 ... ~ I \<\ \A /l4-7f Y.7 S H *If two consecutive measurementS show that six inches of water seeps away ln less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes.
Other wise, pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtain at least tv..ielve measurements per hole over at least .six hours (a 11proximatel 130 minute intervals) witn a precision of at least-0.25". .:1-:: r
-·- D1 .:1£"
Time Initial rinal Change In Percotation
Interval Depth to Depth to \<Vater Rate
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.} Water{in.} Water (in.) Level (in.) (min.fin.) 1 )4.2>1), l:Z>I~' 4 L- 2,.0 (..,_ Ii".~ 3- ~
2 '{~Jj(; /:1 /,j:-4.f>(3. \f \I _-{(/. 76 rJ.1r /J~lJI~ /::-rtf;v) \( , , \I \f 4 J)A)J J l );f"V; /~ \.I l( \ I \f
5 /J~J J7 lJ, ~21.t-J \I \ I 1 I (./
6 _() ')(f;,.Z'f 'J-;fif'>~ d \.f \I \I
7 4 ... , ~>t&,.ro <~JL .-£11 \ t ,, \f ,,
a,..:. ~2f;o3 ,z: . .f"A' / rJ ~ ... , l( 'I "' 9i/ I,) i,"1J J I 'R' ./i.J.-10 :r/ JI \( \ I q u l<t iL ;,(;i ~a J;;oJ.;.~ J \.\ '-{ ,, -..{
11 •)7 rY1.; I;. _.t;;J,~1.!l. \J q \J \(
1.2 t:) l1i J ?'l.f... fi;ob rf \ I l1 1\ \A I cJ, '1
13 \
14 15
COMM£NTS:
1~11A/~;: 4~ b <;(. ,./. 7) - -- -? i () (4 f {fl::r~($,J-~ .. / f JJ) 0, {J3:,A~·y Table 5 - Sample Test Data Form for Percolation Test
Ri\-erstde Cowrty - LIJw Impact Development BM P Design Handbook reli. 91201 J PercolationTestDataSheet
Project: ifr InveslineJs Project No:| 20960] |Date: [<8 TestHole N6: Z-[, [testedBy: BR. r
Depth of TestHole,Dy: <7 USCSSoil Classification: or
TastHole Dimensions (inches) Length Width
Diameter(ifround)=| p) | sides{if rectangular)s
Sancly Soil Criteria Test*
Greater
Time initial Final Changein| thanor
Interval, | Depthto | Depthto Water |Equalto6"?
TrialNo. | Start Time | StopTime | (min.) [Water {in.) Water{in.}| Level(in.} | {y/n} 2//0:42010[>] 2320 24 +2 1 | 3.» n
2) [u523 [11/403] vx G77 L275 | w
*If twoconsecutive measurementsshowthat sixinchesof water seepsawayinlessthan25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken avery10minutes, Otherwise,pre-soak(fill) overnight.Obtainat leasttwelve measurementsper hole overatleast Sixhours {appeoximateh r 30minuteintervals) with aprecision of atleast0.25", 4% ©: By AD
Time Initial Final Changein|Percolation
intervai | Depthto | Depthto Water Rate
Trial No. hirgs ANTE {min.) Ea re in} | Lavel lin.) | {min.in.) A '4L 4 20
2pC3 1470 v \l £47512.
3) lif [id :0% vf u \) v
4/2002) 210216] y \f vf
51/4: 2] h 0232 \{ uu | 4
SI Mp2 2: N | \| hi
ik: CEA Pal lN \ Y \(
82503 12:44:03] \f N |
olcr (R140 AL| X \ u
W004:02:3015702:30 \ vf u
haga [5232] u \ \J \
RINK] prob] 9 A u 70
- 13 EY
15 COMMENTS: Ie
loysbox db x
fi Zz -> O. 5 3 Mh InfltationBZ 270 (554020-975) v
Table 5 —SampleTestDataForm for Percolation Test
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook1633 rev.9/2011
APPENDIX APPENDIXGG
1634
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 , 8/13/2020 12:03:17 PM
Input File Name: UNTITLED
Title: PROJECT NAME: Pacifica Investments
Subtitle: Proj No. 2096-01
Surface Elev.=1571
Hole No.=B-1
Depth of Hole= 50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 70.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70.00 ft
Max. Acceleration= 0 .63 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 7.10
Input Data:
Surface Elev . =1571
Hole No. =B-1
Depth of Hole=50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 70.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70 .00 ft
Max . Acceleration=0.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7.10
1 . SPT or BPT Calculation.
2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine
3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Idriss/Seed
4. 5 .
Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction*
Settlement Calculation in: All zones•
6. Hammer Energy Ratio,
7 . Borehole Diameter,
8. Sampling Method,
Ce = 1.25
Cb= 1
Cs= 1
9 . User request factor of safety
Plot one CSR curve (fsl=l)
10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes*
(apply to CSR) , User= 1
* Recommended Options
UNTITLED. sum
oc ce okakeokodesole oeseok al aledeok
aac oledle ole al aeake feoeol oc de lol SedledkSk alese fesk desieofrajeolold sk deWR REF RF REFERRER REAR RFR RTE REI R FR ER RFR ERE RAEN ERY
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltechsoftware.com
3 9 3coo ooo oeko oeoe eeke
seke 3k oe3 Be a oof a ak ok aca a aefeal ak of of 3c kesleek i a SKle of ole ok oeok 6 keoleAk de ak ek BK kaa lk ak RE Rk Rk RRR RR EER Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.
Licensed to , 8/13/2020 12:03:17 PM
Input File Name: UNTITLED
Title: PROJECT NAME: Pacifica Investments
Subtitle: Proj No. 2096-01
Surface Elev,=1571
Hole No.=B-1
Depth of Hole= 50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 70.80 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70.00 ft
Max. Acceleration= 0.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 7.10
Input Data:
Surface Elev.=1571
Hole No.=B-1
Depth of Hole=50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 70.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7.18
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,
Ce = 1.25
Cb= 1
Cs=1
9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User=1 Plot one CSR curve (fsi=1)
10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes*
* Recommended Options
1635
UNTITLED.sum
In-Situ Test Data:
Depth SPT gamma Fines
ft pcf %
0.00 8.00 120.00 62.00
5.00 9.00 120.00 62.00
10.00 8.00 120.00 62.00
15.00 9.00 120.00 62.00
20.00 30.00 120.00 Noliq
25 . 00 27.00 120.00 44.00
30.00 20.00 120.00 44.00
35.00 16.00 120.00 44.00
40.00 21 . 00 120.00 44.00
45.00 16.00 120.00 62.00
50.00 31.00 120.00 44.00
Output Results:
Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.00 in .
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=l.32 in.
Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=l . 32 in.
Differential Settlement=0.660 to 0.871 in .
Depth CR Rm CSRfs F.S. s_sat. S_dry s_all
ft in. in. in.
0.00 0.25 0.41 5.00 0.00 1. 32 1.32
5.00 0.28 0.40 5.00 0.00 1. 29 1.29
10 . 00 0.23 0 .40 5. 00 0.00 1.12 1.12
15.00 0.23 0.40 5.00 0.00 0.86 0.86
20.00 2.30 0.39 5. 00 0.00 0.75 0.75
25.00 2.00 0.39 5.00 0.00 0.75 0.75
30.00 0.37 0.38 5.00 0 .00 0.66 0.66
35.00 0 . 26 0.36 5.00 0 .00 0.47 0 . 47
40.00 0. 31 0.35 5.00 0.00 0.27 0 . 27
45.00 0.22 0.33 5.00 0.00 0.12 0 . 12
50.00 2.02 0. 31 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
UNTITLED.Ssum
In-Situ Test Data:
Depth SPT gamma Fines
ft pcf %
0.60 8.00 120.990 62.00
5.00 9.00 120.00 62.00
10.88 8.00 120.00 62.00
15.086 9.00 120.00 62.00
20.00 30.00 120.00 NolLig
25.00 27.00 120.00 44.00
30.00 20.80 120.00 44.00
35,00 16.00 120.00 44.00
40.20 21.90 120.00 44.00
45.00 16.90 120.00 62.00
50.60 31.00 120.00 44.00
Output Results:
Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.00 in.
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=1.32 in.
Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=1.32 in.
Differential Settlement=0.660 to 0.871 in.
Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. S_dry S_all
ft in. in. in.
0.00 0.25 0.41 5.00 0.00 1.32 1.32
5.89 0.28 0.40 5.00 0.00 1.29 1.29
10.00 0.23 0.40 5.00 0.00 1.12 1.12
15.60 0.23 0.40 5.00 0.00 0.86 0.86
20.086 2.30 8.39 5.00 0.00 0.75 0.75
25.60 2.00 0.39 5.00 0.00 0.75 0.75
38.00 0.37 0.38 5.00 0.00 0.66 0.66
35.00 @.26 0.36 5.00 0.00 8.47 0.47
40.08 0.31 8.35 5.00 0.00 0.27 8.27
45.00 0.22 0.33 5.00 0.00 0.12 2.12
5e.e2 2.02 2.31 5.00 0.00 0.00 8.00
* 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
1636
UNTITLED.sum
request factor of safety)
F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf s_sat Settlement from saturated sands
S_dry Settlement from Unsaturated Sands
s_all Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils
UNTITLED.sum
request factor of safety)
F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf S_sat Settlement from saturated sands
S_dry Settlement from Unsaturated Sands
S_all Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands NolLig No-Liquefy Soils
1637
UNTITLED. sum
******************************~***************************************************** *******************
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltechsoftware.com
****x******************************************************************************* *******************
Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.
Licensed to , 8/13/2020 12:11 : 59 PM
Input File Name: UNTITLED
Title: PROJECT NAME: Pacifica Investments
Subtitle: Proj No . 2096-01
Surface Elev.=1575
Hole No.=B- 6
Depth of Hole= 50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 70.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70.00 ft
Max . Acceleration= 0.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 7.10
Input Data:
Surface Elev.=1575
Hole No.=B-16
Depth of Hole=50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 70.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70 . 00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7.10
1. SPT or BPT Calculation.
2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine
3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Idriss/Seed
4 .
5 .
Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction*
Settlement Calculation in: All zones*
6. Hammer Energy Ratio,
7. Borehole Diameter,
8. Sampling Method,
Ce = 1. 25
Cb= 1
Cs= 1
9. User request factor of safety
Plot one CSR curve (fsl=l)
10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes*
(apply to CSR) , User= 1
* Recommended Options
UNTITLED.sum
aie de2k ok 30202c3 3k 3 0 38 2 ofcocoko aiea of oe ok 39 lealeoleae aleal aeaf of afkof aeea oe akoe feaeoes alcaf fealealoeai akeoca of ae akeae el abeaf 0cakesele akcSe af oe aleaeageakeaf olealcof aleof deofc aera de dk degeopde cake kok dkdkok
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltechsoftware.com
edeoeoka seobsaf 2calkof 3caeakeae aleaeleakoealesealk akeoiaesieal alesl feleSleoele sede ocoeSe aleoc 3 akeleOf Si deok ee Sle3 fc lof ke akededkleo ok ek ok dk kakdeo dk ka dE sheake eo 3 3 3 2 ok a 2 ok a akeak okok kok
Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.
Licensed to , 8/13/2020 12:11:59 PM
Input File Name: UNTITLED
Title: PROJECT NAME: Pacifica Investments
Subtitle: Proj No. 2096-01
Surface Elev.=1575
Hole No.=B- 6
Depth of Hole= 50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 78.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70.00 ft
Max. Acceleration= 0.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 7.10
Input Data:
Surface Elev.=1575
Hole No.=B-16
Depth of Hole=50.080 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 70.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7.1@
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, Ce = 1.25
7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1
8. Sampling Method, Cs=1
9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1 Plot one CSR curve (fsl=1)
10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes*
* Recommended Options
1638
UNTITLED. sum
In-Situ Test Data:
Depth SPT gamma Fines
ft pcf %
0.00 6.00 120.00 65.00
5.00 8.00 120.00 65.00
10.00 16 . 00 120.00 65.00
15.00 18.00 120.00 65.00
20.00 37 . 00 120.00 44.00
25 . 00 30. 00 120.00 65.00
30.00 19.00 120.00 65.00
35.00 14.00 120.00 54.00
40.00 13.00 120.00 54.00
45.00 18.00 120.00 54.00
50.00 38.00 120.00 44.00
Output Results:
Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.00 in.
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=l.18 in.
Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=l.18 in.
Differential Settlement=0.591 to 0. 780 in.
Depth CR Rm CSRf s F.S. s sat. S_dry S_all
ft in. in. in.
0.00 0.20 0.41 5.00 0.00 1.18 1.18
5.00 0.25 0.40 5.00 0.00 1.14 1.14
10.00 2.30 0.40 5.00 0.00 1.08 1.08
15.00 2.30 0.40 5.00 0.00 1.02 1.02
20 . 00 2.30 0.39 5.00 0.00 0.98 0.98
25.00 2.30 0.39 5.00 0.00 0.95 0.95
30 . 00 0.34 0.38 5.00 0.00 0.87 0.87
35.00 0.23 0 . 36 5.00 0.00 0.64 0.64
40.00 0.20 0 . 35 5.00 0.00 0.29 0. 29
45.00 0.24 0.33 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09
50.00 2.02 0.31 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
UNTITLED. sum
In-Situ Test Data:
Depth SPT gamma Fines
ft pcf %
0.00 6.00 1206.06 65.00
5.00 8.00 128.00 65.00
10.00 16.00 120.00 65.00
15.60 18.00 120.00 65.00
20.60 37.00 120.00 44.00
25.00 30.00 120.00 65.00
30.00 19.00 120.680 65.08
35.00 14.00 120.00 54.00
40.00 13.00 120.90 54.00
45.00 18.00 120.020 54.00
50.00 38.00 120.00 44.00
Output Results:
Settlement of Saturated [email protected] in.
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=1.18 in.
Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=1.18 in.
Differential Settlement=0.591 to 6.78@ in.
Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. S_dry S_all
ft in. in, in.
0.00 8.20 0.41 5.00 0.080 1.18 1.18
5.00 8.25 0.40 5.00 0.08 1.14 1.14
10.00 2.30 0.40 5.09 e.0e 1.08 1.08
15.20 2.30 0.40 5.00 @.00 1.02 1.02
20.00 2.30 0.39 5.00 ©.00 0.98 0.98
25.86 2.38 9.39 S5.ee e.e8 08.95 8.95
30.00 0.34 0.38 5.80 0.09 0.87 0.87
35.00 0.23 0.36 5.00 0.09 0.64 0.64
40.00 0.20 0.35 5.00 0.09 0.29 0.29
45.00 0.24 8.33 5.08 0.00 e.09 0.09
58.20 2.02 8.31 5.00 0.09 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 ratlo induced by a given earthquake (with user
1639
request factor of
F.S.
s sat
S_dry
s_all
No liq
UNTITLED.sum
safety)
Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.5.=CRRm/CSRsf
Settlement from saturated sands
Settlement from Unsaturated Sands
Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands
No-Liquefy Soils
UNTITLED.sum
request factor of safety)
F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf S_sat Settlement from saturated sands
S_dry Settlement from Unsaturated Sands
S_all Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils
1640
UNTITLED. sum
************************************************~*********************************** *******************
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltechsoftware.com
*******************************************x**************************************** ******••••*********
Font: courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report .
Licensed to , 8/13/2020 12:18:47 PM
Input File Name: UNTITLED
Title: PROJECT NAME: Pacifica Investments
Subtitle: Proj No. 2096-01
Surface Elev.=1594 . 5
Hole No.=B-11
Depth of Hole= 50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 70.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70.00 ft
Max . Acceleration= 0.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 7.10
Input Data:
Surface Elev.=1594 . 5
Hole No.=B-11
Depth of Hole=50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 70.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7 .10
1. SPT or BPT Calculation.
2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara I 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,
Ce = 1. 25
Cb= 1
Cs= 1
9 . User request factor of safety
Plot one CSR curve (fsl=l)
10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes*
(apply to CSR) , User= 1
* Recommended Options
UNTITLED. sum
aeaf fe of aebeale 396 200k sical oak aleaeai ake fe sf sk le shesjeSeEo ieSi aeak 3 3c 3063 0 ae oleA AK SIR okSE35 os 063K3 3 aeaf fe leSK aleae2 0 of oe Sieoeoea a pa a ok ea oe ok desk iR RRR RE RRKEK
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltechsoftware.com
i she3boeajcof oeoieoe4 sie38alk oieof oeaf oleoieoeoe akeoe3 ofc ok akea oeie3 kk 363 3630ae0 aeoeof al 3k3k ok oe3 of fea0 a oR of 3 ok ol Ske aleoi olesk oleole le ok lel ak A alae cokol akde ak akak dedi kek kkk
Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.
Licensed to , 8/13/2@20 12:18:47 PM
Input File Name: UNTITLED
Title: PROJECT NAME: Pacifica Investments
Subtitle: Proj No. 2096-01
Surface Elev.=1594.5
Hole No.=B-11
Depth of Hole= 50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 7¢.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 70.008 ft
Max. Acceleration= 9.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 7.18
Input Data:
Surface Elev.=1594.5
Hole No.=B-11
Depth of Hole=50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 70.80 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 78.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.63 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7,10
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, Ce = 1,25
7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1
8. Sampling Method, Cs=1
9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User=1 Plot one CSR curve (fsi=1)
18. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes*
* Recommended Options
1641
UNTITLED.sum
In -Situ Test Data:
Depth SPT gamma Fines
ft pcf %
0.00 4.00 120.00 21.00
5.00 10.00 120.00 21.00
10. 00 13.00 120.00 21.00
15 . 00 14.00 120.00 21 . 00
20.00 10 . 00 120 .00 23.00
25.00 14.00 120.00 23.00
30.00 19 . 00 120.00 32.00
35 . 00 19.00 120.00 32.00
40.00 19.00 120.00 27.00
45.00 21.00 120.00 27.00
50.00 36.00 120.00 27.00
Output Results:
Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.00 in.
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=l.77 in .
Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated sands=l . 77 in.
Differential Settlement=0.887 to 1.171 in.
Depth CR Rm CSRf s F.S. s_sat . S_dry s_all
ft in. in. in.
0.00 0.13 0.41 5.00 0.00 1. 77 1. 77
5.00 0.26 0. 40 5.00 0.00 1. 72 1. 72
10 . 00 0.29 0. 40 5.00 0.00 1.62 1.62
15.00 0.29 0.40 5.00 0.00 1.47 1.47
20.00 0 . 20 0.39 5. 00 0.00 1.09 1.09
25.00 0.24 0.39 5.00 0.00 0.83 0 . 83
30. 00 0.33 0.38 5.00 0 . 00 0.63 0.63
35 . 00 0.29 0.36 5.00 0.00 0.45 0.45
40 . 00 0. 25 0.35 5. 00 0.00 0.24 0 . 24
45.00 0.26 0.33 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09
50.00 2.02 0.31 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 (wit h user
UNTITLED. sum
In-Situ Test Data:
Depth SPT gamma Fines
ft pef %
2.00 4.00 120.90 21.80
5.00 10.00 120.00 21.00
10.00 13.00 120.00 21.00
15.02 14.00 120.00 21.00
20.00 10.00 120.00 23.00
25.00 14.00 120.00 23.80
36.00 19.00 120.00 32.90
35.00 15.00 120.00 32.09
40.00 19.00 120.00 27.00
45.00 21.00 120.00 27.00
50.00 36.00 120.00 27.90
Output Results:
Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.00 in.
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=1.77 in.
Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=1.77 in.
Differential Settlement=6.887 to 1.171 in.
Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. S_dry S_all
ft in. in, in.
e.0e e.13 0.41 5.00 8.00 1.77 1.77
5.00 0.26 0.40 5.00 0.00 1.72 1.72
10.00 @.29 0.40 5.00 0.00 1.62 1.62
15.e6 @.29 0.40 5.00 0.00 1.47 1.47
20.00 0.20 0.39 5.00 0.00 1.09 1.089
25.06 0.24 8.39 5.00 0.00 0.83 0.83
30.06 0.33 0.38 5.00 0.00 0.63 0.63
35.00 0.29 0.36 5.00 0.00 0.45 e.4a5
40.00 0.25 0.35 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24
45.086 0.26 0.33 5.00 0.00 0.909 0.09
50.08 2.02 8.31 5.00 0.00 9.00 0.00
* F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone
{(F.S. is limited to S, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Units: Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = atm (tsf), Unit Weight = pc¥, 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
1642
request factor of
F.S.
s_sat
S_dry
S_all
No Liq
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
UNTITLED.sum
request factor of safety)
F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf S_sat Settlement from saturated sands
S_dry Settlement from Unsaturated Sands
S_all Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils
1643
Appendix F
Paleontological Resources Assessment
Appendix F
Paleontological Resources Assessment
Kimley»Horn
1644
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue, Pomona CA 91767 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com *REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Submitted to:
E|P|D Solutions, Inc.
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
BELAGOPARKPROJECT
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Material Culture Consulting™
© 2021 All Rights Reserved.
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
&(
MATERIAL CULTURE
CONSULTING
Submitted to:
E|P|D Solutions, Inc.
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614
pd £7))]|| r—\
N—/
1645
PHASE I PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT:
BELAGO PARK, CITY OF MORENO VALLEY,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
E|P|D Solutions, Inc.
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1120
Irvine, CA 92614
Prepared by:
Erika McMullin, B.A.
Principal Investigator:
Jennifer Kelly, M.Sc., Geology, Professional Paleontologist Material Culture Consulting, Inc.
2701-B North Towne Avenue
Pomona, CA 91767
626-205-8279
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Type of Study: Paleontological resources assessment
Paleontological Resources within Area of Potential Impact: None Paleontological Sensitivity: High Sensitivity B
Project Location: Sunnymead, Section 14 of Township 3 S, Range 3 W APNs: 478-100-012, 478-100-035, 478-100-001, 478-120-001, 478-120 -002, 478-120-005, 478-120-006, 478-120-025, 478-110-002, 478-110-007, 478-110-003, 478-110-004, 478-110-005, 478-110-006,
Survey Acreage: Approx. 40-acres
Date of Field Survey: February 15, 2021
Key Words: Paleontology, CEQA, Phase I Survey, Negative Paleontological Survey, Riverside County, High B Sensitivity , Qyf, Qyv, Qvof, Q, grMz a
~
MATERIAL CULTURE
CONSULTING
PHASE| PALEONTOLOGICALRESOURCESASSESSMENT:
BELAGOPARK,CITYOF MORENO VALLEY,
RIVERSIDECOUNTY,CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
E|P|D Solutions, Inc.
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1120
Irvine, CA 92614
Prepared by:
Erika McMullin, B.A.
Principal Investigator:
Jennifer Kelly, M.Sc., Geology, Professional Paleontologist Material Culture Consulting, Inc.
2701-B North Towne Avenue
Pomona, CA 91767
626-205-8279
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Type of Study: Paleontological resources assessment
PaleontologicalResources withinArea ofPotentialImpact:None PaleontologicalSensitivity: High Sensitivity B
ProjectLocation:Sunnymead, Section 14 of Township 3 S,Range 3 W APNs: 478-100-012, 478-100-035, 478-100-001, 478-120-001, 478-120 -002, 478-120-005, 478-120-006, 478-120-025, 478-110-002, 478-110-007, 478-110-003, 478-110-004, 478-110-005, 478-110-006,
SurveyAcreage: Approx. 40-acres Date ofFieldSurvey:February 15, 2021 Key Words:Paleontology, CEQA,Phase | Survey, Negative Paleontological Survey, Riverside County, High BSensitivity , Qyf, Qyv, Qvof, Q, grMz 1646
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The Belago Park Project (hereafter referred to as Project or Project Area) proposes the construction of a residential development consisting of detached single-family homes (Project). The proposed Project consists of 15 parcels totaling approximately 45-acres, which are located at the intersection of Cactus Avenue and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. Material Culture Consulting, Inc. (MCC) was retained by E|P|D Solutions, Inc. to conduct a Phase I paleontological resource investigation of the Project Area. This assessment was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and included fossil locality searches, an examination of geologic maps and paleontological literature, and a field survey.
Based on geologic mapping, the Project Area is mapped as surficial younger Quaternary alluvium with older Quaternary alluvium at unknown depths. No significant paleontological resources were identified directly within the Project Area during the locality searches or the field survey. The locality searches conducted by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) and Western Science Center (WSC) did yield nearby localities from sedimentary deposits similar to those that may occur subsurface in the Project Area. A literature search indicated that significant fossil resources were recovered from construction activities approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Project. The Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS) GIS data revealed that the entirety of the Project Area lies within an area mapped as High B sensitivity. A designation of High B sensitivity indicates that these sedimentary rock units have high potential for containing significant non-renewable paleontological resources at depths at or below 5 feet. Excavation during the course of the Project may reach paleontologically sensitive deposits, and, as a result, could impact paleontological resources. Therefore, MCC recommends the following procedures:
• A trained and qualified paleontological monitor should perform full-time monitoring of any excavations within the Project Area that have the potential to impact paleontological resources in undisturbed High B sensitivity native sediments, at or below 5 feet in depth. The monitor will have the ability to redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. • The project paleontologist may re-evaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring after examination of the affected sediments during excavation, with approval from County and Client representatives. • Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) professional standards. • Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. • A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, will be prepared and submitted to the appropriate County personnel.
All notes, photographs, correspondence and other materials related to this Project are located at Material Culture Consulting, Inc., located in Pomona, California.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The Belago Park Project (hereafter referred to as Project or Project Area) proposes the construction of a residential development consisting of detached single-family homes (Project). The proposed Project consists of 15 parcels totaling approximately 45-acres, which are located at the intersection of Cactus Avenue and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. Material Culture Consulting, Inc. (MCC) was retained by E|P|D Solutions, Inc. to conduct a Phase | paleontological resource investigation of the Project Area. This assessment was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and included fossil locality searches, an examination of geologic maps and paleontological literature, and a field survey.
Based on geologic mapping, the Project Area is mapped as surficial younger Quaternary alluvium with older Quaternary alluvium at unknown depths. No significant paleontological resources were identified directly within the Project Area during the locality searches or the field survey. The locality searches conducted by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) and Western Science Center (WSC) did yield nearby localities from sedimentary deposits similar to those that may occur subsurface in the Project Area. A literature search indicated that significant fossil resources were recovered from construction activities approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Project. The Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS) GIS data revealed that the entirety of the Project Area lies within an area mapped as High B sensitivity. A designation of High B sensitivity indicates that these sedimentary rock units have high potential for containing significant non-renewable paleontological resources at depths at or below 5 feet. Excavation during the course of the Project may reach paleontologically sensitive deposits, and, as a result, could impact paleontological resources. Therefore, MCC recommends the following procedures:
e Atrained and qualified paleontological monitor should perform full-time monitoring of any excavations within the Project Area that have the potential to impact paleontological resources in undisturbed High B sensitivity native sediments, at or below 5 feet in depth. The monitor will have the ability to redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. eo The project paleontologist may re-evaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring after examination of the affected sediments during excavation, with approval from County and Client representatives. eo Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) professional standards. eo Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. eo Areport documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, will be prepared and submitted to the appropriate County personnel.
All notes, photographs, correspondence and other materials related to this Project are located at Material Culture Consulting, Inc., located in Pomona, California.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1647
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................5 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 5 PROJECT PERSONNEL............................................................................................................................................................ 5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................................................................................. 9 GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT......................................................................................................................................................... 9 RESEARCH DESIGN.................................................................................................12 METHODS..............................................................................................................13 LITERATURE AND MAP REVIEW AND LOCALITY SEARCH.................................................................................................... 13 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY METHODS ......................................................................................................... 13 RESULTS ................................................................................................................14 MUSEUM LOCALITY SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS...................................................................................... 14 PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 16 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................20 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION............................................................................................................................................ 20 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECTLOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .....ccouerererssererssssenesssesesssssesessssessssseessssssesssssesessssesesssesesssssesessssessssssesesssesesssasescssans 5 PROJECT PERSONNEL.......ecovereeusereeesssenessseessssseressssesssssesssssesessassesessssesesssesesssassessassesessssesesssesesssssesessssessssssesessssesssssesessans5 ENVIRONMENTALSETTING...ccouoveeurssenessseemsssseresssseesssseesssssesesssssesessssesesssesesssesesesssssessssssesesssesesssssesessssnesessssesessssesssssesessans9 GEOLOGICALCONTEXT....oeveveseeeesssesessseressssesesssesessssssesssssesesssssesesssessssesesesssssesesssseesesssesssssssessssesessssessssssssssssesssssesesasee 9 LITERATUREAND MAP REVIEWAND LOCALITYSEARCH.......eoormiiiiiinenrensenn nner enneserene essereeens13 PALEONTOLOGICALRESOURCESSURVEYMETHODS .......eoiiiiiiiirntr nents nesses sss esnesass sanessensanenen13 MUSEUM LOCALITYSEARCH AND LITERATUREREVIEW RESULTS.....oieerie ners essere 14 PALEONTOLOGICALFIELDSURVEY RESULTS....ueiiiiiiri seinen ssc nsen esses esas seen esane sesso nessa sane san essen sane nen 16 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS........cccottmecimrmerernnesnnnencrsnesnseessrensssescessnsnssss20 RECOMMENDEDMITIGATION... cuore ners scree nasser s sess ess nese E esas nba E eae ssa b ene an ese benenane nen 20 Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1648
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Belago Park Project Vicinity (1:500,000)...............................................................................................6 Figure 2. Belago Park Project Location (1:24,000; as depicted on Sunnymead USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle).7 Figure 3. Belago Park Project Area (1:4,000; as depicted on aerial photograph).................................................8 Figure 4. Belago Park Project Geologic Map (from Morton and Matti 2001, 1:24,000).....................................11 Figure 5. Paleontological Sensitivity (from RCLIS, orange indicates High B Sensitivity, green indicates Low Sensitivity) .........................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 6. Project Area from Redlands Blvd. and Cactus Ave. corner, facing north ...........................................16 Figure 7. Overview of Project Area from the Redlands Blvd. and Cactus Ave. corner, facing northwest .........16 Figure 8. Representative photo of sediments and inclusions observed within Project Area near Redlands Blvd. and Cactus Ave., plan view.......................................................................................................................17 Figure 9. Representative photograph of visibility and vegetation near southern border of Cactus Ave., plan view...................................................................................................................................................................17 Figure 10. Representative photograph of granite and quartzinclusions, plan view ..........................................17 Figure 11. Overview of change in elevation from Redlands Blvd. to Project Area, facing east..........................17 Figure 12. Overview of creek that has been modified, facing northeast ...........................................................17 Figure 13. Representative photograph of depression pit, facing west...............................................................17 Figure 14. Representative photograph of plowing and soil furrows, plan view.................................................18 Figure 15. Overview of Project Areain eastern portion, facing south................................................................18 Figure 16. Overview of creek that has been modified near Cactus Ave., facing southwest...............................18 Figure 17. Overview of Project Area and built berm with creek to the east, facing north.................................18 Figure 18. Representative photograph of visibility and vegetation in northeastern portion of Project Area, plan view ...........................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 19. Overview of Project Area from NE corner of Wilmont St. and Cactus Ave., facing west...................18 Figure 20. Overview of Project Area from NE corner of Wilmont St. and Cactus Ave., facing north .................19 Figure 21. Overview of Project Area from Wilmont St. and Brodiaea, facing east-northeast............................19 Figure 22. Representative photograph of visibility, soil, and plowed disturbance in area east of Wilmont Ave. and west of creek, plan view .............................................................................................................................19 Figure 23. Overview of Project Area from NW corner of Cactus Ave. and Wilmont Ave., facing north.............19 Figure 24. Overview of Project Area from western-most boundary, facing north.............................................19 Figure 25. Overview of mound looking towards Cactus Ave. near the westernmost corner, facing south........19
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Qualifications
APPENDIX B: Paleontological Record Search Results
LISTOFFIGURES
Figure 1. BelagoParkProject Vicinity (1:500,000)..........cccerrererrrerereiceeererieresreree eeeseseesssaseeseseesesnessasessssseenssseenn 6 Figure 2. Belago Park Project Location (1:24,000; as depicted on Sunnymead USGS7.5 minute Quadrangle).7 Figure 3. Belago Park Project Area (1:4,000; as depicted on aerial photograph}........ccecevceereirecceercieeereer. 8 Figure 4. Belago Park Project Geologic Map (from Morton and Matti 2001, 1:24,000)........cccceeeceerereereveeerennen11 Figure 5. Paleontological Sensitivity (from RCLIS, orange indicates High B Sensitivity, green indicates Low SENSILIVILY) «eeeeieieiiiiie ieee eeeeiie eee eertre reset rte ees seratee ee sest ease se sstas assesses ae sasss ease sas sstasesansstasesaasssessesasansesesansnsesensnnns 15 Figure 6. Project Area from Redlands Blvd. and Cactus Ave. corner, facing north ..........cccoecevcmninicicennnncenn. 16 Figure 7. Overview of Project Area from the Redlands Blvd. and Cactus Ave. corner, facing northwest .........16 Figure 8. Representative photo of sediments and inclusions observed within Project Area near Redlands Blvd. and Cactus AVE., Plan VIEW........ceiieeiiiieceeeriie reererecceereeereseeserasessesanssreeeaseresensessasnsnsreeeeseransenasnnsnnens17 Figure 9. Representative photograph of visibility and vegetation near southern border of Cactus Ave., plan VIEW we ciiieiieie ieee ener eres cetera seems er erase ese ae sa an aaneter aes ete sansa namnetereneete sansa namnerereaeetetanae nannerereneetetanaaaaaannrereneaeen 17 Figure 10. Representative photograph of granite and quartz inclusions, plan view .........cccccecevcerinicicennerceen.17 Figure 11. Overview of change in elevation from Redlands Blvd. to Project Area, facing east .........ccccceveneueennn. 17 Figure 12. Overview of creek that has been modified, facing northeast .........c.ccoeriirceiiiniincicrre rece17 Figure 13. Representative photograph of depression pit, facing West.........cccoeeiiieiceeiiicecre cere 17 Figure 14. Representative photograph of plowing and soil furrows, plan view.........c.cccecceiirciicninicicennecceen,18 Figure 15. Overview of Project Areain eastern portion, facing south ..........cccccoi irvine, 18 Figure 16. Overview of creek that has been modified near CactusAve., facing southwest..............cccoeeerene.en.18 Figure 17. Overview of Project Area and built berm with creek to the east, facing north.........cccccoccocnnnnennenn.18 Figure 18. Representative photograph of visibility and vegetation in northeastern portion of Project Area, [3ET Y= ST 18
Figure 19. Overview of Project Area from NE corner of Wilmont St. and Cactus Ave., facing west...................18 Figure 20. Overview of Project Area from NE corner of Wilmont St. and Cactus Ave., facing north .................19 Figure 21. Overview of Project Area from Wilmont St. and Brodiaea, facing east-northeast............cccccevnenecnnn.19 Figure 22. Representative photograph of visibility, soil, and plowed disturbance in area east of Wilmont Ave. and West Of Creek, Plan VIEW.......oooiirc rcererereeseertresseserase sessaerareasenesansenssanneneranennen19 Figure 23. Overview of Project Area from NW corner of Cactus Ave. and Wilmont Ave., facing north..............19 Figure 24. Overview of Project Area from western-most boundary, facing north.........ccccccoovcevcininicicnnnncenen.19 Figure 25. Overview of mound looking towards Cactus Ave. near the westernmost corner, facing south........19
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Qualifications
APPENDIX B: Paleontological Record Search Results
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1649
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
INTRODUCTION
The Belago Park Project (hereafter referred to as Project or Project Area) proposes the construction of a residential development consisting of detached single-family homes within the City of Moreno Valley in Riverside County, California. Material Culture Consulting, Inc. (MCC) was retained by E|P|D Solutions, Inc. to conduct a Phase I paleontological resource investigation of the Project Area. This paleontological resource assessment was conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (13 PRC) 2100, (14 CAC) 15000, Appendix G, Section J, (PRC) 2100-21177, Appendix G, (PRC) 5097.5 and guidelines in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) standards. According to these regulations and guidelines, if development of a Project has the potential to result in significant impacts to paleontological resources, a plan must be developed to mitigate those impacts to a level which is less than significant. This assessment documents the potential for encountering paleontological resources during development of this Project and provides recommendations on how to mitigate impacts to those resources. This assessment included fossil locality records searches, an examination of geologic maps and paleontological literature, and a pedestrian field survey.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project is located in the City of Moreno Valley, located within northwestern Riverside County (Figure 1). The Project consists of 15 undeveloped parcels totaling approximately 45-acres (APNs 478-100-012, 478-100-035 478- 100-001, 478-120-001, 478-120 -002, 478-120-005, 478-120-006, 478-110-002, 478-120-025, 478-110-007, 478- 110-003, 478-110-004, 478-110-005, 478-110-006, and 478-120-027) located at the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California (Figures 2 and 3). The Project is bounded by residential housing on Brodiaea Avenue to the north and on Cactus Avenue to the south.
Undeveloped areas are present east of Redlands Boulevard and west of Wilmont St. The area currently exists as a vacant area with some mowing and off-roading disturbance. A paved pipeline runs southwest to northeast through the Project Area. The Project Area may be found on the Sunnymead USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle in Section 14 of Township 3 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian (Figure 2).
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Jennifer Kelly, M.S., a Qualified Riverside County Paleontologist, served as the Principal Investigator for the study.
Ms. Kelly conducted the paleontological resource literature and map reviews, oversaw the field study, and prepared this report. Ms. Kelly has a M.Sc. in Geology from California State University, Long Beach. Ms. Kelly has over 12 years of experience in environmental and paleontological compliance in California (See Appendix A). Erika McMullin, B.A., MCC archaeologist and cross-trained paleontologist, co-authored this report and conducted the pedestrian survey.
GIS Specialist Julia Carvajal, M.A., provided GIS support and created the maps for the report. MCC Project Manager Sonia Sifuentes, M.Sc., RPA, provided peer-review of the report.
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page5 of 21
INTRODUCTION
The Belago Park Project (hereafter referred to as Project or Project Area) proposes the construction of a residential development consisting of detached single-family homes within the City of Moreno Valley in Riverside County, California. Material Culture Consulting, Inc. (MCC) was retained by E|P|D Solutions, Inc. to conduct a Phase | paleontological resource investigation of the Project Area. This paleontological resource assessment was conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),Public ResourcesCode (13 PRC) 2100, (14 CAC)15000, Appendix G,Section J,(PRC) 2100-21177, Appendix G, (PRC) 5097.5 and guidelines in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) standards. According to these regulations and guidelines, if development of a Project has the potential to result in significant impacts to paleontological resources, a plan must be developed to mitigate those impacts to a level which is less than significant. This assessment documents the potential for encountering paleontological resources during development of this Project and provides recommendations on how to mitigate impacts to those resources. This assessment included fossil locality records searches, an examination of geologic maps and paleontological literature, and a pedestrian field survey.
PROJECTLOCATIONAND DESCRIPTION
The Project is located in the City of Moreno Valley, located within northwestern Riverside County (Figure 1). The Project consists of 15 undeveloped parcels totaling approximately 45-acres {APNs 478-100-012, 478-100-035 478- 100-001, 478-120-001, 478-120 -002, 478-120-005, 478-120-006, 478-110-002, 478-120-025, 478-110-007, 478- 110-003, 478-110-004, 478-110-005, 478-110-006, and 478-120-027) located at the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California (Figures 2 and 3). The Project is bounded by residential housing on Brodiaea Avenue to the north and on Cactus Avenue to the south.
Undeveloped areas are present east of Redlands Boulevard and west of Wilmont St. The area currently exists as a vacant area with some mowing and off-roading disturbance. A paved pipeline runs southwest to northeast through the Project Area. The Project Area may be found on the Sunnymead USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle in Section 14 of Township 3 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian (Figure 2).
PROJECTPERSONNEL
Jennifer Kelly, M.S., a Qualified Riverside County Paleontologist, served as the Principal Investigator for the study.
Ms. Kelly conducted the paleontological resource literature and map reviews, oversaw the field study, and prepared this report. Ms. Kelly has a M.Sc. in Geology from California State University, Long Beach.Ms. Kelly has over 12 years of experience in environmental and paleontological compliance in California (See Appendix A). Erika McMullin, B.A., MCC archaeologist and cross-trained paleontologist, co-authored this report and conducted the pedestrian survey.
GIS Specialist Julia Carvajal, M.A., provided GIS support and created the maps for the report. MCC Project Manager Sonia Sifuentes, M.Sc., RPA, provided peer-review of the report.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1650
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 1. Belago Park Project Vicinity (1:500,000)
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page6 of 21
_ 1 i X 1 Tug EF LU Hr oH
in [TT ~ rN ” i 0 PUT oo : gn IG me [
Pe ips 4 “
. ” $1 PRN, i, Snaiacel
- OVINE: =
AV Iv
4 J a el 0
PAI SE . : DS 4 gba vw De FAX vi
. PY £7 Mn - TT oa foe ‘7 ce § ay 57 . THe dy | ae Co . Lake. A - } ; TTI sgn - , : ce Lo. J | - 4 : - : Arrowhead - : Big Bear Ci Se _Crestline *”Big Bear Lake COO OW. Td Sarf Bernamin”y_zp EES. it Fo or KK OP {Ey Frans 3 ge Nation
+ Leama oh f png EoB ig 1520 od nL AE
FIER) J { y' 7 (if
On Ce a ae 38) ay
£ / 4, py ws J . Mand KIT) “ Se CL Ts
land 7g Ar 7 vr joe ns
. san Tro S77) EL
Bernardi A] Fs gal
: 5 Yi i 1 "Li lands ip To EI ! N nda. | 2 - gd Ah tns = i. ,/ Grand Terri = Yucaipa 34 %ike A PIX (PY) . ~ CL 1a red eff bi gi
: side ye Io fA rae si ery - ’ Project Location L | ¢
oil: i —— dd
_ : HER . &t
00) Beaumont™
MorenoValley :
Miles ”-~
Kilometers Pa \ 8
MATERIAL CULTURE
[ Project Area
[+] 5 10 20 CONSULTING 1:500,000
Figure 1. BelagoPark Project Vicinity (1:500,000)
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1651
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 2. Belago Park Project Location (1:24,000; as depicted on Sunnymead USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle) Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page7 of 21
A i
USGS7.5' Quad: Sunnymead
al AS 71 2) pi f2 ProjectArea : : . Pa 0
a mm Kilometers edt
oes 4152 MATERIALCULTURE
1:24,000
Figure 2. Belago Park Project Location (1:24,000; as depicted on Sunnymead USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle) Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1652
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 3. Belago Park Project Area (1:4,000; as depicted on aerial photograph) Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page8 of 21
Quincy:St
Redlands Blvd
5:74 ncy:St-—
HACE LE
WYpidoad ed hs
Es
Bin. (jj
p Enol J
ps € i Aa:
randy, TLL
idge Crest
2 2021Project Area 0
[1
200 400 TE 000 800
] ~~
C3 2024ProjectArea mmm mmm Meters Pa \
2) RoadImprovements Addition iti (2024) 0 50 100 y x 200 MATERIAL MATERIAL CULTURE CULTURE I= Figure 3. Belago Park Project Area (1:4,000; as depicted on aerial photograph) Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1653
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project Area is located within the City of Moreno Valley in northwestern Riverside County, approximately
0.28-mile northwest of Mount Russell. Bounded by the Box Springs Mountains to the north, the Badlands to the east, and Lake Perris Recreation Area and associated mountains to the south, the Project Area is located within a relatively flat valley floor that is surrounded by hills and mountains. Elevations are approximately 481 meters (m) (1580 feet) above mean sea level (AMSL) throughout the Project Area. The region is located within the Peninsular Ranges, a northwest-southeast oriented complex of blocks separated by similarly trending faults (Norris and Webb 1978). Most geological formations found within this area are part of the Southern California Batholith complex, a great mass of igneous basement rocks. Vegetation observed throughout the entirety of the Project Area included grasses and weeds. A few non-native eucalyptus trees were present on the eastern border of the Project Area.
Tumbleweeds and native shrubs were observed in the western portion. The climate in the region is characterized as Mediterranean, with hot, dry summers and temperate, wet winters.
GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
The Project Area lies within the Sunnymead quadrangle, which lies within the geomorphic province known as the Peninsular Ranges Province, sitting near the eastern margin of the Perris Block (Kenney 1999). The Perris Block is a structurally stable, internally cohesive mass of crustal rocks bounded on the east by the San Jacinto fault zone, bounded on the west by the Elsinore and Chino fault zones, on the north by the Cucamonga fault zone (Norris and Webb 1976; Morton and Matti 1989), and on the south by a series of sedimentary basins (Morton and Matti 1989).
The Project area is mapped as young alluvium fan deposits transported and deposited in channels, washes, and on alluvial fan surfaces. Additional literature maps the northeastern portion of the Project Area within surficial Quaternary alluvial fan deposits and very old alluvial fan deposits in the southeastern corner of the Project Area (Figure 4) (Morton and Matti 2001). Furthermore, the WSC has mapped the furthest eastern corner, near the intersection of Cactus Avenue and Redlands Boulevard, as Mesozoic granite rocks (grMz) and the rest of the Project Area as Quaternary alluvium (Q) dating to the Pliocene-Holocene (McDonald 2021). While grMz does not have the potential to yield fossils, Quaternary alluvial units have the high potential to yield significant fossil resources (McDonald 2021).
Mesozoic granite rocks (grMZ) are fine-grained to coarse-grained granitic dikes and plutonic rocks, composed of granodiorite, tonalite, quartz monzonite, and granite. These units are not suitable for the preservation of fossil resources and have low to no sensitivity.
Very old alluvial fan deposits (Qvof) are early Pleistocene deposits consisting of mostly well-dissected, wellindurated, reddish-brown sand deposits with minor gravel (Morton and Matti 2001). These deposits are commonly flanking bedrock areas and can contain duripans and locally silcretes (Morton and Matti 2001). These sediments are derived as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain located immediately to the south of the Project Area.
The surficial sediments can be relatively coarse and lack significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but may have pockets of finer-grained Quaternary deposits that contain significant vertebrate fossils at depth. Fossils found within Pleistocene-aged terrestrial deposits in this area may include mammoth, mastodon, camel, horse, llama, and other, smaller vertebrate and invertebrate remains. This unit has moderate to high (High B) paleontological sensitivity.
Young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) are Holocene and late Pleistocene sediments derived from lithicly diverse sedimentary units (Morton and Matti 2001). These units are gray-hued sand and cobble- and gravel-sand deposits.
These units are unlikely to produce significant paleontological resources surficially, unless Pleistocene-aged deposits are encountered. These units have a low to moderate paleontological sensitivity.
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page9 of 21
ENVIRONMENTALSETTING
The Project Area is located within the City of Moreno Valley in northwestern Riverside County, approximately
0.28-mile northwest of Mount Russell. Bounded by the Box Springs Mountains to the north, the Badlands to the east, and Lake Perris Recreation Area and associated mountains to the south, the Project Area is located within a relatively flat valley floor that is surrounded by hills and mountains. Elevations are approximately 481 meters (m) (1580 feet) above mean sea level (AMSL) throughout the Project Area. The region is located within the Peninsular Ranges, a northwest-southeast oriented complex of blocks separated by similarly trending faults (Norris and Webb 1978). Most geological formations found within this area are part of the Southern California Batholith complex, a great mass of igneous basement rocks. Vegetation observed throughout the entirety of the Project Area included grasses and weeds. A few non-native eucalyptus trees were present on the eastern border of the Project Area.
Tumbleweeds and native shrubs were observed in the western portion. The climate in the region is characterized as Mediterranean, with hot, dry summers and temperate, wet winters.
GEOLOGICALCONTEXT
The Project Area lies within the Sunnymead quadrangle, which lies within the geomorphic province known as the Peninsular Ranges Province, sitting near the eastern margin of the Perris Block (Kenney 1999). The Perris Block is a structurally stable, internally cohesive mass of crustal rocks bounded on the east by the San Jacinto fault zone, bounded on the west by the Elsinore and Chino fault zones, on the north by the Cucamonga fault zone (Norris and Webb 1976; Morton and Matti 1989), and on the south by a series of sedimentary basins (Morton and Matti 1989).
The Project area is mapped as young alluvium fan deposits transported and deposited in channels, washes, and on alluvial fan surfaces. Additional literature maps the northeastern portion of the Project Area within surficial Quaternary alluvial fan deposits and very old alluvial fan deposits in the southeastern corner of the Project Area (Figure 4) (Morton and Matti 2001). Furthermore, the WSChas mapped the furthest eastern corner, near the intersection of Cactus Avenue and Redlands Boulevard, as Mesozoic granite rocks (grMz) and the rest of the Project Area as Quaternary alluvium (Q) dating to the Pliocene-Holocene (McDonald 2021). While grMz does not have the potential to yield fossils, Quaternary alluvial units have the high potential to yield significant fossil resources (McDonald 2021).
Mesozoic granite rocks (grMZ) are fine-grained to coarse-grained granitic dikes and plutonic rocks, composed of granodiorite, tonalite, quartz monzonite, and granite. These units are not suitable for the preservation of fossil resources and have low to no sensitivity.
Very old alluvialfan deposits (Qvof) are early Pleistocene deposits consisting of mostly well-dissected, wellindurated, reddish-brown sand deposits with minor gravel (Morton and Matti 2001). These deposits are commonly flanking bedrock areas and can contain duripans and locally silcretes (Morton and Matti 2001). These sediments are derived as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain located immediately to the south of the Project Area.
The surficial sediments can be relatively coarse and lack significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but may have pockets of finer-grained Quaternary deposits that contain significant vertebrate fossils at depth. Fossils found within Pleistocene-aged terrestrial deposits in this area may include mammoth, mastodon, camel, horse, llama, and other, smaller vertebrate and invertebrate remains. This unit has moderate to high (High B) paleontological sensitivity.
Young alluvialfan deposits (Qyf) are Holocene and late Pleistocene sediments derived from lithicly diverse sedimentary units (Morton and Matti 2001). These units are gray-hued sand and cobble- and gravel-sand deposits.
These units are unlikely to produce significant paleontological resources surficially, unless Pleistocene-aged deposits are encountered. These units have a low to moderate paleontological sensitivity.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1654
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Young alluvial valley deposits (Qyv) are Holocene to late Pleistocene-aged alluvial valley deposits. The sediments consist of gray unconsolidated, silty to sandy alluvium on valley floors (Morton and Matti 2001). These units are unlikely to produce significant paleontological resources surficially, unless Pleistocene-aged deposits are encountered, particularly in the finer-grained sediments. These units have a low to moderate paleontological sensitivity.
Quaternary alluvium (Qal): Holocene to Pleistocene-aged alluvial deposit that typically consists of river and stream derived sediments. The sediments are comprised of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sedimentary sand and gravel (Jennings 2010). These units may contain significant paleontological resources at depth, particularly if the Pleistocene-age sediments are encountered. This unit has a low to moderate paleontological sensitivity.
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page10 of 21
Young alluvial valley deposits (Qyv) are Holocene to late Pleistocene-aged alluvial valley deposits. The sediments consist of gray unconsolidated, silty to sandy alluvium on valley floors (Morton and Matti 2001). These units are unlikely to produce significant paleontological resources surficially, unless Pleistocene-aged deposits are encountered, particularly in the finer-grained sediments. These units have a low to moderate paleontological sensitivity.
Quaternary alluvium (Qal): Holocene to Pleistocene-aged alluvial deposit that typically consists of river and stream derived sediments. The sediments are comprised of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sedimentary sand and gravel (Jennings 2010). These units may contain significant paleontological resources at depth, particularly if the Pleistocene-age sediments are encountered. This unit has a low to moderate paleontological sensitivity.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1655
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 4. Belago Park Project Geologic Map (from Morton and Matti 2001, 1:24,000) Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page11of 21
rem emp - BEERS ELLE CEE
Ll w
he I
femme wk PUL y
EEE LE SCI 2 nt [TRL
--
— i.
LE +
at mali. .- ae ey - — -
2 . a hart,
3 ProjectArea J. - J Four Alavi VickeyDaposks Pa vs
{Haka ie late Plaisiocang) Glometars Ss
ed G.25 a.5 1 EE] VeryDid Alliavial Fan Qaposhc MATERLALCLL {Earty Plaistoonna) 124.000
Figure 4. Belago Park Project Geologic Map (from Morton and Matti 2001, 1:24,000) Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1656
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
RESEARCH DESIGN
Paleontological resources (fossils) are the remains of prehistoric life that provide an invaluable window into the past. These remains can be bones, teeth, shells, wood or leaves, or trace fossils (including burrows and trackways).
The Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) generally considers any resource greater than 5,000 years old to be a fossil (SVP 2010). Fossils are considered non-renewable resources and in California, impacts to paleontological resources must be considered pursuant to CEQA requirements for environmental reviews.
The paleontological resources assessment was conducted according to CEQA, Public Resources Code (13 PRC) 2100, (14 CAC) 15000, Appendix G, Section J, (PRC) 2100-21177, Appendix G, (PRC) 5097.5. The paleontological resources assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential existence of resources that would require a preparation of a monitoring plan and monitoring activities, in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The Moreno Valley General Plan’s (2006) Conservation Element Programs 7-6 states “in areas where archaeological or paleontological resources are known or reasonably expected to exist, based upon the citywide survey conducted by the UCR Archaeological Research Unit, incorporate the recommendations and determinations of that report to reduce potential impacts to levels of insignificance”. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Report for City of Moreno Valley General Plan (P&D Consultants 2006) has one mitigation measure concerning paleontological resources:
• C1. Prior to the approval of a project, the City will assess potential impacts to significant historic, prehistoric archeological, 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 the impacts, or require measures to mitigate the impacts. Mitigation may involve monitoring, resource recovery, documentation or other measures.
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page12 of 21
RESEARCHDESIGN
Paleontological resources (fossils) are the remains of prehistoric life that provide an invaluable window into the past. These remains can be bones, teeth, shells, wood or leaves, or trace fossils (including burrows and trackways).
The Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) generally considers any resource greater than 5,000 years old to be a fossil (SVP 2010). Fossils are considered non-renewable resources and in California, impacts to paleontological resources must be considered pursuant to CEQA requirements for environmental reviews.
The paleontological resources assessment was conducted according to CEQA, Public Resources Code (13 PRC) 2100, (14 CAC)15000, Appendix G,Section J,(PRC) 2100-21177, Appendix G, (PRC)5097.5. The paleontological resources assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential existence of resources that would require a preparation of a monitoring plan and monitoring activities, in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The Moreno Valley GeneralPlan's (2006) Conservation Element Programs 7-6 states “in areas where archaeological or paleontological resources are known or reasonably expected to exist, based upon the citywide survey conducted by the UCR Archaeological Research Unit, incorporate the recommendations and determinations of that report to reduce potential impacts to levels of insignificance”. Additionally, the EnvironmentalImpact Reportfor City of Moreno Valley GeneralPlan (P&D Consultants 2006) has one mitigation measure concerning paleontological resources:
eo (C1.Prior to the approval of a project, the City will assess potential impacts to significant historic, prehistoric archeological, 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 the impacts, or require measures to mitigate the impacts. Mitigation may involve monitoring, resource recovery, documentation or other measures.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1657
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
METHODS
LITERATURE AND MAP REVIEW AND LOCALITY SEARCH
The literature review included an examination of geologic maps of the Project Area and a review of relevant geological and paleontological literature, including published peer-reviewed documents and previous research on the area, to determine which geologic units are present within the Project Area and whether fossils have been recovered from those geologic units elsewhere in the region. As geologic units may extend over large geographic areas and contain similar lithologies and fossils, the literature review includes areas well beyond the Project Area.
The results of this literature review include an overview of the geology of the Project Area and a discussion of the paleontological sensitivity (or potential) of the geologic units within the Project Area. Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS), which provides a paleontological resource sensitivity map for the entire county, was consulted by MCC staff on February 4, 2021. Additional sources reviewed included the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Miocene Mammal Mapping Project (MioMap) and the Paleobiology Database (PBDB). Previous local construction-related reports were also consulted to determine if fossils were recorded from other projects nearby.
The purpose of a locality search is to establish the status and extent of previously recorded paleontological resources within and adjacent to the study area for a given project. On December 31, 2020, a locality search was conducted through the LACM in Los Angeles (Appendix B). This search identified any vertebrate localities in the LACM records that exist near the Project Area in the same or similar deposits. Additionally, on June 4, 2021, a locality search was conducted through WSC in Hemet, California. The search identified the geological units underlying the Project Area and any fossil localities in the WSC records that exist near the Project Area or any localities within similarly mapped sediments throughout the region (Appendix B).
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY METHODS
The survey stage is important in a Project’s environmental assessment phase to verify the exact location of each identified paleontological resource (if any), the condition or integrity of the resource, and provides invaluable information on the type of sediment present within the Project Area, which informs the assessment of paleontological sensitivity. On February 15, 2021, MCC qualified archaeologist and cross-trained paleontologist Erika McMullin conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project Area. Special attention was paid to any graded areas and to rodent burrows that offered a better view of the underlying sediment. The purpose of a field survey is to note the sediments in the Project Area, relocate any known paleontological localities, and identify any unrecorded paleontological resources exposed on the surface. In this way, impacts to existing, unrecorded paleontological material may be mitigated prior to the beginning of ground-disturbing activities, and portions of the Project Area that are more likely to contain paleontological resources may be identified.
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page13 of 21
METHODS
LITERATUREAND MAP REVIEWAND LOCALITYSEARCH
The literature review included an examination of geologic maps of the Project Area and a review of relevant geological and paleontological literature, including published peer-reviewed documents and previous research on the area, to determine which geologic units are present within the Project Area and whether fossils have been recovered from those geologic units elsewhere in the region. As geologic units may extend over large geographic areas and contain similar lithologies and fossils, the literature review includes areas well beyond the Project Area.
The results of this literature review include an overview of the geology of the Project Area and a discussion of the paleontological sensitivity (or potential) of the geologic units within the Project Area. Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS), which provides a paleontological resource sensitivity map for the entire county, was consulted by MCC staff on February 4, 2021. Additional sources reviewed included the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Miocene Mammal Mapping Project (MioMap) and the Paleobiology Database (PBDB). Previous local construction-related reports were also consulted to determine if fossils were recorded from other projects nearby.
The purpose of a locality search is to establish the status and extent of previously recorded paleontological resources within and adjacent to the study area for a given project. On December 31, 2020, a locality search was conducted through the LACM in Los Angeles (Appendix B). This search identified any vertebrate localities in the LACM records that exist near the Project Area in the same or similar deposits. Additionally, on June 4, 2021, a locality search was conducted through WSC in Hemet, California. The search identified the geological units underlying the Project Area and any fossil localities in the WSC records that exist near the Project Area or any localities within similarly mapped sediments throughout the region (Appendix B).
PALEONTOLOGICALRESOURCESSURVEYMETHODS
The survey stage is important in a Project’s environmental assessment phase to verify the exact location of each identified paleontological resource (if any), the condition or integrity of the resource, and provides invaluable information on the type of sediment present within the Project Area, which informs the assessment of paleontological sensitivity. On February 15, 2021, MCC qualified archaeologist and cross-trained paleontologist Erika McMullin conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project Area. Special attention was paid to any graded areas and to rodent burrows that offered a better view of the underlying sediment. The purpose of a field survey is to note the sediments in the Project Area, relocate any known paleontological localities, and identify any unrecorded paleontological resources exposed on the surface. In this way, impacts to existing, unrecorded paleontological material may be mitigated prior to the beginning of ground-disturbing activities, and portions of the Project Area that are more likely to contain paleontological resources may be identified.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1658
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
RESULTS
MUSEUM LOCALITY SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS
The record search results from the LACM (Bell 2020, Appendix B) did not indicate any previously identified fossils directly within the Project Area; however, there are known localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits mapped within the Project Area (see Table 1). The closest vertebrate fossil locality from similar deposits is LACM VP 6059, from an unknown formation, located near Lake Elsinore, located approximately 18 miles southwest of the Project Area. This locality produced a fossil specimen of camel (Camelidae) at unknown depth (Bell 2020).
Additionally, the record search results from the WSC (McDonald 2021) also concluded that no localities have been identified within 1-mile of the Project Area. However, numerous fossil resources from similarly mapped Pleistocene alluvial sediments have been identified throughout the region. Examples of fossils from these Pleistocene alluvial deposits includes Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), Pacific mastodon (Mammut pacificus), sabertooth cat (Smilodon fatalis ancient horse (Equus sp.), and many other Pleistocene megafauna (McDonald 2021). However, public documents containing previous records searches for the area indicate that significant Pleistocene-aged fossils were recovered from the construction of an Aldi logistics site approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Project, near the intersection of Redlands Boulevard and Eucalyptus Avenue Fossils from these localities were recovered from 11 to 13 feet below ground surface in an area mapped as Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvial fan deposits (Morton and Matti 2001). Reported fossils from this locality include ground sloth (Megalonyx jeffersonii), lamine camel (Hemiauchenia sp.), and horse (Equus sp.) (Rincon 2019).
The Paleobiology Database (PBDB) yielded no results within the region. The MioMap yielded eight fossil assemblage localities from the San Timoteo formation located within 5 miles of the Project Area (Appendix B). The closest fossil assemblage is mapped approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the Project Area within San Timoteo Canyon, which contained fossil specimen of mammoth (Mammuthus imperator) (Carrasco et al. 2005). All eight of the fossil assemblages are within a 5 mile radius of one another.
Table 1. LACM Paleontological Resources Record Search Results Locality Number Location Formation Taxa Depth
LACM VP 6059 Overflow area just eastsoutheast of Lake ElsinoreUnknown formation (Pleistocene)
Camel family (Camelidae) Unknown
LACM VP 7261 Auld Valley reservoir Unknown formation
(Pleistocene); arenaceoussilt
Elephant family
(Proboscidea); Unspecified
ungulate
Unknown
LACM IP 437 Westside of Gunsight Pass,
NE of San Jacinto
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene)
Invertebrates Unknown
LACM VP 1207 1 mi N-NW of Corona Unnamed (Pleistocene;
massive, coarse pebbly,
friable well-sorted arkosic
sandstone)
Bovine surface
LACM VP 7811 T-Mobile Orchard Park,
Chino Valley
Unnamed (Pleistocene; silt
with some clay & silt)
Colubrid snake
(Masticophis)
9-11 feet bgs
LACM VP 7271,
7268
Sundance Condominium, S
of Los Serranos Golf Course
Unknown (Pleistocene) Unspecified vertebrates Unknown
Key: VP: vertebrate paleontology; IP: invertebrate paleontology; bgs: below ground surface The RCLIS GIS database has the Project Area mapped as High B sensitivity (Figure 5). High B sensitivity indicates a high potential for yielding an abundant vertebrate fossil fauna, in addition to potential production of a few significant fossils that may provide new and significant data (RCLIS 2021). Fossils are likely to be encountered at or Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page14 of 21
RESULTS
MUSEUM LOCALITYSEARCHAND LITERATUREREVIEWRESULTS
The record search results from the LACM (Bell 2020, Appendix B) did not indicate any previously identified fossils directly within the Project Area; however, there are known localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits mapped within the Project Area (see Table 1). The closest vertebrate fossil locality from similar deposits is LACM VP 6059, from an unknown formation, located near Lake Elsinore, located approximately 18 miles southwest of the Project Area. This locality produced a fossil specimen of camel (Camelidae) at unknown depth {Bell 2020).
Additionally, the record search results from the WSC (McDonald 2021) also concluded that no localities have been identified within 1-mile of the Project Area. However, numerous fossil resources from similarly mapped Pleistocene alluvial sediments have been identified throughout the region. Examples of fossils from these Pleistocene alluvial deposits includes Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), Pacific mastodon (Mammut pacificus), sabertooth cat (Smilodonfatalis ancient horse (Equus sp.), and many other Pleistocene megafauna (McDonald 2021). However, public documents containing previous records searches for the area indicate that significant Pleistocene-aged fossils were recovered from the construction of an Aldi logistics site approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Project, near the intersection of Redlands Boulevard and Eucalyptus Avenue Fossils from these localities were recovered from 11 to 13 feet below ground surface in an area mapped as Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvial fan deposits (Morton and Matti 2001). Reported fossils from this locality include ground sloth (Megalonyx jeffersonii), lamine camel (Hemiauchenia sp.), and horse (Equussp.) (Rincon 2019).
The Paleobiology Database (PBDB) yielded no results within the region. The MioMap yielded eight fossil assemblage localities from the San Timoteo formation located within 5 miles of the Project Area (Appendix B). The closest fossil assemblage is mapped approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the Project Area within San Timoteo Canyon, which contained fossil specimen of mammoth (Mammuthus imperator) (Carrasco et al. 2005). All eight of the fossil assemblages are within a 5 mile radius of one another.
Table 1. LACM Paleontological Resources Record Search Results Locality Number Location Formation Taxa Depth
LACM VP6059 Overflow area just east- Unknown formation Camel family (Camelidae) Unknown southeast of LakeElsinore (Pleistocene)
LACM VP7261 Auld Valley reservoir Unknown formation Elephant family Unknown (Pleistocene); arenaceous silt (Proboscidea); Unspecified ungulate
LACM IP 437 West side of Gunsight Pass, Unknown formation Invertebrates Unknown NEof SanJacinto (Pleistocene) LACM VP 1207 1 mi N-NW of Corona Unnamed (Pleistocene; Bovine surface massive, coarse pebbly, friable well-sorted arkosic
sandstone) LACM VP 7811 T-Mobile Orchard Park, Unnamed (Pleistocene; silt Colubrid snake 9-11feet bgs Chino Valley with some clay & silt) (Masticophis)
LACM VP7271, Sundance Condominium, S Unknown (Pleistocene) Unspecified vertebrates Unknown 7268 of LosSerranos Golf Course
Key: VP: vertebrate paleontology; IP: invertebrate paleontology; bgs: below ground surface The RCLISGIS database has the Project Area mapped as High B sensitivity (Figure 5). High B sensitivity indicates a high potential for yielding an abundant vertebrate fossil fauna, in addition to potential production of a few significant fossils that may provide new and significant data (RCLIS2021). Fossils are likely to be encountered at or Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1659
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com below 5 feet of depth and may be impacted by construction activities.
Figure 5. Paleontological Sensitivity (from RCLIS, orange indicates High B Sensitivity, green indicates Low Sensitivity) Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page15 of 21
below 5 feet of depth and may be impacted by construction activities.
SE
|
Capttetivw ans dye
0 0.25 0.5 1
[| Project Area EE — (Vliles ~~
BB. Low Potential (L) EE EE Kilometers Pa 0/0
° 025 05 1 MATERIAL CULTURE Bl ion sensitivity (High B) 124.000 SATRRAS ETRE Figure 5. Paleontological Sensitivity (from RCLIS, orange indicates High B Sensitivity, green indicates Low Sensitivity) Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1660
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
During the course of fieldwork, survey conditions were fair, and visibility ranged greatly within the Project Area.
The eastern portion, east of Wilmont St., had been recently plowed as evident by the loose soil and furrows. The portion located west of Wilmont St. had been graded, but not as recently as the eastern portion, as observed in the absence of soil furrows, more compacted soil, and denser vegetation. Due to recent rain, seasonal grasses and weeds covered most of the ground surface. While soil was visible in some areas, the overall visibility was poor (5- 15%). Due to the dense grass covering, 5-meter transects where walked to compensate for the poor visibility. A creek runs southwest to northeast. The creek has been modified during the construction of Cactus Avenue and Redlands Boulevard as evident by the graded slopes and concrete road bridges. Furthermore, the entire area shows heavy disturbance from grading activities.
On the eastern portion of the Project Area, the surface floor is roughly 10-15 feet below Redlands Avenue A large berm platform formed by prior construction activities was observed west of the creek and east of Wilmont St.
Other disturbances created by construction activities include a small mound and a circular ditch. The small mound was observed in the southwestern of the Project Area. The mound appeared unnatural, most likely an old push pile, with remnants of soil, concrete, and imported landscaping rocks. There was evidence of modern dumping surrounding the mound. In addition, a ditch was observed in the eastern portion of area, south of the creek. The ditch was a complete circle and measured approximately 7 feet in diameter, with a depth of 3 feet. The ditch appeared to be machine made, likely occurring during the grading of the area and recent construction of the residential housing tract west of the Project Area.
Soil observed was consistent with the mapped Quaternary sediments, with pebble to large cobble-sized rocks of granite, and pebble- to small cobble-sized pieces of quartz. Imported/dumped piles of landscaping rocks were observed along the southern-most border near Cactus Avenue, and near the northernmost border near Brodiaea Avenue. Other disturbances to the area include modern refuse and bioturbation (ant hills and animal burrows). No paleontological resources were observed during the field survey. Representative photographs of the Project Area are found in Figures 6-25.
Figure 6. Project Area from Redlands Boulevard and Cactus Avenue corner, facing north
Figure 7. Overview of Project Area from the Redlands
Boulevard and Cactus Avenue corner, facing northwest
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page16 of 21
PALEONTOLOGICALFIELDSURVEYRESULTS
During the course of fieldwork, survey conditions were fair, and visibility ranged greatly within the Project Area.
The eastern portion, east of Wilmont St., had been recently plowed as evident by the loose soil and furrows. The portion located west of Wilmont St. had been graded, but not as recently as the eastern portion, as observed in the absence of soil furrows, more compacted soil, and denser vegetation. Due to recent rain, seasonal grasses and weeds covered most of the ground surface. While soil was visible in some areas, the overall visibility was poor (5- 15%). Due to the dense grass covering, 5-meter transects where walked to compensate for the poor visibility. A creek runs southwest to northeast. The creek has been modified during the construction of Cactus Avenue and Redlands Boulevard as evident by the graded slopes and concrete road bridges. Furthermore, the entire area shows heavy disturbance from grading activities.
On the eastern portion of the Project Area, the surface floor is roughly 10-15 feet below Redlands Avenue A large berm platform formed by prior construction activities was observed west of the creek and east of Wilmont St.
Other disturbances created by construction activities include a small mound and a circular ditch. The small mound was observed in the southwestern of the Project Area. The mound appeared unnatural, most likely an old push pile, with remnants of soil, concrete, and imported landscaping rocks. There was evidence of modern dumping surrounding the mound. In addition, a ditch was observed in the eastern portion of area, south of the creek. The ditch was a complete circle and measured approximately 7 feet in diameter, with a depth of 3 feet. The ditch appeared to be machine made, likely occurring during the grading of the area and recent construction of the residential housing tract west of the Project Area.
Soil observed was consistent with the mapped Quaternary sediments, with pebble to large cobble-sized rocks of granite, and pebble- to small cobble-sized pieces of quartz. Imported/dumped piles of landscaping rocks were observed along the southern-most border near Cactus Avenue, and near the northernmost border near Brodiaea Avenue. Other disturbances to the area include modern refuse and bioturbation (ant hills and animal burrows). No paleontological resources were observed during the field survey. Representative photographs of the Project Area are found in Figures 6-25.
Figure 6. Project Area from Redlands Boulevard and Cactus Figure 7. Overview of Project Area from the Redlands Avenue corner, facing north Boulevard and Cactus Avenue corner, facing northwest Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1661
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 8. Representative photo of sediments and gravels observed within Project Area near Redlands Boulevard and Cactus Avenue, plan view
Figure 9. Representative photograph of visibility and
vegetation near southern border of Cactus Avenue, plan
view
Figure 10. Representative photograph of granite and quartz pebbles and cobbles, plan view
Figure 11. Overview of change in elevation from Redlands Boulevard to Project Area, facing east
Figure 12. Overview of creek that has been modified, facing northeast
Figure 13. Representative photograph of depression pit, facing west
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page17 of 21
B=
Figure 8. Representative photo of sediments and gravels Figure 9. Representative photograph of visibility and observed within Project Area near Redlands Boulevard and vegetation near southern border of Cactus Avenue, plan Cactus Avenue, plan view view
Figure 10. Representative photograph of granite and quartz Figure 11. Overview of change in elevation from Redlands pebbles and cobbles, plan view Boulevard to Project Area, facing east Figure 12. Overview of creek that has been modified, facing northeast facing west
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1662
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 14. Representative photograph of plowing and soil furrows, plan view
Figure 15. Overview of Project Area in eastern portion, facing south
Figure 16. Overview of creek that has been modified near Cactus Avenue, facing southwest
Figure 17. Overview of Project Area and built berm with creek to the east, facing north
Figure 18. Representative photograph of visibility and
vegetation in northeastern portion of Project Area, plan view
Figure 19. Overview of Project Area from NE corner of
Wilmont St. and Cactus Avenue, facing west
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page18 of 21
Ey Figure 15. Overview of Project Area in eastern portion, furrows, plan view facing south
J Figure 17. Overview of Project Area and built berm with creek to the east, facing north
Er Ni 5 be Figure 18. Representative photograph of visibility and vegetation in northeastern portion of Project Area, plan Wilmont St. and Cactus Avenue, facing west view
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1663
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 20. Overview of Project Area from NE corner of
Wilmont St. and Cactus Avenue, facing north
Figure 21. Overview of Project Area from Wilmont St. and Brodiaea, facing east-northeast
Figure 22. Representative photograph of visibility,soil, and plowed disturbance in area east of Wilmont Avenue and
west of creek, plan view
Figure 23. Overview of Project Area from NW corner of
Cactus Avenue and Wilmont Avenue, facing north
Figure 24. Overview of Project Area from western-most
boundary, facing north
Figure 25. Overview of mound looking towards Cactus
Avenue near the western-most corner, facing south
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page19 of 21
- CWE ia J Rae] o Lr faint Figure 20. Overview of Project Area from NE corner of Figure 21. Overview of Project Area from Wilmont St. and Wilmont St. and Cactus Avenue, facing north Brodiaea, facing east-northeast ~ . *, ~ < ~ ) iH - a Se \ CwE EE : B Figure 22. Representative photograph of visibility, soil, and Figure 23. Overvi plowed disturbance in area east of Wilmont Avenue and Cactus Avenue and Wilmont Avenue, facing north ew of Project Area from NW corner of
west of creek, plan view
Figure 24. Overview of Project Area from western-most Figure 25. Overview of mound looking towards Cactus boundary, facing north Avenue near the western-most corner, facing south Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1664
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MCC conducted a Phase I paleontological resource assessment of the Project Area that included fossil locality records searches, literature reviews, and an intensive pedestrian survey covering the majority of the 40-acres. No significant paleontological resources were identified within the Project Area during the locality records searches or field survey. However, there are nearby fossil localities that have produced significant paleontological resources within sedimentary deposits that are also mapped within the Project Area. The uppermost layers of soil within the Project Area consist of younger alluvial deposits that may shallowly overlie older, more paleontologically sensitive sediments. In addition, the Project Area is mapped in RCLIS as High Sensitivity B, which is based on the presence of geologic formations or mapped rock units that are known to contain (or have the correct age and depositional conditions to contain) significant paleontological resources at depths below 5 feet.
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION
Based on the results of the Phase I paleontological resource assessment, the proposed Area is considered to have moderate-to-high sensitivity for the potential to impact paleontological resources during ground-disturbing construction activities in undisturbed sedimentary deposits. MCC recommends preparation of a Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) prior to construction excavation, in order to mitigate any potential impact to non-renewable fossil resources to a less-than-significant level. It is recommended that a professional paleontologist be hired to oversee monitoring and the preparation of a PRMP. At a minimum, the PRMP should include the following items:
• A trained and qualified paleontological monitor should perform full-time monitoring of any excavations on the Project that have undisturbed native sediments below 4 feet in depth. The monitor will have the ability to redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
• The Project paleontologist may re-evaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring after examination of the affected sediments during excavation, with approval from County and Client representatives. • Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and SVP professional standards.
• Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. • A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, will be prepared and submitted to the appropriate County personnel.
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.
Date: Signature: 06/16/2021
Name: Jennifer Kelly, MSc., Geology
Riverside County Qualified Paleontologist
Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page20 of 21
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MCC conducted a Phase | paleontological resource assessment of the Project Area that included fossil locality records searches, literature reviews, and an intensive pedestrian survey covering the majority of the 40-acres. No significant paleontological resources were identified within the Project Area during the locality records searches or field survey. However, there are nearby fossil localities that have produced significant paleontological resources within sedimentary deposits that are also mapped within the Project Area. The uppermost layers of soil within the Project Area consist of younger alluvial deposits that may shallowly overlie older, more paleontologically sensitive sediments. In addition, the Project Area is mapped in RCLISas High Sensitivity B, which is based on the presence of geologic formations or mapped rock units that are known to contain (or have the correct age and depositional conditions to contain) significant paleontological resources at depths below 5 feet.
RECOMMENDEDMITIGATION
Based on the results of the Phase | paleontological resource assessment, the proposed Area is considered to have moderate-to-high sensitivity for the potential to impact paleontological resources during ground-disturbing construction activities in undisturbed sedimentary deposits. MCC recommends preparation of a Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) prior to construction excavation, in order to mitigate any potential impact to non-renewable fossil resources to a less-than-significant level. It is recommended that a professional paleontologist be hired to oversee monitoring and the preparation of aPRMP. At a minimum, the PRMP should include the following items:
e Atrained and qualified paleontological monitor should perform full-time monitoring of any excavations on the Project that have undisturbed native sediments below 4 feet in depth. The monitor will have the ability to redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
eo The Project paleontologist may re-evaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring after examination of the affected sediments during excavation, with approval from County and Client representatives. eo Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and SVP professional standards.
eo Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. eo Areport documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, will be prepared and submitted to the appropriate County personnel.
CERTIFICATION: | 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 y knowledge and belief.
Date: Signature: pa 06/16/2021
Name: KnniferKelly, MSc., Geology
Riverside County QualifiedPaleontologist
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1665
Belago Park Project
Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISED November 2024* June 2021
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com
REFERENCES
Bell, Alyssa
2020 Paleontological resources for the Cactus Moreno Valley Project. On behalf of the LACM, December 2020.
Carrasco, M.A., B.P. Kraatz, E.B. Davis, and A.D. Barnosky. 2005 Miocene Mammal Mapping Project (MIOMAP). University of California Museum of Paleontology http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/miomap/. Last accessed on February 14, 2019.
City of Moreno Valley
2016 City of Moreno Valley General Plan. Available online at http://www.morenovalley.ca.us/city_hall/general_plan.shtml. Last accessed February 15, 2021.
Kenney, M.D.
1999 Emplacement, Offset History, and Recent Uplift of Basement Within the San Andreas Fault System, Northeastern San Gabriel Mountains, California: University of Oregon.
McDonald, Andrew
2021 Paleontological Resources for Belago Park Project Letter. On the behalf of the Western Science Center, June 2021.
Morton, D.M., and J.C. Matti
1989 A vanished late Pliocene to early Pleistocene alluvial-fan complex in the northern Perris Block, southern California, in Colburn, I.P., Abbott, P.L., and Minch, J., eds., Conglomerates in basin analysis: A symposium dedicated to A.O. Woodford: Pacific Section Society Economic of Paleontologists and Mineralogists, v. 62, p. 73-80.
2001 Geologic Map of the Sunnymead 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 01-450.
Norris, R. M., and R.W. Webb
1976 Geology of California. John Wiley & Sons. New York, New York P&D Consultants
2006 Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, Vol I SCH# 200091075.
Rincon
2019 Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. Available online at: http://www.moval.org/cdd/pdfs/projects/mvtradecenter/tech-appendices/G.pdf. Last accessed June 2021.
Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS)
2018 Riverside County Map My County. Available online at https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public. Last accessed February 13, 2021.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
1991 Standard Measures for assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontological resources: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, v. 152, p. 2-5. 1996 Conditions of receivership for paleontologic salvage collections: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, v. 166, p. 31-32
2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. 11 p. Available at; http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/68/68c554bb-86f1-442f-a0dc-25299762d36c.pdf Belago Park Project
Phase| Paleontological ResourcesAssessment
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County California
*REVISEDNovember 2024* June 2021
Page21of 21
REFERENCES
Bell,Alyssa
2020 Paleontologicalresourcesfor the Cactus Moreno Valley Project. On behalf of the LACM, December 2020.
Carrasco, M.A, B.P. Kraatz, E.B. Davis, and A.D. Barnosky. 2005 Miocene Mammal Mapping Project (MIOMAP). University of California Museum of Paleontology http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/miomap/. Last accessed on February 14, 2019.
City of Moreno Valley
2016 City of Moreno Valley General Plan. Available online at http://www.morenovalley.ca.us/city_hall/general_plan.shtml. Last accessed February 15, 2021.
Kenney, M.D.
1999 Emplacement, Offset History, and Recent Uplift of Basement Within the San Andreas Fault System, Northeastern San Gabriel Mountains, California: University of Oregon.
McDonald, Andrew
2021 PaleontologicalResourcesfor Belago Park Project Letter. On the behalf of the Western Science Center, June 2021.
Morton, D.M,, and J.C. Matti
1989 A vanished late Pliocene to early Pleistocene alluvial-fan complex in the northern Perris Block, southern California, in Colburn, I.P., Abbott, P.L., and Minch, J., eds., Conglomerates in basin analysis:Asymposium dedicated to A.O. Woodford:Pacific Section Society Economic of Paleontologists andMineralogists, v. 62, p. 73-80.
2001 Geologic Map of the Sunnymead 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 01-450.
Norris, R. M., and R.W. Webb
1976 Geology of California. John Wiley & Sons. New York, New York P&D Consultants
2006 FinalEnvironmentalImpact Report City of Moreno Valley GeneralPlan, Vol | SCH# 200091075.
Rincon
2019 Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. Available online at: http://www.moval.org/cdd/pdfs/projects/mvtradecenter/tech-appendices/G.pdf. Last accessed June 2021.
Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS)
2018 Riverside County Map My County. Available online at https://gis.countyofriverside.us/HtmlI5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public. LastaccessedFebruary 13, 2021.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
1991 Standard Measures for assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontological resources: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, v. 152, p. 2-5. 1996 Conditions of receivership for paleontologic salvage collections: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, v. 166, p. 31-32
2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. 11p. Available at; http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/68/68c554bb-86f1-442f-a0dc-25299762d36c¢.pdf Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com 1666
1667
APPENDIX A:
Qualifications
APPENDIX A:
Qualifications
1668
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Jennifer Kelly, M.Sc.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project
Manager
Jennifer Kelly has experience in all aspects of paleontology. She has extensive experience with monitoring, salvage, fieldwork, project management, and report writing, as well as volunteer experience from the La Brea Tar Pits/Page Museum and the Cooper Center of Orange County (Paleontology department) and field experience as a Staff Geologist for Leighton Geotechnical. Her expertise is Geology, and she has her M.S. in Geological Sciences, emphasis in Geochemistry.
Jennifer has taught lab courses in paleontology and general geology, and also assisted with field mapping classes. Jennifer is HAZWOPER 40-hour certified and a registered Orange County paleontologist. She has authored and co-authored more than 100 paleontological compliance documents, including PRMPs, EIR, EIS, PEA, treatment plans, final monitoring reports, survey reports, and other compliance documents, in compliance with NEPA, CEQA, Caltrans and city and county laws, ordinances, regulations, and statutes.
Education
2012 M.Sc. in Geology, California State University, Long Beach, California 2005 B.S., Geology (preliminary work for entry to M.S. Geology Program), California State University, Long Beach
2004 B.A., Theater Arts, California State University, Long Beach Certifications and Training
• 40 Hour Certification for HAZWOPER training under 29 CFR 1910. 120, CA (2013 – 2014) • Orange County Certified Paleontologist
• San Diego County Certified Paleontologist
Recent Professional Experience in California
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Harvill Industrial Project, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California (2017-present). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP). Kelly also oversees the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This project is ongoing and is scheduled to be complete in 2020.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Rider Commerce Center Project, Unincorporated Riverside County, California (2018-present). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP). Kelly also oversees the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This project is ongoing and is scheduled to be complete in 2020.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Ontario Ranch Logistic Center, City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California (2018-present) Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and authored the PRIMP for this project. Kelly also oversees the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This project ” Jennifer Kelly, M.Sc. ~~ Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project MATERIAL CULTURE Manager CONSULTING
Jennifer Kelly has experience in all aspects of paleontology. She has extensive experience with monitoring, salvage, fieldwork, project management, and report writing, as well as volunteer experience from the LaBrea Tar Pits/Page Museum and the Cooper Center of Orange County (Paleontology department) and field experience as a Staff Geologist for Leighton Geotechnical. Her expertise is Geology, and she has her M.S. in Geological Sciences,emphasis in Geochemistry.
Jennifer has taught lab courses in paleontology and general geology, and also assisted with field mapping classes.Jennifer is HAZWOPER 40-hour certified and a registered Orange County paleontologist. She has authored and co-authored more than 100 paleontological compliance documents, including PRMPs, EIR, EIS,PEA, treatment plans, final monitoring reports, survey reports, and other compliance documents, in compliance with NEPA, CEQA, Caltrans and city and county laws, ordinances, regulations, and statutes.
Education
2012 M.Sc. in Geology, California State University, Long Beach, California 2005 B.S. Geology (preliminary work for entry to M.S. Geology Program), California State University, Long Beach
2004 B.A, Theater Arts, California State University, Long Beach Certifications and Training
e 40 Hour Certification for HAZWOPER training under 29 CFR 1910. 120, CA (2013 —2014) e Orange County Certified Paleontologist
e San Diego County Certified Paleontologist
Recent Professional Experience in California
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, HarvillIndustrialProject, City ofJurupa Valley, Riverside County, California (2017-present). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP). Kelly also oversees the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This project is ongoing and is scheduled to be complete in 2020.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Rider Commerce Center Project, UnincorporatedRiverside County, California (2018-present). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP). Kelly also oversees the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This project is ongoing and is scheduled to be complete in 2020.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Ontario Ranch Logistic Center, City of Ontario, County ofSanBernardino, California (2018-present) Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and authored the PRIMP for this project. Kelly also oversees the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This project Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsuiting.com 1669 Kelly CV 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com is ongoing and is scheduled to be complete in 2021.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Saddleback College, City of Mission Viejo, Orange County (2018-present) Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP), and oversaw the paleontological monitoring program detailed in the PRIMP.
Kelly is currently co-authoring the final paleontological mitigation report This project is in the final stages and is scheduled to be completed 2020.
Private Development Sector Experience
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Proposed Alta Vista Specific Plan Project, SC Development, City of Placentia, Orange County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Magnolia Tank Farm Project, SLF-HB Magnolia, LLC, City of Huntington Beach, Orange County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Santa Fe Springs Apartment Project, Clearwater Communities, City of Whittier, Los Angeles County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Rider Business Center Project, Capstone Advisor, Unincorporated Riverside County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Los Olivos French Valley Project, Newland Homes LLC, Unincorporated Riverside County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Veteran’s Village Community Development Project, UHC LLC, Cathedral City, Riverside County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Colony Commerce East Project, CapRock Partners, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County (2016). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Jurupa Valley Medical Clinic Project, Boureston Company, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County (2016). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Renewable Energy Sector Experience
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, California Department of Corrections and Kelly CV2020
is ongoing and is scheduled to be complete in 2021.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProjectManager,Saddleback College, City ofMission Viejo, Orange County (2018-present) Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP), and oversaw the paleontological monitoring program detailed in the PRIMP.
Kelly is currently co-authoring the final paleontological mitigation report This project is in the final stages and is scheduled to be completed 2020.
Private Development Sector Experience
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProjectManager,ProposedAlta VistaSpecificPlanProject, SCDevelopment, City ofPlacentia, Orange County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Magnolia Tank Farm Project, SLF-HB Magnolia, LLC,City ofHuntington Beach, Orange County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, SantaFeSprings ApartmentProject, Clearwater Communities, City of Whittier, LosAngeles County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Rider BusinessCenter Project, Capstone Advisor, UnincorporatedRiverside County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Los Olivos French Valley Project, Newland Homes LLC,UnincorporatedRiverside County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Veteran’s Village Community DevelopmentProject, UHCLLC,CathedralCity, Riverside County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProjectManager, Colony CommerceEastProject, CapRock Partners, City ofOntario, SanBernardino County (2016). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Jurupa Valley MedicalClinicProject, Boureston Company, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County (2016). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Renewable EnergySector Experience
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProjectManager, CaliforniaDepartment ofCorrections and Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona 1670CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Kelly CV 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Rehabilitation Ventura Youth Correctional Facility Solar Project, Ecoplexus, Inc, City of Camarillo, Ventura County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Anderson-Devil’s Den Solar Project, Forefront Power, Lost Hills, Kern County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Anderson-Coalinga 1-1109 Solar Project, Forefront Power, Ora, Unincorporated Fresno County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Anderson-Coalinga 2 Solar Project, Forefront Power, City of Coalinga, Fresno County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Anderson-Derrick Solar Project, Forefront Power, City of Coalinga, Fresno County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Anderson-Dulgarian Solar Project, Forefront Power, Lost Hills, Kern County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Anderson-Gates Solar Project, Forefront Power, City of Coalinga, Fresno County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Mahal Property Solar Project, Forefront Power, City of Selma, Fresno County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Rector Reservoir Solar Facility Project, Forefront Power, Napa Valley, Napa County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, California Men’s Colony Solar Facility Project, Forefront Power, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation California Institute for Women Solar Project, Ecoplexus, Inc, City of Corona, San Bernardino County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Utility Sector Experience
Paleontological Project Manager, Cadiz Ground Water Project, San Bernardino County, California Kelly CV2020
Rehabilitation Ventura Youth CorrectionalFacilitySolarProject,Ecoplexus,Inc, CityofCamarillo, Ventura County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Anderson-Devil’s Den Solar Project, Forefront Power, Lost Hills, Kern County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProjectManager, Anderson-Coalinga1-1109SolarProject, ForefrontPower, Ora, UnincorporatedFresno County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Anderson-Coalinga 2SolarProject, ForefrontPower, City ofCoalinga, Fresno County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProjectManager,Anderson-DerrickSolarProject,Forefront Power, City ofCoalinga, Fresno County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Anderson-DulgarianSolar Project, Forefront Power, Lost Hills, Kern County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Anderson-GatesSolarProject, Forefront Power, City ofCoalinga, Fresno County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProjectManager, MahalPropertySolarProject, Forefront Power, City ofSelma, Fresno County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, Rector ReservoirSolar FacilityProject, ForefrontPower, Napa Valley, Napa County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, California Men’s ColonySolar Facility Project, ForefrontPower, SanLuis Obispo, SanLuis Obispo County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
PaleontologicalPrincipalInvestigator andProject Manager, California Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation California Institutefor WomenSolar Project, Ecoplexus,Inc, City of Corona, San Bernardino County (2017). Ms. Kelly coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation relating to Paleontological resources for this project.
Utility Sector Experience
PaleontologicalProjectManager, CadizGround WaterProject,SanBernardino County, California Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona 1671CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Kelly CV 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com (2012-2013). Ms. Kelly conducted all research and data collection for the Cadiz Groundwater Conservation and Storage Project for completion of a DEIR section on paleontological resources. Based on the results of the analysis, Kelly prepared the mitigation measures which were designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
Paleontological Project Manager, Manzana Wind Express Project, Kern County, California (2012-2015).
Ms. Kelly prepared the Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Resource Plan, which allowed her to develop a key role in presenting environmental training programs to construction workers and other environmental compliance monitors. She also authored the final paleontological monitoring report. The Project’s construction consisted of the installation more than 300 wind energy turbines, aligned along approximately 26 rows, on the 6,275-acre proposed site. The Manzana Wind Energy Project site was found to have the potential for scientifically significant paleontological resources that could be impacted by construction-related ground disturbance. She co-authored the final paleontological mitigation report in compliance with CEQA and Kern County guidelines.
Paleontological Project Manager, Pacific Wind Express Project, Kern County, California (2008-2009).
Ms. Kelly prepared the Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Resource Plan, which allowed her to develop a key role in presenting environmental training programs to construction workers and other environmental compliance monitors. She co-authored the final paleontological mitigation report.
Paleontological Project Manager, Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP), Southern California Edison (SCE), Kern County, Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County (2009-2015). Ms.
Kelly conducted and led surveys along this project’s right of way. She was also in charge of scheduling monitoring crews during grading in areas of paleontological sensitivity, managing and reviewing log sheets, and tracking data that is incorporated to final reports. Ms. Kelly played a valuable role with scheduling for the project’s needs. She monitored, surveyed, and reported on all paleontological facets of this project as the Lead Paleontological Monitor for segment 3B, which was located near Rosamond, and for segments 4-11 which extended into Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. She authored more than 10 of the compliance reports for this project. She also performed monitoring on every segment of this Project.
Paleontological Project Manager, SCE, Valley South Subtransmission Line Project, Riverside County, California (2007-2010). Ms. Kelly managed scheduling and provided oversight for coordination of all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, including three proposed alternatives, and co-wrote the final PEA and survey reports, utilizing CEQA and Riverside County paleontological guidelines.
Paleontological Project Manager, SCE, San Joaquin Cross Valley Loop Project, Tulare County, California (2010-2013). Ms. Kelly assisted with coordination of all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and co-authored the final Paleontological Monitoring Plan for this project.
Paleontological Project Manager, SCE, Devore Substation Project, San Bernardino County, California (2010-2012). Ms. Kelly prepared the compliance and environmental documents for this project, including paleontological inventory and geological map research.
Paleontological Project Manager, El Casco System-Transmission Line, SCE, throughout Riverside County (2011-2014). Ms. Kelly performed paleontological monitoring. Her duties included salvaging small and large fossils, screen washing and sorting fossils. She aided in the processing of microfossils collected from bulk sampling of fossil bearing sediment, and documenting stratigraphic locations of fossil bearing units. This project was in compliance with both CEQA and under the jurisdiction of the CPUC.
Kelly CV2020
(2012-2013). Ms. Kelly conducted all research and data collection for the Cadiz Groundwater Conservation and Storage Project for completion of a DEIR section on paleontological resources. Based on the results of the analysis, Kelly prepared the mitigation measures which were designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
PaleontologicalProjectManager, Manzana WindExpressProject, Kern County, California (2012-2015).
Ms. Kelly prepared the Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Resource Plan, which allowed her to develop a key role in presenting environmental training programs to construction workers and other environmental compliance monitors. She also authored the final paleontological monitoring report. The Project’s construction consisted of the installation more than 300 wind energy turbines, aligned along approximately 26 rows, on the 6,275-acre proposed site. The Manzana Wind Energy Project site was found to have the potential for scientifically significant paleontological resources that could be impacted by construction-related ground disturbance. She co-authored the final paleontological mitigation report in compliance with CEQA and Kern County guidelines.
PaleontologicalProjectManager,Pacific WindExpressProject, Kern County, California (2008-2009).
Ms. Kelly prepared the Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Resource Plan, which allowed her to develop a key role in presenting environmental training programs to construction workers and other environmental compliance monitors. She co-authored the final paleontological mitigation report.
PaleontologicalProject Manager, TehachapiRenewable TransmissionProject (TRTP),Southern CaliforniaEdison (SCE),Kern County, LosAngeles County, SanBernardino County (2009-2015). Ms.
Kelly conducted and led surveys along this project’s right of way. She was also in charge of scheduling monitoring crews during grading in areas of paleontological sensitivity, managing and reviewing log sheets, and tracking data that is incorporated to final reports. Ms. Kelly played a valuable role with scheduling for the project’s needs. She monitored, surveyed, and reported on all paleontological facets of this project as the Lead Paleontological Monitor for segment 3B, which was located near Rosamond, and for segments 4-11 which extended into Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. She authored more than 10 of the compliance reports for this project. She also performed monitoring on every segment of this Project.
PaleontologicalProject Manager, SCE, ValleySouthSubtransmission LineProject, Riverside County, California (2007-2010). Ms. Kelly managed scheduling and provided oversight for coordination of all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, including three proposed alternatives, and co-wrote the final PEA and survey reports, utilizing CEQA and Riverside County paleontological guidelines.
PaleontologicalProjectManager, SCE,SanJoaquin CrossValleyLoopProject, Tulare County, California (2010-2013). Ms. Kelly assisted with coordination of all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and co-authored the final Paleontological Monitoring Plan for this project.
PaleontologicalProjectManager, SCE,DevoreSubstationProject, SanBernardino County, California (2010-2012). Ms. Kelly prepared the compliance and environmental documents for this project, including paleontological inventory and geological map research.
PaleontologicalProject Manager, El CascoSystem-Transmission Line, SCE, throughout Riverside County (2011-2014). Ms. Kelly performed paleontological monitoring. Her duties included salvaging small and large fossils, screen washing and sorting fossils. She aided in the processing of microfossils collected from bulk sampling of fossil bearing sediment, and documenting stratigraphic locations of fossil bearing units. This project was in compliance with both CEQA and under the jurisdiction of the CPUC.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona 1672CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Kelly CV 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Paleontological Project Manager, South of Kramer Project, SCE, Hesperia to Barstow, San Bernardino, County (2009-2016). Ms. Kelly provided project management and compliance surveying, which included surveying from Hesperia to Barstow, CA for a Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA). All portions of the Proposed Project were located within San Bernardino County, California. Kelly co-authored the final survey report for this Project. A BLM Permit was authorized for the survey.
Paleontological Project Manager, OC Access Road Grading, SCE, Orange and Riverside County (2010- 2011). Ms. Kelly assisted in documentation for the cultural resources portion, which include information regarding the location and condition of archaeological and paleontological sites recorded at or near the access roads, and recommends impact avoidance measures for future years in implementing the Protocol for 73 known archaeological sites. This required extensive coordination with Orange County Fire Authority grading department, SCE’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M), and Orange County Parks. Trimble units were used for the documentation before and after grading of access roads.
Communication played a key role when strategizing which locations were being graded where and when. The company came in under budget because of Kelly’s efficiency and ability to coordinate and schedule.
Paleontological Project Manager, West of Devers Transmission Line Project, SCE, Riverside County, California (2009-2016). Ms. Kelly provided all project management and paleontological related services.
This included proper BLM authorization and permitting to conduct surveying and a research design for field reconnaissance related to PEA, EIS/EIR documentation for the proposed transmission line. She assisted with managing documentation with laws relating to paleontological resources, among which are CEQA and NEPA compliance.
Paleontological Project Manager, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Line 300A/MP 147.7 and 180.8 Projects, San Bernardino County, California (2005-2006). Kelly prepared the mitigation recommendations and a paleontological inventory report for this project. She also was responsible for scheduling surveys on BLM and United States Marine Corps lands.
Paleontological Project Manager, PG&E, Jefferson to Stanford No. 2 60 kV Feasibility Project, San Mateo County, California (2012-2014). Kelly assisted with the preparation of the paleontological resources review and paleontological inventory report (PIR) and Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA) for this project. Several potential routes were assessed for this project, and the feasibility and paleontological potential was determined for this project. The report and PIR were prepared according to CEQA guidelines.
Paleontological Project Manager, Camp Pendleton Project, SDG&E, throughout San Diego and Orange Counties (2013-2017). Kelly provided on-call paleontological services for this project. She was a key facet in report production and research which enabled her firm to perform all survey and monitoring work required on Camp Pendleton for CEQA/NEPA check list assessments requested from SDG&E. Kelly was cleared from the Department of Defense in order to conduct work on the base. Site assessments and monitoring include all work related to: future location of power poles and towers, water control features, trenching and subsurface excavations, access roads, grading impacts to develop substations and other facilities, work pads, staging yards, and gas pipelines.
Kelly CV2020
PaleontologicalProject Manager, South ofKramer Project, SCE,Hesperia to Barstow, SanBernardino, County (2009-2016). Ms. Kelly provided project management and compliance surveying, which included surveying from Hesperia to Barstow, CA for a Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA). All portions of the Proposed Project were located within San Bernardino County, California. Kelly co-authored the final survey report for this Project. ABLM Permit was authorized for the survey.
PaleontologicalProject Manager, OCAccessRoadGrading, SCE,Orange andRiverside County (2010- 2011). Ms. Kelly assisted in documentation for the cultural resources portion, which include information regarding the location and condition of archaeological and paleontological sites recorded at or near the access roads, and recommends impact avoidance measures for future years in implementing the Protocol for 73 known archaeological sites. This required extensive coordination with Orange County Fire Authority grading department, SCE’sOperations and Maintenance (O&M), and Orange County Parks. Trimble units were used for the documentation before and after grading of access roads.
Communication played a key role when strategizing which locations were being graded where and when. The company came in under budget because of Kelly's efficiency and ability to coordinate and schedule.
PaleontologicalProject Manager, West ofDevers Transmission LineProject, SCE,Riverside County, California (2009-2016). Ms. Kelly provided all project management and paleontological related services.
This included proper BLM authorization and permitting to conduct surveying and a research design for field reconnaissance related to PEA, EIS/EIR documentation for the proposed transmission line. She assisted with managing documentation with laws relating to paleontological resources, among which are CEQA and NEPA compliance.
PaleontologicalProject Manager, Pacific GasandElectric (PG&E),Line 300A/MP147.7and180.8 Projects, SanBernardino County, California (2005-2006). Kelly prepared the mitigation recommendations and a paleontological inventory report for this project. She also was responsible for scheduling surveys on BLM and United States Marine Corps lands.
PaleontologicalProject Manager, PG&E,Jefferson toStanfordNo. 2 60 kVFeasibilityProject, San Mateo County, California (2012-2014). Kelly assisted with the preparation of the paleontological resources review and paleontological inventory report (PIR) and Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA) for this project. Several potential routes were assessed for this project, and the feasibility and paleontological potential was determined for this project. The report and PIR were prepared according to CEQA guidelines.
PaleontologicalProject Manager, CampPendletonProject, SDG&E, throughoutSanDiego andOrange Counties (2013-2017). Kelly provided on-call paleontological services for this project. She was a key facet in report production and research which enabled her firm to perform all survey and monitoring work required on Camp Pendleton for CEQA/NEPA check list assessments requested from SDG&E. Kelly was cleared from the Department of Defense in order to conduct work on the base. Site assessments and monitoring include all work related to: future location of power poles and towers, water control features, trenching and subsurface excavations, access roads, grading impacts to develop substations and other facilities, work pads, staging yards, and gas pipelines.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona 1673CA91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com APPENDIX B:
Paleontological
Record Search
Results
APPENDIX B:
Paleontological
Record Search
Results
1674
Material Culture Consulting
Attn: Julia Carvajal
re: Paleontological resources for the Cactus Moreno Valley Project DearJulia:
Research & Collections
e-mail: [email protected]
December 31, 2020
I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for proposed development at the Cactus Moreno Valley project area as outlined on the portion of the Sunnymead USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on December 17, 2020.
We do not have any fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project area, but we do have fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur in the proposed project area, either at the surface or at depth.
The following table shows the closest known localities in the collection of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
Locality
Number Location Formation Taxa Depth
LACM VP 6059
Overflow area just
east-southeast of
Lake Elsinore
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene) Camel (Camelidae) Unknown
LACM VP 7261
Skinner Reservoir,
Auld Valley
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene,
arenaceous silt) Proboscidea; Ungulata Unknown
LACM VP 1207
Hill on east side of
sewage disposal
plant; 1 mile N-NW
of Corona
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene) Bovidae Unknown
LACM VP 7811
W of Orchard Park,
Chino Valley
Unknown formation
(eolian, tan silt;
Pleistocene) Whip snake (Masticophis)
9-11 feet
bgs
NATURAL
HISTORY
MUSEUM
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Material Culture Consulting
Attn: Julia Carvajal
Natural History Museum
of LosAngelesCounty
900 Exposition Boulevard
LosAngeles,CA90007
tel 213.763.DINO
www.nhm.org
Research& Collections
e-mail: [email protected]
re: Paleontological resources for the Cactus Moreno Valley Project Dear Julia:
December 31, 2020
I have conducted a thorough searchof our paleontology collectionrecords for the locality and specimen data for proposed development at the CactusMoreno Valley project areaasoutlined on theportion of the SunnymeadUSGS topographic quadranglemap that you sent to me via e-mail onDecember 17, 2020.
We do not have any fossil localities that lie directly within the proposedproject area,but we do have fossil localities nearby from the samesedimentary deposits that occur in theproposedproject area,either at the surface or at depth.
The following table shows the closestknown localities in the collection of theNatural History Museum ofLos Angeles County.
Locality
Number Location Formation Taxa Depth
Overflow area just
east-southeast of Unknown formation
LACM VP 6059 LakeElsinore (Pleistocene) Camel(Camelidae) Unknown Unknown formation
Skinner Reservoir, (Pleistocene,
LACM VP 7261 Auld Valley arenaceous silt) Proboscidea; Ungulata Unknown Hill on east side of
sewage disposal
plant;1 mile N-NW Unknown formation
LACM VP 1207 of Corona (Pleistocene) Bovidae Unknown
Unknown formation
W of Orchard Park, (eolian, tan silt; 9-11feet
LACM VP 7811 Chino Valley Pleistocene) Whip snake (Masticophis) bgs 1675
LACM VP
7271, 7268
Sundance
Condominiums, S of
Los Serranos Golf
Course
Unknown
(Pleistocene) Unspecified vertebrates Unknown
Sundance
Condominiums,Sof
LACM VP Los Serranos Golf Unknown
7271,7268 Course (Pleistocene) Unspecified vertebrates Unknown 1676
VP, Vertebrate Paleontology; IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs, below ground surface This records search covers only the records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (“NHMLA”). It is not intended as a paleontological assessment of the project area for the purposes of CEQA or NEPA. Potentially fossil-bearing units are present in the project area, either at the surface or in the subsurface. As such, NHMLA recommends that a full paleontological assessment of the project area be conducted by a paleontologist meeting Bureau of Land Management or Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Bell, Ph.D.
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
enclosure: invoice
VP, VertebratePaleontology;IP,InvertebratePaleontology, bgs, below groundsurface This records searchcovers only the records of theNaturalHistory Museum ofLos Angeles County (“NHMLA”). It is not intended as apaleontological assessment of the project area for the purposes of CEQA or NEPA. Potentially fossil-bearing units are present in the project area,either at the surfaceor in the subsurface.As such,NHMLA recommends that a full paleontological assessmentof the project areabe conductedby apaleontologist meetingBureau ofLandManagement or Society of VertebratePaleontology standards.
Sincerely,
(UeqpserSep
AlyssaBell, Ph.D.
NaturalHistory Museum ofLos Angeles County
enclosure: invoice
1677
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. June 13, 2021
Tria Belcourt
2701-B N. Towne Ave.
Pomona, CA 91767
Dear Ms. Belcourt,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for EPD Belago Park Moreno Valley Project, in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. The project site is located in Section 14 of Township 3 South and Range 3 West on the Sunnymead USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped as Mesozoic granitic rocks, which have no fossil potential, and Quaternary alluvium dating to the Pliocene-Holocene. Quaternary alluvial units are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area, but does have numerous localities within similarly mapped alluvial sediments throughout the region. Pleistocene alluvial deposits in southern California are well documented and known to contain abundant fossil resources including those associated with Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), Pacific mastodon (Mammut pacificus), sabertooth cat (Smilodon fatalis), ancient horse (Equus sp.), and many other Pleistocene megafauna.
Any fossils recovered from the EPD Belago Park Moreno Valley Project area would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with development of the area has the potential to impact the paleontologically sensitive Quaternary alluvial units and it is the recommendation of the Western Science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation plan be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the current study area.
If you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Andrew McDonald
Curator
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org ® WesTERNScience CENTER
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. June 13,2021
Tria Belcourt
2701-B N. Towne Ave.
Pomona, CA 91767
Dear Ms. Belcourt,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for EPD Belago Park Moreno Valley Project, in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. The project site is located in Section 14 of Township 3 South and Range 3 West on the Sunnymead USGS7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped as Mesozoic granitic rocks, which have no fossil potential, and Quaternary alluvium dating to the Pliocene-Holocene. Quaternary alluvial units are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area, but does have numerous localities within similarly mapped alluvial sediments throughout the region. Pleistocene alluvial deposits in southern California are well documented and known to contain abundant fossil resources including those associated with Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), Pacific mastodon (Mammut pacificus), sabertooth cat (Smilodonfatalis), ancient horse (Equus sp.), and many other Pleistocene megafauna.
Any fossils recovered from the EPD Belago Park Moreno Valley Project area would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with development of the area has the potential to impact the paleontologically sensitive Quaternary alluvial units and it is the recommendation of the Western Science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation plan be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the current study area.
If you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
Sincerely,
(dye Froth
Andrew McDonald
Curator
2345 Searl Parkway ¢ Hemet, CA 92543 ¢ phone 951.791.0033 ¢ fax 951.791.0032 ¢ WesternScienceCenter.org 1678
=a Are ETH han rier ll bE dle ax paw’ Ture - - TE Ty FIAT EE LI Wun 5 a h ": I F EE ap A rE > vo aon of iowd fe
= 3 ' " L] ha,” u +r ce =
EE -w
Sry
1679
Appendix G
Noise and Vibration Analysis
Kimley»Horn
1680
Noise and Vibration Analysis September 2026
City of Moreno Valley Page 1 of 15
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Quintanilla, Moreno Valley City Attorney
CC: Angelica Frausto-Lupo, City of Moreno Valley Community Development Director From: Olivia Chan
Heidi Rous, CPP
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date: September 23, 2026
Subject: Noise and Vibration Analysis
Public Safety Campus Project
The City of Moreno Valley (City) proposes to implement the Public Safety Campus Project (Project), which consists of three primary components: (1) development of a Public Safety Campus (PSC); (2) construction of a Corporate Yard Fueling Station (CYFS); and (3) tenant improvements at existing civic center facilities throughout the City. All three components together comprise the Project. The Project also includes improvements to a drainage culvert and roadway improvements on nearby streets. These improvements would accommodate a range of civic uses identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and are intended to enhance emergency response capabilities, improve operational efficiency, and support the City’s growing public safety and municipal service needs as the City continues to grow.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Public Safety Campus
The Project would include the development and operation of a PSC, which would establish a centralized public safety hub, consisting of a new joint-use fire and police station, Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and a regional animal shelter. The PSC would improve interdepartmental coordination, increase operational efficiency, strengthen emergency preparedness, and provide enhanced public safety services for the City and surrounding region.
Fire Station
The Project proposes a two-story, 50,000 square foot (sf) fire station, designed to serve as a regional facility for the Riverside County Fire Department. The fire station would accommodate approximately 58 employees by 2040. The fire station would include six drive-through apparatus bays supporting Type 1 fire engines, squads, and tiller trucks. Apparatus bay support functions would include equipment and maintenance infrastructure, gear storage, decontamination, medical storage, regional hazardous materials support, and general personnel support. The fire station would also accommodate reserve apparatus, equipment and trailers, secure staff and command parking, and regional staging and Incident Command Post (ICP) functions.
The fire station would include fire administration, operational support, and firefighter living quarters. Living areas would include bunk rooms/sleeping quarters, bathrooms and showers, kitchen, dining and day room functions, clean-side laundry, and associated support spaces.
These areas would be located to provide rapid access to the apparatus bays while minimizing sound transfer between operational and sleeping areas.
1681
Noise and Vibration Analysis September 2026
City of Moreno Valley Page 2 of 15
Police Station
The Project would include a two-story, 90,0000 sf police station that would serve as a secure law enforcement facility with operational capacity comparable to that of the City's existing police station. The police station would accommodate approximately 210 employees by 2040. The police station would incorporate controlled public and secure access, a secure perimeter and parking area, and multiple ingress and egress routes while supporting command staff, administration, patrol, specialized units like traffic and community service, special enforcement teams, investigations, property and evidence, and training. A dedicated processing and holding area would be included with physically separated accommodations for juvenile detainees in accordance with applicable standards.
The police station would provide specialized operational, training, and technology spaces, including a Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC), Incident Command Center, dedicated Drone Program operations, armory and weapons maintenance areas, briefing and report-writing spaces, and a defensive tactics training room designed for both mat-based training and simulation exercises.
Additional spaces would support hard and soft interview functions, property and evidence processing and storage, staff locker and wellness areas, functional fitness, and community and multi-purpose training functions. Secure site areas would accommodate fleet and personal staff vehicles, motorcycles, traffic enforcement vehicles, specialized equipment and response vehicles, and provide dedicated holding-related parking stalls. The facility would enhance operational efficiency, maintain appropriate separation between public and secure pedestrian and vehicular circulation, enhance officer safety and emergency response capabilities, and promote community engagement while supporting the City's long-term public safety needs.
Emergency Operations Center
The Project would also include a two-story 30,000 sf EOC, that would serve as the City's primary emergency management and incident coordination facility. The EOC would accommodate five (5) full-time staff members, enhancing the capabilities of the City's existing emergency operations facilities. The EOC would be designed to support coordinated response and recovery efforts during emergencies, disasters, and other major incidents.
Animal Shelter
The Project would develop a two-story, 65,000 sf regional animal shelter that would occupy a range of 6 to 8-acres of the PSC. The animal shelter would accommodate approximately 58 fulltime staff members by 2040. The animal shelter would be designed to provide comprehensive animal care, adoption services, veterinary support, and community outreach functions. Key public and operational spaces would include a welcoming public lobby, dedicated adoption areas, a lowcost veterinary clinic, volunteer space, an administrative office hub, and a conference room with capacity for approximately 75 people.
Infrastructure Improvements
The PSC would incorporate supporting infrastructure, including an approximately 100-foot communications tower to provide reliable Citywide radio and data communications, that would ensure continuity of operations during emergency events. The PSC would also include a shared utility yard, approximately 3,000 sf to support all facilities on the PSC Site.
The PSC Site would also include site lighting, secure fencing and controlled-access gates, electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, ADA-compliant parking spaces and pedestrian pathways, 1682
Noise and Vibration Analysis September 2026
City of Moreno Valley Page 3 of 15
emergency generators, fuel storage, general storage facilities, and other operational support amenities required for fire, police, and animal shelter functions. Additionally, covered parking areas may incorporate solar photovoltaic panels to support energy efficiency and sustainability goals.
Additional PSC Site improvements would include landscaping, hardscape, irrigation systems, site lighting, secure fencing and controlled-access gates, EV charging stations, ADA-compliant parking spaces and pedestrian pathways, emergency generators, fuel storage, general storage facilities, and other operational support amenities required for fire, police, and animal shelter functions.
Improvements to the existing on-site drainage channel would be constructed east of Redlands Boulevard and would extend beneath Redlands Boulevard, allowing stormwater flows to be conveyed across the roadway in a controlled manner. The PSC would leave a 30-ft buffer between the existing on-site drainage culvert and the Project Site development. The Project would also incorporate improvements to the existing on-site drainage channel to enhance flood protection and accommodate the proposed campus facilities in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's master plan. These drainage improvements would improve Project Site resiliency and reduce potential flood-related impacts to critical public safety infrastructure.
Off-site roadway improvements would include full-width improvements along Brodiaea Avenue from Wilmot Street to Redlands Boulevard and along Wilmot Street from Brodiaea Avenue to Cactus Avenue. Half-street improvements would be constructed along Redlands Boulevard from Campbell Avenue to Cactus Avenue and along Cactus Avenue from Redlands Boulevard to Goldenrod Street. Street improvements include new curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscape, lighting, signage, pavement, and associated drainage facilities to accommodate new, improved roads. To improve traffic operations and enhance emergency response access, three new traffic signals would be installed at the intersections of Brodiaea Avenue and Redlands Boulevard, Redlands Boulevard and Cactus Avenue, and Cactus Avenue and Wilmot Street.
Corporate Yard Fueling Station
In addition to the improvements proposed at the PSC Site, the City would also construct the CYFS, a new aboveground fueling facility that would support the City’s growing municipal fleet demands and ensure reliable emergency fueling capabilities for critical operations. The Project would include the excavation and disposal of existing surface materials, followed by construction of two monolithic structural concrete pads extending two feet beyond each tank footprint. The unleaded gasoline tank pad would measure approximately 17 feet by 12 feet and would be protected by sixteen 8-inch-diameter concrete-filled steel bollards spaced four feet on center. The diesel tank pad would measure approximately 12 feet by 10 feet and would be protected by twelve similarly configured bollards.
The CYFS would include 4,000-gallon UL 2085 aboveground unleaded gasoline storage tank equipped with four tank-mounted dispensing pumps and a 1,000-gallon UL 2085 aboveground diesel storage tank equipped with two tank-mounted dispensing pumps. Both systems would include all associated components required for safe and compliant operation, including venting systems, fill assemblies, spill containment, overfill prevention devices, monitoring equipment, and fuel management controls.
1683
Noise and Vibration Analysis September 2026
City of Moreno Valley Page 4 of 15
The CYFS would be integrated with two Gasboy EKOS fuel management systems to provide secure fuel tracking, inventory management, and operational oversight. The contractor would be responsible for complete system installation, startup, programming, calibration, testing, commissioning, and coordination of all required regulatory inspections to ensure the fueling facility is fully operational and compliant with applicable standards.
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Construction Noise
Construction noise levels were estimated based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise levels from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.
Construction activities for the PSC would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Construction activities for the CYFS would include demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction. Construction activities for off-site improvements would include grubbing and land clearing, grading and excavation, drainage, utilities and subgrade, and paving. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute, such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts.
The FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate noise levels at the nearest residential receptors. See Error! Reference source not found.: Public Safety Campus Noise Measurement Locations and Sensitive Receptors and Figure 2:Fueling Station Noise Measurement Locations for the location of sensitive receptors considered herein.
Noise levels at other sensitive receptors surrounding the Project site would be located further away and would experience lower construction noise levels than the modeled receptors from onsite construction. Noise levels were based on the equipment used, distance to the nearest receptor, and acoustical usage factor for equipment.
When calculating construction noise, equipment anticipated for each individual construction phase is assumed to operate at staggering distances throughout the Project site, with the nearest distance calculated at the Project site boundary. This methodology accounts for equipment operating throughout the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time.1 Construction related noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors also factored in a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). The noise level estimates do not, however, assume the presence of intervening structures, topography, or temporary barriers. 1 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 1684
San Bernardino County, Vant
SOURCE: ArcGIS Pro, 2026
FIGURE 1: Public Safety Campus Noise Measurement Locations and Sensitive Receptors
PUBLIC SAFETY CAMPUS PROJECT
ST
ST
ST
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
LT
LEGEND
Project Site
ST Short-term Measurement
Long-term Measurement LT
SR-# Sensitive Receptor
Cactus Avenue
Redlands Boulevard
Brodiaea Avenue
Wilmot Street
KimleyHorn al
y
. . 'I' v 7 *
1 a
*
• cJ.
I 4/'
V
1 a
C)
y
)
—
—P■ Ura .5
— 1. te M' i
—
tn it
teitt
4 i
11 I
K
..6
h
wd --
/ ■
I
L
L
3 j
*
d
—
f
1(T (M
Mh
t
w
N 5.
s
Eads HS
$r-
■
f’x.
ir
:
: i : a
_
5re)
119*1.
r
;
t
3 ‘8.8
■■ . —A
)
ti
l w. A.
Hi
• ’I
t
48 r-- De
$
L
1 1685
SOURCE: ArcGIS Pro, 2026
FIGURE 2: Fueling Station Noise Measurement Locations
PUBLIC SAFETY CAMPUS PROJECT
ST
LEGEND
Project Site
ST Short-term Measurement
Santiago Drive
Patricia Street
Dana Lane
Perris Boulevard
Gentian Avenue
• (72.;
= " “t • -
-x fremoinm-nge t.
6 ilWi " 4
s 2
5 1 tin
Wyuiududuimllu’e V — , yununub & * t**M**N Ui — “I . J -=f K 2r t Ak
‘haade"tasl H
ihe #
- 77
‘ ‘4445714 , - - ' 12 - 1 "h 3
s 00
1 35
da
3 A,
N
#
enw
s ri5. S
5 > -=7s
920 PDea"
.Ate 2%
x
T
9 . 1 3m
■ ‘•—U
e &
- he
3 3
dhtFAesem‘ 2 g egre —
%:
a
zel r
■
3 i
ea
J " r —
-
“NF*
F EI at
pi J
—
1 1 "ha
%p
t
. 1? ".g J i'. A
1 ■
1 1
WW
—
7(3
Alla
Lh-- L
06—7 i .
1 me I Fialat
| J. —
29u 31
a
3 ej
l wgessan
y (h
armP mn
Es
1— h.
d. s
A
U
s i
6 .i
TW
WSOa
“has. inagie. gele A d a
ss ) whr 4V \
.: ■:
’k
-
Lhe y‘
s
1 he
A.
f
3 I
J
», -1 5:
sh
Si
vnpake as
onolorn. ha. "geessre
85” I:
in
G. ?
i
-scare •
‘J 7
V
4 h
css. .. Loo
TTw
rr. naelt
"W): ■ (ee
e" 1
. • ; Wwwi ’ ponnp"r‘u
" add ■
- h
, n
r
trl s 8 ■ an
"r
4 -
KimleyHorn
04 Ir
, - ■ 38
‘ boy .. hosu aw
! a 4t 4
5 * s
J
%
ter
- 4
ri
By,
N
meun,mt
uowo
1 8
2) a UP"
149
4 * Imr.
1 Da
sl
C".
I
—
L>i
14 1
■
5 4.' Ee
25 ri’J
10 , Pyn Lsa
Lg
‘es
I W 1 “T
5 IBAACAMIA?
AtEGiIbl/ T Fuirun",
1686
Noise and Vibration Analysis September 2026
City of Moreno Valley Page 7 of 15
Operational Noise
The analysis of the Existing and With Project noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels are collected from field noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a worst-case noise environment as noise levels from stationary sources can vary throughout the day. Operational noise is evaluated based on the Moreno Valley Municipal Code exterior noise standards of 60 dBA during daytime hours and 55 dBA during nighttime hours.
Where ambient levels exceed exterior standards, an incremental increase threshold of 5 dBA is utilized. According to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), a minimum 5-dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected.2 Vibration
Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were evaluated utilizing typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential groundborne vibration impacts related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria for structural damage and human annoyance.
For a structure built traditionally, without assistance from qualified engineers, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any vibration damage. FTA guidelines show that modern engineered buildings built with reinforcedconcrete, steel or timber can withstand vibration levels up to 0.50 in/sec and not experience vibration damage. The Caltrans Construction Vibration Guidance Manual identifies the vibration threshold for human annoyance, vibrations levels of 0.4 in/sec PPV is when vibrations are considered severe by people subjected to continuous vibrations and levels of 0.2 in/sec is used for building damage.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity, Kimley-Horn conducted four shortterm (15-minute) measurements and one long-term (24-hour) measurement on August 26, 2026; see Appendix A: Noise Measuring Data for additional details regarding how the ambient noise measurements were taken. The noise measurement sites were selected to be representative of the existing ambient noise levels at the noise-sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Project site. The 15-minute daytime measurements were taken between 11:50 a.m. and 1:43 p.m. Measurements of Leq are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels measured at each location are listed in Table 1: Existing Noise Measurement Locations and Measurements and shown on Error! Reference source not found.. 2 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. 1687
Noise and Vibration Analysis September 2026
City of Moreno Valley Page 8 of 15
Table 1: Existing Noise Measurement Locations and Measurements Site Location Measurement Period Duration
Daytime
Average
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Average
(dBA Leq)
ST-1 East of 28850 Brodiaea
Avenue
11:50 a.m. – 12:05
p.m.
15 minutes 41.7 N/A
ST-2 Rose Angel Street north of
14341 Wilmont Street
12:14 p.m. – 12:49
p.m.
15 minutes 47.2 N/A
ST-3 Corner of Mammoth Drive and
Cactus Avenue
12:34 p.m. – 12:49
p.m.
15 minutes 62.6 N/A
ST-4 Dana Lane north of 25173
Dana Lane 1:28 p.m. – 1:43 p.m. 15 minutes 52.3 N/A
LT-1 Corner of Wilmont Street and
Brodiaea Avenue
August 26, 2026 at
11:29 a.m. – August
27, 2026 at 11:29 a.m.
24 hours 51.8 44.1
Source: Noise measurements taken by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.. Short-term measurements were taken on August 26, 2026.
The long-term measurement was taken from August 26, 2026 to August 27, 2026. See Appendix A for the noise measurement results.
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Construction Noise
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the receptors near the construction site. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the residential uses located to the north, west, and south of the PSC and to the north of the CYFS.
Table 2: Project Construction Noise Levels summarizes the exterior noise levels at the sensitive receptors nearest each Project component compared to the FTA construction noise thresholds of 80 dBA Leq for residential receptors. FEIR Mitigation Measure NOS-1.3.b requires that demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities within 70 feet of noisesensitive uses properly maintain and equip construction equipment with noise control components such as mufflers. Implementation of this requirement has been incorporated into estimated maximum construction noise levels shown below. See Appendix B for construction noise calculations for sensitive receptors within 500 feet of Project construction activity.
Table 2: Project Construction Noise Levels
Project Component
Maximum
Affected Receptor
Land Use
Receptor Distance
(feet) and Direction
Modeled
Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)
1 Exceeded?
PSC Residential 50 feet to the West 75.0 80 No
CYFS Residential 50 feet to the north 79.8 80 No
Off-Site Infrastructure
Improvements Residential 30 feet to the north, west, and/or south 77.3 80 No Notes:
1. The FTA’s construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq at residential uses (FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018).
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2025. Refer to Appendix B for noise modeling results.
As shown in Table 2, construction noise levels would reach up to 75.0 dBA Leq to the west of the PSC, 79.8 dBA Leq at residential uses located to the north of the Corporate Yard, and 77.3 dBA 1688
Noise and Vibration Analysis September 2026
City of Moreno Valley Page 9 of 15
Leq at all residential uses located adjacent to off-site roadway improvements. These noise levels would not exceed the FTA standard of 80 dBA Leq at residential uses. Additionally, compliance with Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 8.14.040 would minimize potential impacts from construction noise, as construction would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Further, the Project would be subject to FEIR MM NOS-1, which requires minimizing idling times for noise-generating equipment and incorporation of all feasible noise reduction measures. Impacts would be less than significant.
On-Site Operational Noise
The Project consists of the development of a PSC and CYFS that are assumed to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. It is assumed that operational activity at the CYFS would be similar to existing conditions as the city’s fleet currently frequent the site. The addition of a fueling station would not generate substantial increases in activity at the site. Therefore, the analysis focuses on the operation of the PSC.
The proposed PSC includes the operation of a fire station that would respond to emergency service calls. Noise would be generated when the alarm sounds to alert personnel to respond to a service call during an emergency. In addition, the proposed fire station includes a training facility.
Training activities could include the use of a chainsaw, air hammer, jaws of life, and saw.
Maximum noise levels associated with training activities would be 108 dBA Leq at 3.3 feet from the use of a saw.3 Pursuant to Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 11.80.030(E)(1) and Section 11.80.030(E)(7), sounds from emergency vehicles when responding to an emergency call and City-sponsored events on public space or publicly owned property, respectively, are exempt from sound level regulations. Therefore, on-site noise associated with emergency alerts and City-sponsored fire training activities on public space are not considered in the composite onsite operational noise analysis.
Utilizing the reference noise level data described below, composite operational noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors surrounding the proposed PSC has been estimated based on the preliminary site layout.
• Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment such as ventilation fans and HVAC equipment would be installed on Project rooftops. Mechanical equipment typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet.4 It is assumed that rooftops would be equipped with architectural features that would block rooftop equipment of view. • Parking Lot. Noises associated with parking activities include vehicles starting and stopping, vehicle doors closing, car horns and car alarms, loading and unloading, car radios, and conversations. Parking activity noise levels can reach 63 dBA Leq at 50 feet and are short-term in nature.5
• Outdoor Kennel. Noise associated with an outdoor kennel includes barking and howling dogs, which would reach approximately 85 dBA Leq at 3.3 feet.6 3 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Firefighter Noise Exposure During Training Activities and General Equipment Use, Table IV Mean Noise Levels for Station and Fire Engine Equipment, 2012. 4 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010. 5 Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991. 6 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.
1689
Noise and Vibration Analysis September 2026
City of Moreno Valley Page 10 of 15
• Drone Launch. The PSC would include docking areas for drones. Noise associated with drones can reach 79 dBA Leq at 3.3 feet.7 It is assumed that drone launch would occur from rooftop of the police station, which would be shielded by architectural features. • Shielding. It is assumed that the Project site would include perimeter walls that would block the line-of-sight of on-site activities from off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, a 10 dBA reduction in noise levels has been applied to each of the on-site noise sources listed above.
Daytime and nighttime composite noise levels are shown in Table 3: Composite On-Site Operational Noise Levels – Daytime and Table 4: Composite On-Site Operational Noise Levels - Nighttime. All daytime sources have been assumed to also occur during nighttime hours. It should be noted that predicted noise levels are conservative estimates since it was assumed that all operational activity at the Project site would occur in a constant, simultaneous manner. In reality, it is anticipated that these noise sources would occur intermittently throughout the day and night (except for rooftop HVAC which would operate in a steady-state manner).
Table 3: Composite On-Site Operational Noise Levels – Daytime Receptor
Combined OnSite Project
Noise (dBA Leq) 1
Daytime
Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA Leq) 2
Combined
Project and
Ambient Noise
level (dBA Leq)
Applicable
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq) 3
Exceeded?
1 – Residential (N) 45.9 41.7 47.3 60.0 No
2 – Residential (W) 47.3 47.2 50.3 60.0 No
3 – Residential (W) 30.9 47.2 47.3 60.0 No
4 – Residential (S) 42.8 62.6 62.6 67.6 No
Notes:
1. See Appendix C for operational noise calculations.
2. See Table 1 for representative noise measurements.
3. Pursuant to Section 11.80.030(c) of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, the exterior noise standard for residential uses during daytime hours is 60 dBA. Representative ambient noise levels at receptor 4 exceeds 60 dBA under existing conditions. Therefore, the applicable threshold at receptor 4 is an increase in ambient of 5 dBA.
Table 4: Composite On-Site Operational Noise Levels - Nighttime Receptor
Combined
On-Site
Project Noise
(dBA Leq) 1
Nighttime
Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA Leq) 2
Combined
Project and
Ambient
Noise level
(dBA Leq)
Applicable
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq) 3
Exceeded?
1 – Residential (N) 45.9 34.7 46.2 55.0 No
2 – Residential (W) 47.3 40.2 48.1 55.0 No
3 – Residential (W) 30.9 40.2 40.7 55.0 No
4 – Residential (S) 42.8 55.6 55.8 60.6 No
Notes:
1. See Appendix C for operational noise calculations.
2. See Table 1 for representative noise measurements. Based on long-term measurement taken at the Project site, the nighttime ambient levels are approximately 7 dBA lower than daytime. A 7 dBA reduction has been taken from representative daytime measurements
3. Pursuant to Section 11.80.030(c) of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, the exterior noise standard for residential uses during nighttime hours is 55 dBA. Representative ambient noise levels at receptors 4 exceeds 55 dBA under existing conditions.
Therefore, the applicable threshold at receptor 4 is an increase in ambient of 5 dBA.
As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, on-site composite operational noise would not exceed allowable daytime or nighttime exterior standards of 60 dBA or 55 dBA, respectively, at receptors 1, 2, and
3. Ambient levels at receptor 4 exceeds allowable exterior noise levels under existing conditions 7 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021 Dec 25; 19(1):223, A Conceptual Framework Proposal for a Noise Modelling Service for Drones in U-Space Architecture, 2022. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8750543/pdf/ijerph-19-00223.pdf. Accessed September 2026. 1690
Noise and Vibration Analysis September 2026
City of Moreno Valley Page 11 of 15
and the addition of Project operational noise would not result in a noticeable increase in ambient conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise
The FEIR concluded that the traffic noise attributable to new land development would be significant and avoidable. Buildout of the PSC would generate a total of 4,349 daily trips along nearby roadway segments and operation of the CYFS would generate a total of 688 daily vehicle trips.
8 The Project is consistent with the allowable land uses of the General Plan and as a result, traffic noise levels associated with the proposed Project have been contemplated and addressed in the FEIR. Therefore, traffic noise levels generated by the proposed Project would be consistent with the findings of the FEIR. Therefore, the Project’s impacts are within the limits of the impacts identified in the FEIR and the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts than previously analyzed.
VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Construction
On-Site Construction
Increases in ground-borne vibration levels attributable to the Project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Project construction would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.
The types of construction vibration impacts include building damage and human annoyance.
Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet.
This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. This analysis uses FTA structural damage criteria of 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings and Caltrans’ human annoyance criterion of 0.4 in/sec PPV for residential receptors.
Project construction would require the use of loaded trucks, bulldozers, and vibratory rollers and compactors. Table 5: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels lists the vibration levels for typical construction equipment at 25 feet (the reference distance), 100 feet (the distance of nearest residential structures to the PSC), 50 feet (the distance of nearest sensitive receptors to the CYFS area), and 35 feet (the distance of nearest sensitive receptors to off-site roadway improvements). As shown in Table 5, construction of the PSC, CYFS, and off-site improvements would not exceed applicable vibration thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 5: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment
Reference Level
PPV at 25 Feet
(in/sec)
PPV at 100 Feet
(in/sec)1,2
PPV at 50 Feet
(in/sec)1,3
PPV at 35 Feet
(in/sec)1,4
Small Bulldozer 0.003 <0.001 0.001 0.002
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.010 0.027 0.046
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.011 0.031 0.054
8 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition. 1691
Noise and Vibration Analysis September 2026
City of Moreno Valley Page 12 of 15
Equipment
Reference Level
PPV at 25 Feet
(in/sec)
PPV at 100 Feet
(in/sec)1,2
PPV at 50 Feet
(in/sec)1,3
PPV at 35 Feet
(in/sec)1,4
Vibratory Roller/Compactor 0.21 0.026 0.074 0.127
Structural Damage
Threshold -- 0.2 0.2 0.2
Human Annoyance
Threshold -- 0.4 04 0.4
Threshold Exceeded? -- No No No
PPV = peak particle velocity.
1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
2. Distance measured from the site boundary of the PSC to the nearest structure/sensitive receptor
3. Distance measured from the boundary of the fueling station area to the nearest structure/sensitive receptor.
4. Distance measured from the nearest roadway to the nearest structure/sensitive receptor.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Off-Site Construction
Project construction would involve truck travel along nearby roadways, generating vibration events with each passing truck. According to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, a heavy truck rarely creates vibration levels that exceeds 0.012 in/sec PPV at 50 feet when on a roadway.9 The factors influencing levels of ground-borne vibration include vehicle speed, vehicle suspension, and wheel condition and type. The frequency of vibration events is not listed as an influencing factor for vibration velocity by the FTA.10 As such, multiple trucks traveling along the roadway would increase the frequency of vibration events but would not affect the vibration velocity experienced by sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
Project operations would primarily involve passenger vehicle travel. Operations of the PSC would involve travel of fire trucks. No other vibration-generating activities would occur on site. According to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, a heavy truck rarely creates vibration levels that exceeds 0.012 in/sec PPV at 50 feet when on a roadway.11 Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity.12 Further, there are no substantial ground borne vibration sources associated with the Project, such as rail or subways. Impacts would be less than significant.
9 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 10 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 11 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 12 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 1692
Appendix A
Noise Measurement Data
1693
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 094274010
Site No.: Date: 8/26/2026 - 8/27/2026
Analyst: Time: 11:29 a.m. - 11:29 a.m.
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
50.2 31.7 80.6 101.3
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LXT Temp. (degrees F):
Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph):
Response Time: Slow Sky:
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure (inHg):
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity:
Photo:
Equipment Weather
MoVal Public Safety Campus
LT-1
Dharma Truong and James Fong
Corner of Wilmont Street and Brodiaea Avenue
Kimley>»Horn
edasdea
a
. "Ssow ■ sh f
V g ‘ 7.
■
ft :
—Ths
1 taee.’ -over J. • -
1g ai f,rt
y
C
2. e.7 asew "ate
$
fd
t
*g
T "IN_____ roler As . . yil
Sngs." .: set ,aSa.
—S . lh
jo _ wmegntet a , tie "
n." oy we * i
. 18
r
1694
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File NameLT_.007.s Computer's File NameLxTse_0005586-20260826 112939-LT_.007.ldbin Meter LxT SE 0005586 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Start Time 2026-08-26 11:29:39Duration 24:00:00.0
End Time 2026-08-27 11:29:39Run Time 24:00:00.0Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration2026-08-25 15:32:34Post-CalibrationNone Calibration Deviation0.0 Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 50.2 dB
LAE 99.6 dB SEA --- dB
EA 1.0 mPa²h
LApeak 101.3 dB 2026-08-26 11:31:07
LASmax 80.6 dB 2026-08-26 19:01:54
LASmin 31.7 dB 2026-08-27 01:44:38
LAeq 50.2 dB
LCeq 60.7 dB LCeq - LAeq 10.5 dB
LAIeq
53.6 dB LAIeq - LAeq3.4 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
52.8 dB 51.8 dB 44.1 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
53.5 dB 52.0 dB 51.0 dB 44.1 dB
1695
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 50.2 dB 60.7 dB --- dB
Ls(max) 80.6 dB 2026-08-26 19:01:54 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 31.7 dB 2026-08-27 01:44:38 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 101.3 dB 2026-08-26 11:31:07 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 52.7 dB
LAS 10.0 49.1 dB
LAS 33.3 42.7 dB
LAS 50.0 40.2 dB
LAS 66.6 38.1 dB
LAS 90.0 35.4 dB
1696
40 20
0 12:00 20:00 04:00
16:00 27. Aug 08:00
Ww L -L J —mtddurunLab
— LAeq — LApk — LAS max
Time History 00 Values
1697
1/1 LAeq
1/1 LASmax
16:00 20:00 27. Aug 04:00 08:00
25 dB 50 dB 75 dB
16:00 20:00 27. Aug 04:00 08:00
25 dB 50 dB 75 dB
11 0 dB
11 0 dB
N N N N N N
00 00
Frequency Frequency
00I
N
00I
N
1698
1/1 LASmin
1/3 LAeq
8kHz
l kHz
125Hz
8Hz
12:00 16:00 20:00 27. Aug 04:00 08:00
25 dB 50 dB 75 dB
20kHz
8kHz
1 kHz
100Hz
6.3Hz
12:00 16:00 20:00 27. Aug 04:00 08:00
25 dB 50 dB 75 dB
11 0 dB
n
0 dB
Frequency Frequency
1699
1/3 LASmax
1/3 LASmin
I kHz
100Hz
6.3Hz
12:00 16:00 20:00 27. Aug 04:00 08:00
25 dB 50 dB 75 dB
l kHz
100Hz
6.3Hz
12:00 16:00 20:00 27. Aug 04:00 08:00
25 dB 50 dB 75 dB
__
1 r
20kHz
8kHz
20kHz
8kHz ____________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ n
0 dB
n
0 dB
____________________ mmmmimm
Frequency Frequency
1700
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 094274010
Site No.: Date: 8/26/2026
Analyst: Time: 11:50 a.m. - 12:05 p.m.
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
41.7 35.5 67.7 102.7
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert 821 Temp. (degrees F): 102 Calibrator: CAL1200 Wind (mph): 6
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure (inHg): 29.85
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 21%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
MoVal Public Safety Campus
ST-1
Dharma Truong and James Fong
Adjacent to the east of 28850 Brodiaea Avenue
dogs barking, wind chimes, people walking, car door closing |
]
Aauan
0 t
r -
se-
-eter
P
E2, war n ovt z Y
--
s
—
L $ 28*
aa- t
' ouer of
— re -
... -fet.es
•: er
Le
405 f. Afnii svenr - • ( a
ter. ? s e 4
3. 334 ——is J22 Ef-winee Tess
or-lerEs s AWMPits 2/ T. e LAP 6 203 7, e :
a
&
Kimley»)Horn
Y
2 2
e
Jhray
e
a
s
llll
ilaC
get
--
u
R
t
i
theeestlvooher aot teetsa
-25." 0s-
.. -r
20 c. 1
P
es
e.
xztd
42. . 30
meddc -
athes - S’ey
I07 3
toe Rir
rglta P A
-
1701
SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2026-08-26 16:17:47
User:
Location:
Job Description:
Notes:
Meter General Information
Model Serial
Meter SoundExpert 821 40864
Preamplifier PRM821 002467
Microphone 377B02 370127
Unique File Id 00C:00009FA0:6A8ED323:00005BD6
Overall Measurement
Start Date & Time 2026-08-26 11:50:59
Stop Date & Time 2026-08-26 12:05:59
Run Time 00:15:00
Pre-Calibration
Date/Time 2026-08-13 09:32:18
Calibrator Level (dB) 114.00
Meter Sensitivity (dB re 1V/Pa) -25.86
Post-Calibration
Date/Time ---
Calibrator Level (dB) ---
Meter Sensitivity (dB re 1V/Pa) ---
Sensitivity Delta ---
A C Z
Lweq (dB) 41.7 55.3 75.8
Lwpk (dB) 102.7 100.5 101.9
2026-08-26 12:00:13 2026-08-26 12:00:13 2026-08-26 11:51:50 LwSmin (dB) 35.5 48.9 53.3
2026-08-26 11:56:25 2026-08-26 11:57:35 2026-08-26 11:57:35 LwSmax (dB) 67.7 71.8 94.1
2026-08-26 12:00:13 2026-08-26 11:51:51 2026-08-26 11:51:54 LwFmin (dB) 35.1 47.1 50.7
2026-08-26 11:56:16 2026-08-26 11:56:39 2026-08-26 12:01:24 LwFmax (dB) 76.5 77.2 98.1
2026-08-26 12:00:13 2026-08-26 11:51:50 2026-08-26 11:51:50 LwImin (dB) 36.3 51.2 56.5
2026-08-26 11:56:22 2026-08-26 11:57:32 2026-08-26 11:57:35 LwImax (dB) 81.1 80.5 100.7
2026-08-26 12:00:13 2026-08-26 11:51:50 2026-08-26 11:51:50 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z)
Community Noise (dB) LDN LDay (07:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)
41.7 41.7 ---
LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00) LEve (19:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)
41.7 41.7 --- ---
LCeq - LAeq (dB) 13.6
LAIeq (dB) 54.4
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 00:00:00
A C Z
Under Range Peak (dB) 50.0 50.0 62.0
Under Range Limit (dB) 24.0 27.0 37.0
Noise Floor (dB) 17.0 18.0 25.0
Ln Percentiles
LAS 5.0 (dB) 40.8
LAS 10.0 (dB) 39.6
LAS 33.3 (dB) 38.2
LAS 50.0 (dB) 37.7
LAS 66.6 (dB) 37.2
LAS 90.0 (dB) 36.4
Exceedances
Count Duration (s)
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0
LAS > 95.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0
• LARSON DAVIS
A PCB DIVISION
1702
Sound Exposure
SELA (dB) 71.2
EA (Pa²s) 0.0
EA,8h (Pa²s) 0.2
EA,40h (Pa²s) 0.9
EA (Pa²h) 0.0
EA,8h (Pa²h) 0.0
EA,40h (Pa²h) 0.0
Room Acoustics
Measured OBA
Frequency (Hz) 16 31.5 63 125
LAeq (dB) 2 14 25 29
Frequency (Hz) 250 500 1k 2k
LAeq (dB) 29 31 38 35
Frequency (Hz) 4k 8k
LAeq (dB) 34 19
Noise Criteria (NC)
NC-37 (1 kHz) Tangency
SIL 35
Room Criteria (RC)
RC-35 (H)
LMF 34.8
Noise Rating (NR)
NR-39 (4 kHz)
1703
NC-37 (1 kHz) RC-35 (H)
100 100
75 75
NC-70
NC-60
Co Co 50 50 NC-50
NC-40
NC-30 25 25
NC-20
0 0
( o V W % fa o V W % %
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
NR-39 (4 kHz)
100
75 NR-70
NR-60
Co 50 NR-50
NR-40
NR-30 25
NR-20
0 o V W %
Frequency (Hz)
RC-50
RC-45
RC-40
RC-35
RC-30
RC-25
4°
49 <O <O4°
n<O
o
o
0 o o
1704
Powered by Larson Davis
Time History
140
105
70 lb
35 0 T
11:52
11:54 11:58 12:02
Overall OBA
A-Weighting
140
— LAeq — LApk — Audio
U)
O
D
n
>
11:56 12:00 12:04
■ LAeq LASmin ■ LASmax
i
i
I
I
I
O)
I
■
I
I
I
I
I
■
I
I O)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I O)
I
I ■
O)
COCO
Level (dB)
r
m
■ i
■
।
1705
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 094274010
Site No.: Date: 8/26/2026
Analyst: Time: 12:14 p.m. - 12:49 p.m.
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
47.2 40.6 66.5 81.9
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert 821 Temp. (degrees F): 103 Calibrator: CAL1200 Wind (mph): 6
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure (inHg): 29.84
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 19%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
MoVal Public Safety Campus
ST-2
Dharma Truong and James Fong
Adjacent to the north of 14341 Wilmont Street, along Rose Angel Street car door closing, cars driving along Wilmont Street and Rose Angel Street !
Kimley>»Horn
1706
SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2026-08-27 12:06:14
User:
Location:
Job Description:
Notes:
Meter General Information
Model Serial
Meter SoundExpert 821 40864
Preamplifier PRM821 002467
Microphone 377B02 370127
Unique File Id 00C:00009FA0:6A8ED8A5:00005BE2
Overall Measurement
Start Date & Time 2026-08-26 12:14:29
Stop Date & Time 2026-08-26 12:29:29
Run Time 00:15:00
Pre-Calibration
Date/Time 2026-08-13 09:32:18
Calibrator Level (dB) 114.00
Meter Sensitivity (dB re 1V/Pa) -25.86
Post-Calibration
Date/Time ---
Calibrator Level (dB) ---
Meter Sensitivity (dB re 1V/Pa) ---
Sensitivity Delta ---
A C Z
Lweq (dB) 47.2 62.2 80.6
Lwpk (dB) 81.9 86.7 99.9
2026-08-26 12:24:52 2026-08-26 12:26:12 2026-08-26 12:19:43 LwSmin (dB) 40.6 53.0 59.5
2026-08-26 12:21:23 2026-08-26 12:20:35 2026-08-26 12:20:39 LwSmax (dB) 66.5 76.9 92.9
2026-08-26 12:26:13 2026-08-26 12:26:13 2026-08-26 12:28:42 LwFmin (dB) 40.0 51.4 55.8
2026-08-26 12:21:23 2026-08-26 12:27:07 2026-08-26 12:20:38 LwFmax (dB) 67.9 79.2 96.6
2026-08-26 12:26:12 2026-08-26 12:26:13 2026-08-26 12:28:42 LwImin (dB) 41.4 55.1 63.9
2026-08-26 12:21:23 2026-08-26 12:20:35 2026-08-26 12:20:39 LwImax (dB) 68.9 80.1 98.9
2026-08-26 12:26:12 2026-08-26 12:26:13 2026-08-26 12:28:42 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z)
Community Noise (dB) LDN LDay (07:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)
47.2 47.2 ---
LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00) LEve (19:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)
47.2 47.2 --- ---
LCeq - LAeq (dB) 14.9
LAIeq (dB) 49.7
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 00:00:00
A C Z
Under Range Peak (dB) 50.0 50.0 62.0
Under Range Limit (dB) 24.0 27.0 37.0
Noise Floor (dB) 17.0 18.0 25.0
Ln Percentiles
LAS 5.0 (dB) 49.0
LAS 10.0 (dB) 44.2
LAS 33.3 (dB) 42.6
LAS 50.0 (dB) 42.3
LAS 66.6 (dB) 42.0
LAS 90.0 (dB) 41.6
Exceedances
Count Duration (s)
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0
LAS > 95.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0
1707
Sound Exposure
SELA (dB) 76.8
EA (Pa²s) 0.0
EA,8h (Pa²s) 0.6
EA,40h (Pa²s) 3.0
EA (Pa²h) 0.0
EA,8h (Pa²h) 0.0
EA,40h (Pa²h) 0.0
Room Acoustics
Measured OBA
Frequency (Hz) 16 31.5 63 125
LAeq (dB) 9 21 30 36
Frequency (Hz) 250 500 1k 2k
LAeq (dB) 39 41 43 39
Frequency (Hz) 4k 8k
LAeq (dB) 31 21
Noise Criteria (NC)
NC-42 (1 kHz) Tangency
SIL 40
Room Criteria (RC)
RC-41 (H)
LMF 41.1
Noise Rating (NR)
NR-43 (1 kHz)
1708
NC-42 (1 kHz) RC-41 (H)
100 100
75 75
NC-70
NC-60
Co Co 50 50 NC-50
NC-40
NC-30 25 25
NC-20
0 0
( o V W % fa o V W % %
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
NR-43 (1 kHz)
100
75 NR-70
NR-60
Co 50 NR-50
NR-40
NR-30 25
NR-20
0 o V W %
Frequency (Hz)
RC-50
RC-45
RC-40
RC-35
RC-30
RC-25
4°
49 <O <O4°
n<O
o
o
0 o o
1709
Powered by Larson Davis
Time History
140
105
70 35
0 12:18 12:22 12:26
Overall OBA
A-Weighting
140
109
78 48
17.5 M •__ •__•__•
6.3 63 200 630 2k 20k
1/1
O
□
n
>
■
6.3k
12 16 12:20 12 24 12:28
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
20 ■ LAeq LASmin ■ LASmax
— LAeq — LApk — Audio
Level (dB)
1710
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 094274010
Site No.: Date: 8/26/2026
Analyst: Time: 12:34 p.m. - 12:49 p.m.
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
62.6 38.3 76.0 92.3
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert 821 Temp. (degrees F): 104 Calibrator: CAL1200 Wind (mph): 6
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure (inHg): 29.84
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 19%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
MoVal Public Safety Campus
ST-3
Dharma Truong and James Fong
Corner of Mammoth Drive and Cactus Avenue
cars driving along Cactus Avenue, cars entering and exiting gated community, phone speaker, ooe
11 i
/ .
/
‘ I
6,
|
—e
Kimley»Horn
I -W
J hmm.)
V
Kt /
J
■
j
1711
SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2026-08-27 12:08:26
User:
Location:
Job Description:
Notes:
Meter General Information
Model Serial
Meter SoundExpert 821 40864
Preamplifier PRM821 002467
Microphone 377B02 370127
Unique File Id 00C:00009FA0:6A8EDD4A:00005BEE
Overall Measurement
Start Date & Time 2026-08-26 12:34:18
Stop Date & Time 2026-08-26 12:49:18
Run Time 00:15:00
Pre-Calibration
Date/Time 2026-08-13 09:32:18
Calibrator Level (dB) 114.00
Meter Sensitivity (dB re 1V/Pa) -25.86
Post-Calibration
Date/Time ---
Calibrator Level (dB) ---
Meter Sensitivity (dB re 1V/Pa) ---
Sensitivity Delta ---
A C Z
Lweq (dB) 62.6 68.0 72.0
Lwpk (dB) 92.3 95.2 96.5
2026-08-26 12:48:58 2026-08-26 12:40:09 2026-08-26 12:40:09 LwSmin (dB) 38.3 52.3 57.2
2026-08-26 12:47:05 2026-08-26 12:47:05 2026-08-26 12:37:04 LwSmax (dB) 76.0 81.3 85.6
2026-08-26 12:44:12 2026-08-26 12:37:40 2026-08-26 12:45:20 LwFmin (dB) 37.7 50.8 54.4
2026-08-26 12:47:04 2026-08-26 12:34:36 2026-08-26 12:34:37 LwFmax (dB) 78.1 83.3 88.5
2026-08-26 12:44:12 2026-08-26 12:37:39 2026-08-26 12:45:19 LwImin (dB) 39.6 52.8 59.0
2026-08-26 12:47:06 2026-08-26 12:34:18 2026-08-26 12:37:04 LwImax (dB) 79.6 85.1 91.3
2026-08-26 12:44:12 2026-08-26 12:40:09 2026-08-26 12:45:19 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z)
Community Noise (dB) LDN LDay (07:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)
62.6 62.6 ---
LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00) LEve (19:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)
62.6 62.6 --- ---
LCeq - LAeq (dB) 5.4
LAIeq (dB) 65.7
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 00:00:00
A C Z
Under Range Peak (dB) 50.0 50.0 62.0
Under Range Limit (dB) 24.0 27.0 37.0
Noise Floor (dB) 17.0 18.0 25.0
Ln Percentiles
LAS 5.0 (dB) 69.9
LAS 10.0 (dB) 67.0
LAS 33.3 (dB) 59.6
LAS 50.0 (dB) 53.8
LAS 66.6 (dB) 49.7
LAS 90.0 (dB) 42.8
Exceedances
Count Duration (s)
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0
LAS > 95.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0
1712
Sound Exposure
SELA (dB) 92.2
EA (Pa²s) 0.7
EA,8h (Pa²s) 21.2
EA,40h (Pa²s) 105.8
EA (Pa²h) 0.0
EA,8h (Pa²h) 0.0
EA,40h (Pa²h) 0.0
Room Acoustics
Measured OBA
Frequency (Hz) 16 31.5 63 125
LAeq (dB) 2 21 37 46
Frequency (Hz) 250 500 1k 2k
LAeq (dB) 52 56 60 54
Frequency (Hz) 4k 8k
LAeq (dB) 44 37
Noise Criteria (NC)
NC-60 (1 kHz) Tangency
SIL 56
Room Criteria (RC)
RC >50 (H)
LMF 56.9
Noise Rating (NR)
NR-60 (1 kHz)
1713
NC-60 (1 kHz) RC >50 (H)
100 100
75 75
NC-70
NC-60
Co Co 50 50 NC-50
NC-40
NC-30 25 25
NC-20
0 0
( o V W % to o V W % %
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
NR-60 (1 kHz)
100
75 NR-70
NR-60
Co 50 NR-50
NR-40
NR-30 25
NR-20
0 o V W %
Frequency (Hz)
RC-50
RC-45
RC-40
RC-35
RC-30
RC-25
4°
49 <O <O4°
n<O
o
o
0 o o
1714
Powered by Larson Davis
Time History
140
II
105
MMMUNWWMWMR
70 35
0 T
12:36
12:38 12:42 12:46
Overall OBA
A-Weighting
140
— LAeq — LApk — Audio
U)
O
D
n
>
12 4412:40 12:48
6.3 20 63 200 630 2k 6.3k 20k
■ LAeq LASmin ■ LASmax
1 i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
■
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COCO
Level (dB)
I
I
I
I
1715
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 094274010
Site No.: Date: 8/26/2026
Analyst: Time: 1:28 p.m. - 1:43 p.m.
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
52.3 47.2 75.1 94.3
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert 821 Temp. (degrees F): 104 Calibrator: CAL1200 Wind (mph): 7
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure (inHg): 29.82
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 20%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
MoVal Public Safety Campus
ST-4
Dharma Truong and James Fong
Adjacent to the north of 25173 Dana Lane, along Dana Lane cars driving along Dana Lane, kids talking, car horn, garage door opening PM
1/ /
A 4
— 44.
s
4/.
Kimley»)Horn
.9
1716
SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2026-08-27 12:15:10
User:
Location:
Job Description:
Notes:
Meter General Information
Model Serial
Meter SoundExpert 821 40864
Preamplifier PRM821 002467
Microphone 377B02 370127
Unique File Id 00C:00009FA0:6A8EE9EE:00005BFB
Overall Measurement
Start Date & Time 2026-08-26 13:28:14
Stop Date & Time 2026-08-26 13:43:14
Run Time 00:15:00
Pre-Calibration
Date/Time 2026-08-13 09:32:18
Calibrator Level (dB) 114.00
Meter Sensitivity (dB re 1V/Pa) -25.86
Post-Calibration
Date/Time ---
Calibrator Level (dB) ---
Meter Sensitivity (dB re 1V/Pa) ---
Sensitivity Delta ---
A C Z
Lweq (dB) 52.3 65.0 79.0
Lwpk (dB) 94.3 95.5 104.0
2026-08-26 13:39:06 2026-08-26 13:39:06 2026-08-26 13:35:07 LwSmin (dB) 47.2 56.8 59.7
2026-08-26 13:35:34 2026-08-26 13:42:51 2026-08-26 13:42:30 LwSmax (dB) 75.1 82.2 95.2
2026-08-26 13:39:06 2026-08-26 13:36:27 2026-08-26 13:35:07 LwFmin (dB) 46.8 55.7 58.1
2026-08-26 13:35:42 2026-08-26 13:42:50 2026-08-26 13:42:29 LwFmax (dB) 81.4 84.5 101.0
2026-08-26 13:39:06 2026-08-26 13:36:26 2026-08-26 13:35:07 LwImin (dB) 47.9 58.7 61.7
2026-08-26 13:35:34 2026-08-26 13:43:01 2026-08-26 13:38:56 LwImax (dB) 86.0 85.7 102.7
2026-08-26 13:39:06 2026-08-26 13:39:06 2026-08-26 13:35:07 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z)
Community Noise (dB) LDN LDay (07:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)
52.3 52.3 ---
LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00) LEve (19:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)
52.3 52.3 --- ---
LCeq - LAeq (dB) 12.7
LAIeq (dB) 59.8
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 00:00:00
A C Z
Under Range Peak (dB) 50.0 50.0 62.0
Under Range Limit (dB) 24.0 27.0 37.0
Noise Floor (dB) 17.0 18.0 25.0
Ln Percentiles
LAS 5.0 (dB) 54.6
LAS 10.0 (dB) 53.9
LAS 33.3 (dB) 49.1
LAS 50.0 (dB) 48.4
LAS 66.6 (dB) 48.0
LAS 90.0 (dB) 47.7
Exceedances
Count Duration (s)
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0
LAS > 95.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0
• LARSON DAVIS
A PCB DIVISION
1717
Sound Exposure
SELA (dB) 81.8
EA (Pa²s) 0.1
EA,8h (Pa²s) 2.0
EA,40h (Pa²s) 9.8
EA (Pa²h) 0.0
EA,8h (Pa²h) 0.0
EA,40h (Pa²h) 0.0
Room Acoustics
Measured OBA
Frequency (Hz) 16 31.5 63 125
LAeq (dB) 7 24 28 44
Frequency (Hz) 250 500 1k 2k
LAeq (dB) 41 43 49 44
Frequency (Hz) 4k 8k
LAeq (dB) 39 32
Noise Criteria (NC)
NC-48 (1 kHz) Tangency
SIL 45
Room Criteria (RC)
RC-46 (H)
LMF 45.6
Noise Rating (NR)
NR-49 (1 kHz)
1718
NC-48 (1 kHz) RC-46 (H)
100 100
75 75
NC-70
NC-60
Co Co 50 50 NC-50
NC-40
NC-30 25 25
NC-20
0 0
( o V W % fa o V W % %
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
NR-49 (1 kHz)
100
75 NR-70
NR-60
Co 50 NR-50
NR-40
NR-30 25
NR-20
0 o V W %
Frequency (Hz)
RC-50
RC-45
RC-40
RC-35
RC-30
RC-25
4°
49 <O <O4°
n<O
o
o
0 o o
1719
Powered by Larson Davis
Time History
140
105
70 Jk
x
35 0
13:32 13:36 13:40
Overall OBA
A-Weighting
140
109
78 48
17.5 " R . -i Jliiliiillihiiiiig!
6.3 20 63 200 630 2k 6.3k 20k
in
O
□
n
>
«ki, wRn
W
13:30 13:38 13:42 13:34
■ LAeq LASmin ■ LASmax
— LAeq — LApk — Audio
Level (dB)
1720
Appendix B
Construction Noise and Vibration Data
1721
PUBLIC SAFETY CAMPUS - MUFFLERS
Receptor Site Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Paving
Architectural
Coating Maximum
1 1 - Residential 70.4 73.4 69.9 66.3 61.8 73.4
2 2 - Residential 72.5 75.0 71.8 68.1 64.1 75.0
3 3 - Residential 54.9 63.0 54.2 52.6 40.3 63.0
4 4 - Residential 62.3 72.4 68.4 65.0 60.0 72.4
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS - MUFFLERS
Receptor
Grubbing and
Land Clearing
Grading and
Excavation
Drainage,
Utilities, Sub
Grade Paving Maximum
All Receptors 76.6 78.2 79.8 75.0 79.8
CORPORATE YARD - MUFFLERS
Receptor Site Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Demolition Maximum
All Receptors 66.8 68.6 75.0 77.3 77.3
1722
Project: Moreno Valley Public Safety Campus
Construction Noise Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Parameters
Construction Hours: Daytime hours (7 am to 7 pm) 8
Evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm) 0
Nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) 0
Leq to L10 factor 3
Receptor (Land Use)
Average
Distance
(feet)
Distance
to
Property
Line (feet) Shielding Direction
1 1 - Residential 640 65 N
2 2 - Residential 650 50 W
3 3 - Residential 1,400 775 W
4 4 - Residential 750 80 S
RECEPTOR 1 RECEPTOR 2 RECEPTOR 3 RECEPTOR 4
Construction Phase Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.
Acoustical
Usage
Factor
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft per Unit,
Lmax
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 1,
Lmax
Noise Level
at Receptor 1,
Leq
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 2,
Lmax
Noise Level at
Receptor 2, Leq
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 3,
Lmax
Noise Level
at Receptor 3,
Leq
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 4,
Lmax
Noise Level
at Receptor 4,
Leq
Site Preparation
Dozer 1 40% 86 65 83.6 79.6 50 85.9 81.9 775 62.1 58.1 80 81.8 77.8 Dozer 1 40% 86 215 73.2 69.3 200 73.9 69.9 925 60.6 56.6 230 72.6 68.7 Backhoe 1 40% 84 365 67.0 63.1 350 67.4 63.4 1,075 57.7 53.7 380 66.7 62.7 Front End Loader (cyclical) 1 40% 81 515 61.1 57.2 500 61.4 57.4 1,225 53.6 49.6 530 60.9 56.9 Dozer 1 40% 86 665 63.4 59.4 650 63.6 59.6 1,375 57.1 53.1 680 63.2 59.2 Backhoe 1 40% 84 815 60.1 56.1 800 60.2 56.2 1,525 54.6 50.6 830 59.9 55.9 Front End Loader (cyclical) 1 40% 81 965 55.7 51.7 950 55.8 51.8 1,675 50.9 46.9 980 55.6 51.6 Combined LEQ 80.2 82.3 62.5 70.4
Grading
Excavator 1 40% 87 65 85.1 81.1 50 87.4 83.4 775 63.6 59.6 80 83.3 79.3 Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 215 64.6 60.7 200 65.3 61.3 925 52.0 48.0 230 64.0 60.1 Dozer 1 40% 86 365 68.6 64.7 350 69.0 65.0 1,075 59.3 55.3 380 68.3 64.3 Scraper 1 40% 92 515 72.1 68.2 500 72.4 68.4 1,225 64.6 60.6 530 71.9 67.9 Backhoe 1 40% 84 665 61.8 57.8 650 62.0 58.0 1,375 55.5 51.5 680 61.6 57.6 Excavator 1 40% 87 815 63.2 59.2 800 63.3 59.3 1,525 57.7 53.7 830 63.0 59.0 Scraper 1 40% 92 965 66.7 62.7 950 66.8 62.8 1,675 61.9 57.9 980 66.6 62.6 Front End Loader (cyclical) 1 40% 81 1,115 54.4 50.5 1,100 54.6 50.6 1,825 50.2 46.2 1,130 54.3 50.3 Combined LEQ 81.6 83.7 65.5 80.0
Building Construction
Crane 1 16% 79 65 76.7 68.8 50 79.0 71.0 775 55.2 47.2 300 63.4 55.5 Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 215 76.5 72.6 200 77.2 73.2 925 63.9 59.9 450 70.1 66.1 Generator 1 50% 68 365 51.1 48.1 350 51.5 48.5 1,075 41.8 38.7 600 46.8 43.8 Backhoe 1 40% 84 515 64.0 60.1 500 64.3 60.3 1,225 56.5 52.5 750 60.8 56.8 Welding Machine 1 40% 75 665 52.2 48.2 650 52.4 48.4 1,375 45.9 41.9 900 49.6 45.6 Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 815 65.0 61.0 800 65.1 61.1 1,525 59.5 55.5 1,050 62.8 58.8 Backhoe 1 40% 84 965 58.6 54.6 950 58.7 54.7 1,675 53.8 49.8 1,200 56.7 52.7 Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 1,115 62.2 58.3 1,100 62.4 58.4 1,825 58.0 54.0 1,350 60.6 56.6 Front End Loader (cyclical) 1 40% 81 1,115 54.4 50.5 1,100 54.6 50.6 1,825 50.2 46.2 1,350 52.8 48.8 Combined LEQ 74.6 75.7 62.9 68.1
Paving
Paving - Asphalt (Paver + Dump Truck) 1 20% 84 65 81.8 74.8 50 84.1 77.1 775 60.3 53.3 80 80.0 73.0 Pavement Scarifier (Milling Machine) 1 20% 84 215 71.0 64.0 200 71.7 64.7 925 58.4 51.4 230 70.4 63.5 Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 365 65.8 58.8 350 66.2 59.2 1,075 56.5 49.5 380 65.5 58.5 Paving - Asphalt (Paver + Dump Truck) 1 20% 84 515 63.8 56.9 500 64.1 57.1 1,225 56.3 49.3 530 63.6 56.6 Pavement Scarifier (Milling Machine) 1 20% 84 665 61.2 54.2 650 61.4 54.4 1,375 54.9 47.9 680 61.0 54.0 Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 815 58.9 51.9 800 59.0 52.0 1,525 53.4 46.4 830 58.7 51.7 Combined LEQ 75.4 77.5 58.0 73.8
Architectural Coating
Compressor 1 40% 68 65 65.8 61.8 50 68.1 64.1 775 44.3 40.3 300 52.5 48.6 Combined LEQ 61.8 64.1 40.3 48.6
Maximum Noise Level 81.6 83.7 65.5 80.0
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: RCNM, 2018
I
I
I
I
I
1723
Project: Moreno Valley Public Safety Campus With Mufflers Construction Noise Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Parameters
Construction Hours: Daytime hours (7 am to 7 pm) 8
Evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm) 0
Nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) 0
Leq to L10 factor 3
Receptor (Land Use)
Average
Distance
(feet)
Distance
to
Property
Line (feet) Shielding Direction
1 1 - Residential 640 65 N
2 2 - Residential 650 50 W
3 3 - Residential 1,400 775 W
4 4 - Residential 750 80 S
RECEPTOR 1 RECEPTOR 2 RECEPTOR 3 RECEPTOR 4
Construction Phase Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.
Acoustical
Usage
Factor
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft per Unit,
Lmax
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft per Unit
with Muffler,
Lmax
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 1,
Lmax
Noise Level
at Receptor 1,
Leq
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 2,
Lmax
Noise Level at
Receptor 2, Leq
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 3,
Lmax
Noise Level
at Receptor 3,
Leq
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 4,
Lmax
Noise Level
at Receptor 4,
Leq
Site Preparation
* Dozer 1 40% 86 76 65 73.6 69.6 50 75.9 71.9 775 52.1 48.1 80 71.8 67.8 * Dozer 1 40% 86 76 215 63.2 59.3 200 63.9 59.9 925 50.6 46.6 230 62.6 58.7 * Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 365 57.0 53.1 350 57.4 53.4 1,075 47.7 43.7 380 56.7 52.7 Front End Loader (cyclical) 1 40% 81 81 515 61.1 57.2 500 61.4 57.4 1,225 53.6 49.6 530 60.9 56.9 * Dozer 1 40% 86 76 665 53.4 49.4 650 53.6 49.6 1,375 47.1 43.1 680 53.2 49.2 * Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 815 50.1 46.1 800 50.2 46.2 1,525 44.6 40.6 830 49.9 45.9 Front End Loader (cyclical) 1 40% 81 81 965 55.7 51.7 950 55.8 51.8 1,675 50.9 46.9 980 55.6 51.6 Combined LEQ 70.4 72.5 54.9 62.3
Grading
* Excavator 1 40% 87 77 65 75.1 71.1 50 77.4 73.4 775 53.6 49.6 80 73.3 69.3 * Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 67 215 54.6 50.7 200 55.3 51.3 925 42.0 38.0 230 54.0 50.1 * Dozer 1 40% 86 76 365 58.6 54.7 350 59.0 55.0 1,075 49.3 45.3 380 58.3 54.3 * Scraper 1 40% 92 92 515 72.1 68.2 500 72.4 68.4 1,225 64.6 60.6 530 71.9 67.9 * Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 665 51.8 47.8 650 52.0 48.0 1,375 45.5 41.5 680 51.6 47.6 * Excavator 1 40% 87 77 815 53.2 49.2 800 53.3 49.3 1,525 47.7 43.7 830 53.0 49.0 * Scraper 1 40% 92 92 965 66.7 62.7 950 66.8 62.8 1,675 61.9 57.9 980 66.6 62.6 Front End Loader (cyclical) 1 40% 81 81 1,115 54.4 50.5 1,100 54.6 50.6 1,825 50.2 46.2 1,130 54.3 50.3 Combined LEQ 73.4 75.0 63.0 72.4
Building Construction
Crane 1 16% 79 79 65 76.7 68.8 50 79.0 71.0 775 55.2 47.2 80 74.9 67.0 * Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 79 215 66.5 62.6 200 67.2 63.2 925 53.9 49.9 230 65.9 62.0 Generator 1 50% 68 68 365 51.1 48.1 350 51.5 48.5 1,075 41.8 38.7 380 50.8 47.8 * Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 515 54.0 50.1 500 54.3 50.3 1,225 46.5 42.5 530 53.8 49.8 Welding Machine 1 40% 75 75 665 52.2 48.2 650 52.4 48.4 1,375 45.9 41.9 680 52.0 48.0 * Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 79 815 55.0 51.0 800 55.1 51.1 1,525 49.5 45.5 830 54.8 50.8 * Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 965 48.6 44.6 950 48.7 44.7 1,675 43.8 39.8 980 48.5 44.5 * Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 79 1,115 52.2 48.3 1,100 52.4 48.4 1,825 48.0 44.0 1,130 52.1 48.1 * Front End Loader (cyclical) 1 40% 81 71 1,115 44.4 40.5 1,100 44.6 40.6 1,825 40.2 36.2 1,130 44.3 40.3 Combined LEQ 69.9 71.8 54.2 68.4
Paving
* Paving - Asphalt (Paver + Dump Truck) 1 20% 84 74 65 71.8 64.8 50 74.1 67.1 775 50.3 43.3 80 70.0 63.0 * Pavement Scarifier (Milling Machine) 1 20% 84 74 215 61.0 54.0 200 61.7 54.7 925 48.4 41.4 230 60.4 53.5 Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 83 365 65.8 58.8 350 66.2 59.2 1,075 56.5 49.5 380 65.5 58.5 * Paving - Asphalt (Paver + Dump Truck) 1 20% 84 74 515 53.8 46.9 500 54.1 47.1 1,225 46.3 39.3 530 53.6 46.6 * Pavement Scarifier (Milling Machine) 1 20% 84 74 665 51.2 44.2 650 51.4 44.4 1,375 44.9 37.9 680 51.0 44.0 Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 83 815 58.9 51.9 800 59.0 52.0 1,525 53.4 46.4 830 58.7 51.7 Combined LEQ 66.3 68.1 52.6 65.0
Architectural Coating
Compressor 1 40% 68 68 65 65.8 61.8 50 68.1 64.1 775 44.3 40.3 80 64.0 60.0 Combined LEQ 61.8 64.1 40.3 60.0
Maximum Noise Level 73.4 75.0 63.0 72.4
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: RCNM, 2018
* Reduction assumed for installation of muffler
I
I
1724
Project: Moreno Valley Off-Site Improvements
Construction Noise Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Parameters
Construction Hours: Daytime hours (7 am to 7 pm) 8
Evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm) 0
Nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) 0
Leq to L10 factor 3
Receptor (Land Use)
Average
Distance
(feet)
Distance
to
Property
Line (feet) Shielding Direction
1 1 - Residential 30 N
2 2 - Residential 30 W
3 3 - Residential 30 W
4 4 - Residential 30 S
RECEPTOR 1
Construction Phase Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.
Acoustical
Usage
Factor
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft per Unit,
Lmax
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level at
Receptor 1,
Lmax
Noise Level at
Receptor 1,
Leq
Grubbing and Land Clearing
Crawler Tractor All Other Equipment > 5 HP 1 50% 85 30 89.4 86.4 Excavator 1 40% 87 180 76.3 72.3
Excavator 1 40% 87 330 71.0 67.0
Combined LEQ 86.6
Grading and Excavation
Excavator 1 40% 87 30 91.8 87.9
Excavator 2 40% 87 180 79.3 75.3
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 1 50% 85 330 68.6 65.6
Crawler Tractor Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 480 57.7 53.7
Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 630 55.3 51.3
Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 780 59.2 52.2
Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 930 57.7 50.7
Backhoe 2 40% 84 1,080 60.6 56.6
Backhoe 2 40% 84 1,080 60.6 56.6
Front End Loader (passby) 1 20% 73 1,080 45.9 38.9
Scraper 1 40% 92 1,080 65.7 61.7
Scraper 1 40% 92 1,080 65.7 61.7
Combined LEQ 88.1
Drainage, Utilities, Sub Grade
Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 30 93.6 89.7
Backhoe 1 40% 84 180 73.2 69.2
Backhoe 1 40% 84 330 67.9 63.9
Backhoe 1 40% 84 480 64.7 60.7
Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 630 55.3 51.3
Compactor (plate) 1 20% 75 780 50.7 43.7
Scraper 1 40% 92 930 67.0 63.0
Compressor 1 40% 68 1,080 41.4 37.4
Generator 1 50% 68 1,080 41.7 38.7
Combined LEQ 89.7
Paving
Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 30 87.5 80.5
Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 180 72.0 65.0
Paving - Asphalt (Paver + Dump Truck) 1 20% 84 330 67.7 60.7 Backhoe 1 40% 84 480 64.7 60.7
Backhoe 1 40% 84 630 62.3 58.3
Backhoe 1 40% 84 780 60.4 56.5
Combined LEQ 80.8
Maximum Noise Level 89.7
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: RCNM, 2018
1725
Project: Moreno Valley Off-Site Improvements With Mufflers Construction Noise Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Parameters
Construction Hours: Daytime hours (7 am to 7 pm) 8
Evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm) 0
Nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) 0
Leq to L10 factor 3
Receptor (Land Use)
Distance
to
Property
Line (feet) Shielding Direction
1 1 - Residential 30 N
2 2 - Residential 30 W
3 3 - Residential 30 W
4 4 - Residential 30 S
RECEPTOR 1
Construction Phase Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.
Acoustical
Usage
Factor
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft per Unit,
Lmax
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft per Unit
with Muffler,
Lmax
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 1,
Lmax
Noise Level
at Receptor 1,
Leq
Grubbing and Land Clearing
Crawler Tractor * All Other Equipment > 5 HP 1 50% 85 75 30 79.4 76.4 * Excavator 1 40% 87 77 180 66.3 62.3
* Excavator 1 40% 87 77 330 61.0 57.0
Combined LEQ 76.6
Grading and Excavation
* Excavator 1 40% 87 77 30 81.8 77.9
* Excavator 2 40% 87 77 180 69.3 65.3
Crawler Tractor * All Other Equipment > 5 HP 1 50% 85 75 330 58.6 55.6 * Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 67 480 47.7 43.7
* Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 67 630 45.3 41.3
Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 83 780 59.2 52.2
Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 83 930 57.7 50.7
* Backhoe 2 40% 84 74 1,080 50.6 46.6
* Backhoe 2 40% 84 74 1,080 50.6 46.6
* Front End Loader (passby) 1 20% 73 63 1,080 35.9 28.9 Scraper 1 40% 92 92 1,080 65.7 61.7
Scraper 1 40% 92 92 1,080 65.7 61.7
Combined LEQ 78.2
Drainage, Utilities, Sub Grade
* Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 79 30 83.6 79.7 * Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 180 63.2 59.2
* Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 330 57.9 53.9
* Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 480 54.7 50.7
* Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 67 630 45.3 41.3
Compactor (plate) 1 20% 75 75 780 50.7 43.7
Scraper 1 40% 92 92 930 67.0 63.0
Compressor 1 40% 68 68 1,080 41.4 37.4
Generator 1 50% 68 68 1,080 41.7 38.7
Combined LEQ 79.8
Paving
* Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 30 78.7 74.8
* Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 180 63.2 59.2
* Paving - Asphalt (Paver + Dump Truck) 1 20% 84 74 330 57.7 50.7 * Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 480 54.7 50.7
Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 83 630 61.1 54.1
Compactor (roller) 1 20% 83 83 780 59.2 52.2
Combined LEQ 75.0
Maximum Noise Level 79.8
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: RCNM, 2018
* Reduction assumed for installation of muffler
1726
Project: Moreno Valley Public Safety Campus - Corporate Yard Fueling Station Construction Noise Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Parameters
Construction Hours: Daytime hours (7 am to 7 pm) 8
Evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm) 0
Nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) 0
Leq to L10 factor 3
Receptor (Land Use)
Distance
to
Property
Line (feet) Shielding Direction
1 1 - Residential 50 N
2 2 - Residential 50 W
3 3 - Residential 50 W
4 4 - Residential 50 S
RECEPTOR 1
Construction Phase Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.
Acoustical
Usage
Factor
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft per Unit,
Lmax
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level at
Receptor 1,
Lmax
Noise Level at
Receptor 1,
Leq
Site Preparation
Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 50 77.3 73.3
Backhoe 1 40% 84 100 78.3 74.3
Combined LEQ 76.8
Grading
Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 50 77.3 73.3
Dozer 1 40% 86 100 79.9 75.9
Backhoe 1 40% 84 150 74.8 70.8
Combined LEQ 78.6
Building Construction
Crane 1 16% 79 50 79.0 71.0
Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 100 83.2 79.2
Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 100 83.2 79.2
Backhoe 1 40% 84 150 74.8 70.8
Backhoe 1 40% 84 150 74.8 70.8
Combined LEQ 83.1
Demolition
Dozer 1 40% 86 50 85.9 81.9
Concrete Saw 1 20% 88 100 82.4 75.4
Backhoe 1 40% 84 100 78.3 74.3
Backhoe 1 40% 84 150 74.8 70.8
Combined LEQ 83.6
Maximum Noise Level 83.6
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: RCNM, 2018
1727
Project: Moreno Valley Public Safety Campus - Corporate Yard Fueling Station With Mufflers Construction Noise Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Parameters
Construction Hours: Daytime hours (7 am to 7 pm) 8
Evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm) 0
Nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) 0
Leq to L10 factor 3
Receptor (Land Use)
Distance
to
Property
Line (feet) Shielding Direction
1 1 - Residential 50 N
2 2 - Residential 50 W
3 3 - Residential 50 W
4 4 - Residential 50 S
RECEPTOR 1
Construction Phase Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.
Acoustical
Usage
Factor
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft per Unit,
Lmax
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft per Unit
with Muffler,
Lmax
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 1,
Lmax
Noise Level
at Receptor 1,
Leq
Site Preparation
* Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 67 50 67.3 63.3
* Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 100 68.3 64.3
Combined LEQ 66.8
Grading
* Grader (passby) 1 40% 77 67 50 67.3 63.3
* Dozer 1 40% 86 76 100 69.9 65.9
* Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 150 64.8 60.8
Combined LEQ 68.6
Building Construction
Crane 1 16% 79 79 50 79.0 71.0
* Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 79 100 73.2 69.2 * Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 40% 89 79 100 73.2 69.2 * Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 150 64.8 60.8
* Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 150 64.8 60.8
Combined LEQ 75.0
Demolition
* Dozer 1 40% 86 76 50 75.9 71.9
Concrete Saw 1 20% 88 88 100 82.4 75.4
* Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 100 68.3 64.3
* Backhoe 1 40% 84 74 150 64.8 60.8
Combined LEQ 77.3
Maximum Noise Level 77.3
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: RCNM, 2018
* Reduction assumed for installation of muffler
1728
On-Site Construction Vibration
Receptor Reference
Public Safety
Campus2
Corporate Yard
Fueling Station3
Off-Site
Improvements4
Construction Equipment
Reference PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec)1
at 100
feet
PPV (in/sec)1 at 50
feet
PPV (in/sec)1
at 35
feet
25 100 50 35
Vibratory compactor/roller 0.210 0.026 0.074 0.127
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.011 0.031 0.054
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.010 0.027 0.046
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.002
Structural Damage Threshold5 - 0.2 0.2 0.2
Human Annoyance Threshold5 - 0.4 0.4 0.4
Threshold Exceeded? - No No No
NOTES:
1. calculated using PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity of the equipment in in/sec adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
2. Distance measured from the site boundary of the Public Safety Campus to the nearest structure/sensitive receptor.
3. Distance measured from the boundary of the fueling station area to the nearest structure/sensitive receptor.
4. Distance measured from the nearest roadway to the nearest structure/sensitive receptor.
5. Thresholds from Table 4.13-1 of FEIR.
1729
Appendix C
Operational Noise Data
1730
Buildout Operational Noise Calculations
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment
Sensitive Receptor Reference Level (dBA) Reference Distance (feet)1 Distance to Receptor (feet)2 Noise Level at Receptor (dBA) Noise Level at Receptor w/ Sheilding (dBA)3
1 - Residential (N) 52 50 190 40.4 30.4
2 - Residential (W) 52 50 260 37.7 27.7
3 - Residential (W) 52 50 800 27.9 17.9
4 - Residential (S) 52 50 325 35.7 25.7
1. Source: Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values , July 6, 2010.
2. Distance based on location of proposed buildings shown on site diagram.
3. Noise levels assume a 10 dBA reduction provided by sheilding of rooftop mechanical equipment by enclosures and architectural elements Parking Lot Activity
Sensitive Receptor Reference Level (dBA) Reference Distance (feet)1 Distance to Receptor (feet)2 Noise Level at Receptor (dBA) Noise Level at Receptor w/ Sheilding (dBA)3
1 - Residential (N) 63 50 120 55.4 45.4
2 - Residential (W) 63 50 100 57.0 47.0
3 - Residential (W) 63 50 800 38.9 28.9
4 - Residential (S) 63 50 180 51.9 41.9
1. Source: Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments , Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.
2. Distance based on location of parking shown on site diagram.
3. Noise levels assume a 10 dBA reduction provided by sheilding of parking lots by perimeter walls.
Kennel Noise
Sensitive Receptor Reference Level (dBA) Reference Distance (feet)1 Distance to Receptor (feet)2 Noise Level at Receptor (dBA) Noise Level at Receptor w/ Sheilding (dBA)3
1 - Residential (N) 85.0 3.3 780 37.5 27.5
2 - Residential (W) 85.0 3.3 370 44.0 34.0
3 - Residential (W) 85.0 3.3 1060 34.9 24.9
4 - Residential (S) 85.0 3.3 330 45.0 35.0
1. Source: Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values , July 6, 2010.
2. Distance based on location of kennels shown on site diagram.
3. Noise levels assume a 10 dBA reduction provided by sheilding of outdoor kennels by Project buildings and perimeter walls.
Drone
Sensitive Receptor Reference Level (dBA) Reference Distance (feet)1 Distance to Receptor (feet)2 Noise Level at Receptor w/o Sheilding (dBA)
Noise Level at Receptor w/
Sheilding (dBA)3
1 - Residential (N) 79 3.3 190 43.8 33.8
2 - Residential (W) 79 3.3 260 41.1 31.1
3 - Residential (W) 79 3.3 1,050 28.9 18.9
4 - Residential (S) 79 3.3 1,100 28.5 18.5
2. Assumes drones would be located on the police station rooftop. Distance based on location of proposed police station location shown on site diagram.
3. Noise levels assume a 10 dBA reduction provided by shielding of drone launch area by Project buildings and perimeter walls Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2), where dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance
1. Source: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021 Dec 25; 19(1):223, A Conceptual Framework Proposal for a Noise Modelling Service for Drones in U-Space Architecture, 2022. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8750543/pdf/ijerph-19-00223.pdf. Measured maximum noise level of 79 dB at 1 meter for Professional Drone. 1731
Composite Noise - Day
Sensitive Receptor
Rooftop
Mechanical
Equipment
Parking Lot
Activity Kennel Noise Drone
Combined Noise
at Receptor
(dBA)
Ambient
(dBA)1
Ambient +
Operational (dBA) MC Daytime
Standard2
Exceed Nighttime
Standard?
Incremental
Increase
(dBA)
Incremental
Increase
Threshold (dBA)3
Exceed
Incremental
Increase
Threshold?
1 - Residential (N) 30.4 45.4 27.5 33.8 45.9 41.7 47.3 60 No N/A N/A N/A 2 - Residential (W) 27.7 47.0 34.0 31.1 47.3 47.2 50.3 60 No N/A N/A N/A 3 - Residential (W) 17.9 28.9 24.9 18.9 30.9 47.2 47.3 60 No N/A N/A N/A 4 - Residential (S) 25.7 41.9 35.0 18.5 42.8 62.6 62.6 60 N/A 0.0 5.0 No 1 - Ambient noise measurements are taken by Kimley-Horn on August 26, 2026. Based on long term measurement taken at the project site, the nighttime ambient levels are approximatley 7 dBA lower than dayttime. A 7 dBA reduction has been taken from representative daytime measurements. 2 - Pursuant to Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 11.80.030(c) - Table 11.80.030, exterior noise levels during daytime hours is limited to 60 dBA 3 - Where existing amibent levels exceed the 60 dBA daytime standard, an incremental increase threshold of 5 dBA has been applied. 1732
Composite Noise - Night
Sensitive Receptor
Rooftop
Mechanical
Equipment
Parking Lot
Activity Kennel Noise Drone
Combined Noise
at Receptor
(dBA)
Ambient
(dBA)1
Ambient +
Operational (dBA) MC Nighttime
Standard2
Exceed Nighttime
Standard?
Incremental
Increase
(dBA)
Incremental
Increase
Threshold (dBA)3
Exceed
Incremental
Increase
Threshold?
1 - Residential (N) 30.4 45.4 27.5 33.8 45.9 34.7 46.2 55 No N/A N/A N/A 2 - Residential (W) 27.7 47.0 34.0 31.1 47.3 40.2 48.1 55 No N/A N/A N/A 3 - Residential (W) 17.9 28.9 24.9 18.9 30.9 40.2 40.7 55 No N/A N/A N/A 4 - Residential (S) 25.7 41.9 35.0 18.5 42.8 55.6 55.8 N/A N/A 0.2 5.0 No 1 - Ambient noise measurements are taken by Kimley-Horn on August 26, 2026. Based on long term measurement taken at the project site, the nighttime ambient levels are approximately 7 dBA lower than daytime. A 7 dBA reduction has been taken from representative daytime measurements. 2 - Pursuant to Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 11.80.030(c) - Table 11.80.030, exterior noise levels during nighttime hours is limited to 55 dBA 3 - Where existing amibent levels exceed the 55 dBA nighttime standard, an incremental increase threshold of 5 dBA has been applied. 1733
Appendix H
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Memorandum
1734
kimley-horn.com 660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Quintanilla, Moreno Valley City Attorney
CC: Angelica Frausto-Lupo, City of Moreno Valley Community Development Director From: Mehul Champaneri, PTP, RSP
Rachel Krusenoski
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date: September 2, 2026
Subject: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Memorandum
Public Safety Campus Project
This memorandum documents Senate Bill (SB) 743-compliant analysis completed as part of the Community Plan Exemption Checklist (Checklist) for the Public Safety Campus Project (Project), prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183. The Checklist evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the Project are addressed in the 2024 Revised Final Program Environmental Impact Report (RFEIR) for the City of Moreno Valley 2040 General Plan Update (GPU), Municipal Code and Zoning Amendments, and Climate Action Plan (“MoVal 2040 Project”) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2020039022).
With the passage of SB 743, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) has become an important indicator for determining whether new development would result in a “significant transportation impact” under CEQA. This memorandum summarizes the VMT analysis and findings for the proposed land use development as part of the Project.
BACKGROUND
The MoVal 2040 General Plan Update (MoVal 2040 GPU) was adopted, and the 2024 RFEIR was certified by the City of Moreno Valley (City) in 2026. The MoVal 2040 GPU serves as the guide for the future growth and development of the City through 2040, including implementation of five new General Plan land use designations: Business-Flex, Corridor Mixed Use, Center Mixed Use, Downtown Center, and Highway Office/Commercial.
Public Services
The 2024 RFEIR reported that buildout of the MoVal 2040 Project would generate approximately 43,882 new residents within the Planning Area by 2040, which would necessitate construction of additional fire stations and police facilities. The 2024 RFEIR notes that the Moreno Valley Fire Department (MVFD) has identified potential locations for new or expanded fire stations in the MVFD Strategic Plan. Similarly, for police services, the 2024 RFEIR also notes that the City is planning an expansion of the Civic Center complex that would include a remodeled Public Safety Building capable Kimley»Horn
1735