Palmdale City Council
March 18, 2025

CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental Setting
The project area is located on the western edge of southern California’s Antelope Valley and within the sout hwestern Mojave D esert. The Antelope Valley is approximately 3,000 square miles. On the northwest, it is separated from the San Joaquin V alley by the Tehachapi Mountains; on the south and southwest, it is separated by the San Gabriel Mountains ; and the north and east boundaries of the Antelope Valley are dis tinguished by isolated buttes. The City of Palmdale is 104 square miles and is located i n the southern region of the Antelope Valley just 60 miles from downtown Los Angeles off the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Highway 14).

Angeles National Forest is sout h of the city, and Edwards Air Force Base is northeast. The Project parcel is currently vacant land surrounded by other vacant parc els, with some development on the south side of W. Avenue S across from the Project parcel.

Several vegetation types are recognized in the Mojave Zone: creosote bush scrub, saltbush scrub, shadscale scrub, blackbrush scrub, juniper woodland, Joshua tree woodland, and annual vegetation (Vasek and Barbour 1990). The predominant vegetative resource found in the Project area was ju niper and Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia ) woodland. Wildlife common to this area include kangaroo rats ( Dipodomys spp.), woodrats (Neotoma spp.), and various ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.). Larger mammals in clude cottontail rabbits (S ylvilagus audobonii) and coyote (Canis latrans). The mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus) is another major resident of the region, although its numbers have declined in modern times (Sutton 1990:67). Large numbers of pronghom (Antilocapra americana) are presu med to have existed in the region at o ne time, as well as b ighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis) and black bear ( Ursus americanus). Avian species identified in the area include Northern mockingbird ( Mimus polyglottus), California quail (Cattipepla cailfornica), Common raven ( Corvus corax), horned lar k ( Eremophila atpestris ), Great-tailed grackle ( Quiscalus mexicanus), Brewer’s blackbird (Eup hagus cyanocephalus ), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and rock dove (Columba livis).

Prehistoric Cultural Setting
Earle et al. (1997) and Loechl et al. (2002) have divided the prehistoric cultural chronology for the Antelope Valley i nto seven cultural/temporal periods: Fluted Point Period, Lake Mojave Period, Pinto Period, Gypsum Period, Saratoga Springs Period, Post -Saratoga Springs /Late Period, and Contact/Ethnographic Period; the last includes the Euroamerican historic record.

Fluted Point Period (12,000-10,000 B.P.)
Sites dating to this period have been identified based on the presence of fluted- base projectile points similar to the w ell-known Clovis forms associated w ith ancient cultures of the Great Plains. Termed “Western Clovis” (Tuohy 1974; Willig and Aikens 1988), “Black Rock Concave Base” (Clewlow 1968) or “Great Basin Concave-Base” (Pendleton 1979), many types of Clovis- like p oints have been found in various loc ations throughout the western Great Basin and in California. Lithic assemblages that contain fluted points often contain crescents, gravers, scrapers, choppers, and “perforators” (Davis 1978). Fluted point sites occur in a variety of September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

environments, indicating that inhabitants were likely generalized foragers rather t han big game hunters (Earle et al. 1997; Moratto 1984).

Lake Mohave Period (10,000-7000 B.P.)
In the western Great Basin, various stemmed projectile point fo rms have been dated to the early Holocene, roughly between 10,000 and 7500 B.P. Generally subsume d under the broader appellate “Great Basin Stemmed,” these artifacts are elongate, lanceolate forms often with subtle, sloping shoulders, but many different re gional styles exist. In the western Mojave, typical stemmed points are Lake Mohave (unshouldered) and Silver Lake forms (slightly shouldered), both of which are parts of lithic assemblages similar to those of the Fluted Point period.

Pinto Period (7000-4000 B.P.)
Pinto points, projectiles that bear “weak” shoulders and indented or split -stem bases, typify archaeological assemblages of this period. Associated flaked stone assemblages include leaf - shaped bifaces, formal unifaces, flake tools, and consisten t quantities of core-cobble implements (Basgall 1993, 2000; Campbell and Campbell 1935; Hunt 1960; Rogers 1939). Lithic selection favored fine -grained igneous stones such as basalt and rhyolite for points and bifaces.

Millingstones are a major part of Pinto period assemblages, reflecting the importance of seed processing. The timing of the Pinto period coincides with Antevs’ (1953) Altithermal, an extended interval when climate was supposedly very hot and dry. Archaeologists once believed a scarcity of Pinto sites in the Mojave Desert signaled a near -total abandonment of the region because of the oppre ssive climate, but recent studies imply that the middle Holocene in the Antelope Valley was punctuated by wetter episodes ( Grayson 1993; Mehringer 1986) and tha t the effects of the Altithermal were variable in different parts of the desert.

Gypsum Period (4000-1500 B.P.)
Diagnostic artifacts at Gypsum period sites include Gypsum contracting- stem projectile points, Elko Eared and Corner -notched points, and Hum boldt Basal-notched points. Lithic a ssemblages feature bifaces, scrapers, and a variety of other flake -based tools but also contain mortars and pestles as evidence of processing mesquite, pine nuts, yucca, and agave. Large villages or village complexes appear during Gypsum times, reflecting a transition from seasonal transhumance to year-round sedenta ry habitation within the Antelope Valley (Sutton 1988). The presence of marine shell artifacts at Gypsum period sites in the Antelope Valley indicates economic ties between the Antelope Valley and the California coast (Warren 1984).

Saratoga Springs Period (1500-800 B.P.)
At around 1500 B.P., the aboriginal people of the Mojave Desert had replaced the atlatl, or spear- thrower, with the bow and arrow. This change brought about a shift toward the use of smaller projectile points, including various corner -notched and side-notched Saratoga Springs types and the corner-notched Rose Spring and Eastgate types. Anasazi ceramics also appear in the southern Mojave around 1200-1100 B.P., coinciding with the westward spread of the Virgin Anasazi into southern Nevada. Influence from the cultures of the Colorado River brought in buff ware ceramics and other goods. The intensification of plant use initiated during the Gypsum pe riod continued in the Saratoga Springs period, and diet was expanded to include a wide range of high cost/low return plant foods that required high cost/high return procurement and processing strategies.

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Post-Saratoga Springs or Late Period (800-300 B.P.)
Social and economic adaptations d uring this final prehistoric interval in the Antelope Valley were largely an extension of patterns that developed during the Saratoga Springs period. Trade along the Mojave River continued to provide the people of the eas tern Antelope Valley with a variety of exotic goods and materials, though trade relationships wi th coastal groups grew stronger than trade relationships with groups from the arid interior. Cottonwood Triangular and Desert Side-notched points were smaller than those derived from previous periods.

Contact/Ethnographic Period (300 B.P.–Present)
This last interval is the period of contact between native desert people and European- American explorers and settlers. Kroeber (1925) attests that as many as six different native groups were living in the western Mojave at time of Euro American contact, including the Kawaiisu, Chemehuevi, Alliklik (Tataviam), Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Serrano. Blackburn and Bean (1978) later reinterpreted political geography in the wester n Mojave, and divided the western Antelope Valley between the Tataviam (to the south) and the Ki tanemuk (to the north ). Sutton (1980:220) followed Blackburn and Bean and claimed that the late prehistoric population in the majority of Antelope Valley were t he ancestors of the ethnographic K itanemuk. He later hypothesized that the floor of the valley was abandoned a few decades prior to Spanish contact in 1772 (Sutton 1988; Warren 1984). However, Earle et al. (1997:8) cite the 1772 diary of Pedro Fages and t he 1776 diary of Father Garcés, whi ch mention Indian villages in the western Antelope Valley to challenge this claim.

The project area lies along the eastern portion of Tataviam territory and the western portion of Vanyume Serrano territory, north of Fer nandeño territory and south of Kita nemuk territory. It is situated on the “border” of Tataviam and Vanyume Serrano settlement areas and may have been occupied and used by these groups simultaneously or at different times. These groups are Shoshonean, and t heir languages represent Takic bran ches of the Uto -Aztecan language group.

Inhabitants of the area had access to the resources of the Antelope Valley and to the resources of the ranges to the east and south. The interface of the two types of biotic zones pr ovided plant and animal resources that varied with season and elevation. Larger dependence on pl ant sources for subsistence is seen in later periods.

A Brief Historic Overview of Antelope Valley and Palmdale History Settlement and agricultural development began with the compl etion of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) line in the Antelope Valley on September 6, 1876 (W eitze 1993:3). While sporadic homesteads and grazing stock dotted the Antelope Valley, settlement is attributed to the mid-1880s land boom in southern California sponsored by various town and colony promoters (Earle 2003). The SPRR promoted colonizing land near its railroad line, which many immigrants responded to by f ounding towns adjacent to the rail line. Today’ s Palmdale has its roots in two small, early communities: Harold (Alpine Station) and Palmenthal.

Establishing railroad stations along the line included the first southern SPRR station in the valley at Harold, near present -day Barrel Spr ings Road and Sierra Highway. Harold was a natural location for a community because it was at the crossroads of the two major routes on the Valley September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

floor: the Southern Pacific Railroa d tracks and Fort Tejon Road (now Barrel Springs Road) (cityofpalmdaleca.gov n.d.; Serpico 2000:56).

Lancaster, Pennsylvanians established the nearby community of Lancaster in 1877 , with Palmenthal following in 1886 (Weitze 1993:3). Palmenthal was started when land in the Antelope Valley sold for 50 cents an acre and a group of 50 to 60 Swiss and German Luther an families migrated large ly from Nebraska and Illinois and settled in the area now known as Palmdale. They named their new community “Palmenthal” because they had mistaken the native Joshua trees for the palm trees they had been told to expect to see as they arrived nearer to the Pacific Ocean (cityofpalmdaleca.gov n.d.; townsquarepublications.com n.d.).

According to Antelope Valley ethnographer David Earle (2003),

The settlement of the Antelop e Valley region was intimately tied up with the central role of the San Gabriel Mountains watershed as a water -provider to agriculture in southern California. With th e experiments of the 1880s aimed at developing agricultural specialties of southern Califo rnia farmers – raisin grapes, then almonds, then oranges – the factors of transport facilities and of water availability became crucial. From an early date, agricultu re in the regions watered by the Sa n Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains watershed was de signed to serve national and international markets via the rail distrib ution of specialty products such as raisins, nuts, or fruit, products requiring special processing.

Antelope Valley land remained relatively inexpensive and available in the 1880s as p art of the San Gabriel Range watershed. Agricultural colonies developed in proximity to the watercourses of Big Rock and Littlerock Creek that provided stream runoff for irrigation (Earle 2003). The emergence of the “California Doctrine” in 1886 as a result of Lux v. Haggin proposed a possible problem for landowners claiming riparian rights. While the legal decision upheld the riparian doctrine, in certain instances th e prior appropriation doctrine woul d supersede the riparian doctrine; landowners in the Antelope Valley that diverted water directly from Little Rock Creek could find their water rights in jeopardy. The passage of the Wright Act in 1887 intended to create more opportunities for local farmers by fostering collective water use through the formation of irrigation districts that could raise revenue and issue bonds, am ong other authorities (Earle 2003; Hundley 2001:97-100). A period of wet years (1883- 1893) allowed promoters to advertise the valley as land with plenty of rainfall and underground wate r, a place where farmers could practice dry farming and produce grains and tree crops. However, t he unusually rainy period soon ended and a drought followed, which devastated the local economy (Earle 2003).

The towns of Harold and Palmenthal were abandoned as a result of the drought, and the Ci ty of Palmdale was formed in 1 899. It remain ed a small farming community until the mid -twentieth century, when, with nearby Lancaster, it became a focus for industrial development, chiefly aircraft assembly and electronic research ; in the 1990s, with the rapid economic expansion of Antelope Valley, it was one of the fastest -growing cities in the United States (Britannica.com n.d.). The City of Palmdale celebrated its fiftieth anniversary of incorporation on Aug. 24, 2012.

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

STUDY METHODS
Methods used to assess the presence of and po tential for cultural resources within the property included a search of existing records an d a pedestrian field survey. ASM began the study by requesting a records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), part of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), that included the Project area and a radius of 1 mile around it. A search of the Sacred Lands File held by the NAHC was also requested. Historical aerial photographs and USGS topographic maps were assessed to discer n prior land use on the Project parcel.

ASM Senior Archaeologist Sh erri Andrews, M.A., RPA conducted an intensive pedestrian archaeological field survey on S eptember 9, 2023. The survey was undertaken to determine the presence of any previously undocumented cultural resources that may be discernable on the surface of the Project parcel using transects spaced at 15-m intervals.

STUDY RESULTS
Records Search Results
The SCCIC records search was co nducted to determine whether the Project area has been previously subject to systematic survey as well as the presence or absence of previously documented cultural resourc es within the Project area. The search included all records and documents on file with the SCCIC, as well as the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Properties Directory. The search was undertaken on April 17, 2023, with additional information received from SCCIC on June 12, 2023. The SCCIC summary lists are provided with this report as Attachment A.

A total of 45 previous reports were identified within a 1-mile radius of the project area as a result of the records search (Table 1), none of which includes the current Project area.

Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Projects Conducted within the 1-Mile Records Search Radius

Report
No.
(LA-)
Year Author(s)/Affiliation Title
00033 1974
Anonymous / Northridge
Archaeological Research Center,
CSUN
Impact Assessment of Archaeological Resources by the
Construction of Palmdale Maintenance Stations
00756 1980 Robinson, R. W. Cultural Resources Investigation, Re: Tentative Parcel Map #38765, Submitted to Paseo Del Campo Corporation
00757 1980 Robinson, R. W. / R. W. Robinson
Consulting Archaeologist Cultural Resources Investigation Re: Parcel Map #12382 01222 1983
Colby, S., and R. Rechtman /
University of California, Los Angeles
Archaeological Survey
An Archaeological Resource Survey and Impact Assessment of the Area Northeast of Lake Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
01236 1983 Colby, S. M. / University of California,
Los Angeles Archaeological Survey
An Archaeological Resource Survey and Impact Assessment of a Pipeline Alignment From the California Aqueduct North to Lake Palmdale in Los Angeles County, California
September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Report
No.
(LA-)
Year Author(s)/Affiliation Title
01547 1986 Dillon, B. D. / Brian D. Dillon
An Archaeological Resource Survey and Impact Assessment of the Antelope Valley Master Plan of Drainage, Anaverde Basin to Lockheed Basin, Los Angeles County, California 01735 1988 Romani, G. R. / Greenwood and
Associates
Cultural Resource Investigation of 120 Acres in the City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
01806 1989 Robinson, R. W.

A Cultural Resources Investigation of Tentative Tract Number 47046 in the City of Palmdale, North Los Angeles County, California.
01827 1989 Love, B. / Pyramid Archaeology Archaeological Report for Forty Acres Near Palmdale Lake, Palmdale, Los Angeles County
01938 1989 Padon, B. S., J. R. Crownover, and R.

Conard / LSA Associates, Inc.

Cultural Resources Assessment Southern California Gas
Company Proposed Line 335 Los Angeles and San
Bernardino Counties
02206 1989 White, R. S. / Archaeological
Associates, Ltd.

Appendix G: An Archaeological Assessment of Tracts 38031, 48183, and 48387 at the Intersection of Rayburn Rayburn Road and Tierra Subida Ave., Palmdale, Los Angeles County 02232 1990 Becker, K. M., and S. A. Evans / RMW
Paleo Associates, Inc.

Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Vincent Hills
Proposed Annexation Area, Approximately 1025 Acres Near Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
02261 1991 Evans, S. A. / RMW Paleo Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Antelope Valley Landfill Expansion, Approximately 132 Acres Near Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
02348 1990 Robinson, R. W. A Cultural Resources Investigation of Thirteen Acres in the City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
02814 1993
Singer, C. A., J. E. Atwood, and S. M.

Gomes / C.A. Singer & Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for a
Natural Gas Regulator Station, Southeast of the Intersection of 7th Street West and Avenue R-12, Near the City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
03335 1985
Meighan, C. W. / University of
California, Los Angeles
Archaeological Survey
Cultural Resources Survey, Anaverde Retention Basin
Antelope Valley, California
03428 1996 Padon, B. / Petra Resources Inc.

An Archaeological Resource Review of the Proposed
Anaverde Flood Control Basin Project, City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County
03537 1996 Dillon, B. D. Archaeological Assessment of the Palmdale Water District 1996 Master Plan Los Angeles County, California
03780 1997 Love, B. & B. Tang / CRM Tech Cultural Resources Report Palmdale Sports Complex Project Monitoring and Testing
04069 1996 Anonymous / Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc.

Avenues S Corridor Study Area Final Environmental
Constraints Analysis Report
05049 1999 Duke, C. / LSA Associate, Inc.

Cultural Resource Assessment for Pacific Bell Mobile
Services Facility La 687-04, County of Los Angeles,
California
05155 1999 Brown, J. C., and D. Ferraro / RMW
Paleo Associates, Inc.

A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the Proposed
Avenue S Road Widening, Located in Palmdale, La County, California
05252 2001 Robinson, R. W. / Consulting
Archaeologists
A Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed Ana Verde Elementary School Site: City of Palmdale, County of Los Angeles
07168 2003 Gust, S., M. P. Hickson, and R. Turner
/ Cogstone Resource Management, Inc.

Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan for the Palmdale 93 Project Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Report
No.
(LA-)
Year Author(s)/Affiliation Title
07193 2003 Bonner, W. H. / Michael Brandman
Associates
Records Search and Site Visit Results for Cingular
Telecommunications Facility Candidate VY-299-01 (East
Avenue S & 14 Freeway), 117 East Avenue S, Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
07843 2002 Goodwin, R. L., and R. E. Reynolds /
LSA Associates, Inc.

Cultural and Paleontological Resource Mitigation, Avenue S Widening, City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California 08425 2007 Cooley, T. G. / Jones & Stokes
Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison Company Acton Substation Loop-in Project, Los Angeles
County, California
08427 2007 Cooley, T. G. / Jones & Stokes
Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison Company 66kv Antelope Bus Split Project Los Angeles
County, California
08970 2007 Powell, C., and M. Rockman / PCR
Services Corporation
Results of Cultural Resource Assessment for the Ashberry 12kv Dsp Transmission Line Out of the Anaverde Substation to the Antelope Valley Substation, City of Palmdale, County of Los Angeles, California; Wo: 6436-533 7-5301

09756 2009 Glover, A., and S. Gust / Cogstone
Resource Management, Inc.

Supplemental Cultural Resources Assessment, Segment 2,
Section 1, Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project,
V ariance for the Use of Rodeo Y ard, Los Angeles County, California
10053 2004 Schmidt, J. A. / W & S Consultants Phase II Archaeological Test Excavation at CA-LAN-1845H, Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
10055 2004 W & S Consultants
Phase I Archaeological Survey of Two Parcels at Avenue S and Tierra Subida Avenue, Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
10056 2005 Hudlow, S. M. / Hudlow Cultural
Resource Associates
A Cultural Resources Survey for Property at Division and Rayburn, City of Palmdale, California
10060 2005 Gust, S. / Hudlow Cultural Resource
Management, Inc.

Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan for the Quail Valley Project, California 10156 2009 Clark, F., and K. Garcia / PCR
Services Corp.

Results of the Cultural Resource Assessment for the Southern California Edison Replacement of Deteriorated Pole Nos. 2139312E, 1201942E, 778561E, 693192E and 1559874E; Los
Angeles County, CA
10533 1998 McLean, D. / LSA Associates, Inc.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the 73 Acre Anaverde
Detention Basin Project in the City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
10634 2010 Bray, M. / ESA
Preliminary Archaeological Survey Report for 98 Linear
Miles of the East Branch Extension of the California
Aqueduct for the DWR East Branch Enlargement Project, Los Angeles and San Bernadino Counties
11135 2011 Tang, B., and M. Hogan, M. / CRM
Tech
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, City of Palmdale Recycled Water Master Plan Supplement, Los
Angeles County, California
11856 2011 Tejada, B. / Pacific Legacy
3rd Supplemental Survey Report for Additional Access Roads on Segment 5, Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, Los Angeles County, California
12433 2013 Bonner, W. H. / Environmental
Assessment Specialists, Inc.

Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for AT&T Mobility Candidate NL0468 (Palmdale Water El
Camino Tank), 36809 El Camino Drive, Palmdale, Los
Angeles County, California
12492 2012 Zalarvis-Chase, D. / URS Corp Verizon Wireless Tovey, 37071 Tovey Avenue, Palmdale, CA 93551 (APN: 3054-007-006)
September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Report
No.
(LA-)
Year Author(s)/Affiliation Title
12740 2014 Bonner, D. F., and C. D. Wills / MBA
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Verizon Wireless Candidate Essierra, Avenue S and 6th Street, Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California. EBI Project No. 61143776
12949 2014
Turner, R., L. Akyüz, R. D. Turner, and
D. Ruzicka / ArchaeoPaleo Resource
Management, Inc.

Report of Negative Findings for Cultural Resources at the Waste Management Antelope Valley Public Landfill
(Palmdale) Phase V-A-6, City of Palmdale, Los Angeles
County, California.
12995 2015
Ruzicka, D., L. Akyüz, and M. X.

Kirby / ArchaeoPaleo Resource
Management, Inc.

Report of Negative Findings for Archaeological and
Paleontological Resources at the Waste Management Antelope Valley Public Landfill (Palmdale), Avenue R-5 Landfill
Access, City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California 12998 2015
Ruzicka, D., L. Akyüz, and M. X.

Kirby / ArchaeoPaleo Resource
Management, Inc.

Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Phase 1
Assessment, Palmdale CalVet REN Development, Built by
Habitat for Humanity, in the City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California

Sixteen resources have been previously documented within the 1-mi. records search radius, none of which appear within the Project area (T able 2). Twelve of these resources are historic in age, and include historic structure remains, refuse scatters, irrigation system remnants, a portion o f the California Aqueduct, and two isolated historic glass artifacts. Four prehistoric isolates have also been do cumented, all consisting of isolated debitage.

Table 2. Resources Previously Recorded within the 1-Mile Records Search Radius

Primary #
(P-19-)
Trinomial
(CA-LAN-)
Date Recorded
(Recorded by) Description Attribute
Codes*
001907 1907H 1990 (K. Becker) Rock pile feature and one piece of amethyst glass AH16
002535 2535H 1996 (B. Love)
Historic water pipeline, 4-inch-diameter, made
of rolled sheet metal sealed with tar and
wrapped with wire in spiral fashion, joints filled
with cement
AH6
002536 2536H 1996 (B. Love) Remains of a burned-out building/homestead, and a historic refuse concentration AH2; AH4
002537 2537H 1996 (B. Love) Hundreds of historic domestic artifacts AH4 002775 2775H
1999 (D. Ferraro, P. O.

Maxon); 2002 (R.

Goodwin)
Irrigation systems remnants: holding pond (60
ft x 120 ft x 10 ft deep), concrete tank (20 ft x
40 ft x 20 ft), two ditch segments (1,150 ft
long)
AH5; AH6;
AH11
002776 2776H
1999 (D. Ferraro, P. O.

Maxon); 2002 (R.

Goodwin)
Two historic foundations, historic septic tank,
two historic refuse sites
AH2; AH4;
AH5
004154 4154H
2009 (K. Anderson); 2011
(N. Lawson, M. Kaye);
2011 (P. Ambacher); 2013
(M. Strauss, M. Bray);
2015 (J. Smallwood);
2017 (A. Hill)
East Branch of the California Aqueduct (EBA):
98-mile segment of larger 444-mile California
Aqueduct, consists of series of canals, siphons,
tunnels, penstocks, a power plant, and a
pumping plant
AH6; HP20
004602 4602H 2011 (R. J. Lichtenstein,
M. Armstrong)
Remains of a historic structure including a
concentration of milled lumber and a low-
density refuse scatter
AH2; AH4
September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Primary #
(P-19-)
Trinomial
(CA-LAN-)
Date Recorded
(Recorded by) Description Attribute
Codes*
004603 4603H 2011 (R. J. Lichtenstein,
M. Armstrong) Low-density historic refuse/can scatter AH4 004604 004604H 2011 (R. J. Lichtenstein,
M. Armstrong) Low-density historic refuse/can scatter AH4 100312 - 1989 (S. Lillard) Isolate: single porphyritic andesite secondary flake AP2
100326 - 1999 (P. Maxon) Isolate: 5 fragments of a small, amethyst glass jar or bottle with the base measuring 1.2 inches AH4
100626 - 2007 (T. Cooley & A.

Craft)
Isolate: two flakes, one black quartzite, 3 cm x

2.5 cm, one chalcedony, 4 cm x 3 cm AP2
100831 - 2009 (M. Bray) Isolate: one white fine grained quartzite flake AP2 100985 - 1990 (K. Becker) Isolate: one white chert secondary flake AP2 101204 - 1990 (K. Becker) Isolate: one neck and lip of a square medicine bottle, sealed with a cork, no seams AH4
*AH2. Foundations /structure pads; AH4. Privies/dumps/trash scat ters; AH5. Wells/cisterns; AH 6. Water conveyance system ; AH11. Walls/fences; AH16. Other; AP2. Lithic scatter; HP20. Canal/aqueduct

Other Background Research

Historic aerials from 1948, 1953, 1956, 1959, 1965, 1971, 1974, 1987, 1990, 1995, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, a nd 2020 were analyzed on historicaeria ls.com, as were historic topographic maps dated 1932, 1937, 1960, 1965, 1966, 1975, 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2022.

W. Avenue S is evident on the first available topo from 1932 and the aerial from 1948. From 1948, the Project parcel and all adjacent parcels north of W . Avenue S are undeveloped and appear to be in a natural state, while the area to the south of W. Av enue S is cleared of vegetation. Guyon Avenue first appears as a dirt road on the 1965 aer ial and is better developed by 1971; some informal dirt roads ap pear within the P roject parcel by 1971 as well. T he first structures south of the road appear on the 2005 image. The Project parcel itself appears undeveloped throughout the available record as depicted by both the topos and aerial images.

The City’s General Plan (1993) does not include an archaeological sensitivity analysis.

NAHC Sacred Lands File
A request for a search of the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File (SLF) was made by ASM on June 8, 2023. This search was under taken to supplement the SCCIC records search to inquire as to whether resources important to local Na tive American groups may exist wit hin the proposed Project area that may not appear within the CHRIS system. The NAHC response was received on July 7, 2023, indicating a negative result. The response also included a list of 10 tribal contacts who may have interest in or information about the Pro ject area. Query letters were sent to a ll of the contacts provided on July 7, 2023. Only one response has been received; the response from the Ft. Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe provided no comment, deferring to more local tribes. The NAHC response, a sample query letter, and the response received are included with this report as Attachment B. Any additional responses that may be received will be compiled and submitted as a supplement to Attachment B.

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Pedestrian Archaeological Survey
For the archaeological survey, the entire Project parcel was walked in transects spaced approximately 15 m apart and oriented primarily east/we st. The parcel is fairly heavily vegetated, covered with a number of large stands as well as singular Joshua trees amid juniper bushes, buckw heat, and creosote, with the balance being covered with low scrub and grasses (Figures 3 and 4). Surface visibility was variable, with some areas approximately 70-85 percent and others less than 50 percent. A number of dirt roads traverse the parcel, including a well-used one that bisects the parcel running roughly north/south (Figure 5). A number of dumping episodes are evident, especially along the roads and in the northern part of the parcel (Figure 6).

Discarded materials appear to have been brought in from elsewhere as there is no evidence of any structures having been situated on this or near by parcels. The dumping episodes likely date from the 1980s to the present, and include household items, such as mattresses, furniture, carpet, bottles and cans, degrading lumber, and miscellaneous construction materials and debris.

No previously undocumente d cultural resource s were encountered dur ing the inten sive pedestrian archaeological survey.

REGULATORY CONTEXT
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)

For purposes of CEQA, a historic r esource is any obje ct, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR (PRC §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, §4852). The four criteria for listing in the CRHR closely mirror the criteria for listing in the NRHP. A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the following criteria:

(1) Is associated with e vents that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past (3) Embodies the distincti ve characteristics of a type, peri od, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

Prehistoric archaeological sites are typi cally evaluated only under Criterion 4 for their potential to yield data important to understanding the prehistory of the area or regi on. Historical archaeological sites and architectural resources may be evalu ated under any of the four criteria because th eir features, plus available historical documentation, may be used to inform our understanding of their association with events, peopl e, workmanship, or other important historical information. Isolates are not eligible for the listi ng in the CR HR because t hey lack association and context with other archaeological materials. Recording the physical description and location of an isolate exhausts its research potential.

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

City of Palmdale

The City of Palmdale Municipal Code (PMC) does not include statutes regarding the preservation of cultural and historic resources. However, the General Plan’s (1993) Environmental Resources Element includes measures to protect cultural resources, as follows:

GOAL ER7: Protect h istorical and culturally significant resources which contribute to the community's sense of history.

Objective ER7.1: Promote the identification and preservation of historic structures, histo ric sites, archaeological sites, and paleontological resources in the City.

• Policy ER7.1.1: Identify and recognize historic landmarks from Palmdale's past. • Policy ER7.1.2: Promote maintenance, rehabilitation, and appropriate reuse of identified landmarks where feasible.
• Policy ER7.1.3: Require that new development protect significant historic, paleontological, or archaeological resources, or provide for other appropriate mitigation. • Policy ER7.1.4: Develop and maintain a cultural sensitivity map. Require special studies/surveys to be prepared for any development proposals in areas reasonably suspected of containing cultural resources, or as indicated on the sensitivity map. • Policy ER7.1.5: When human remains, suspected to be of Native American origin are discovered, cooperate with the Native American Heritage Commission and any local Native American groups to determine the most appropriate disposition of the human remains and any associated grave goods.
• Policy ER7.1.6: Cooperate with private and public entities whose goals are to protect and preserve historic landmarks and important cultural resources.

RECOMMENDATIONS
No prehistoric or historical artifacts or sites were identified during the current survey. As such, no historic al resources as defined under CEQA that would require further consideration were identified within the Project area. Further, the results of the background re search conducted for the study indicate a low archaeological sensitivity for the Project area.

However, i n the event that any archaeological materials are encountered during fu ture development activities, all act ivities must be suspended in the vicinity of the find until the deposits are recorded and evaluated by a quali fied archaeologist. If evaluated as eligible for the CRHR and if impacts to the resource cannot be avoided, mi tigation would be necessary. In addition, if significant subsurface prehistoric resources are encountered that w ill be subject to impacts from the project, Tribes with historic and cultural ties to the area shall be contacted.

If human remains of any ki nd are found during construction, th e requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and AB 2641 shall be fo llowed. According to these requirements, all construction activities must cease immediately, and the San Bernardino County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist must be notified. T he Coroner will examine the remains and determine the next appropriate action based on his or her findings. If the coroner determines the remains to be of Native American origin, he or she will notify the NAHC. The NAHC will then identify the September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

most likely d escendants (MLD) to be consulted regarding treatment and/or reburial of the remains. If an MLD cannot be ident ified, or the MLD fails to make a recommendation regarding the treatment of the remains within 48 hours after gaining access to the remains, the p roperty owner shall rebury the Native Ameri can human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

Sincerely,

Sherri Andrews
Senior Archaeologist
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
20 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 220
Pasadena, California 91103
(626) 793-7395
[email protected]

Attachment A: SCCIC Summary Lists
Attachment B: NAHC and Tribal Correspondence

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Figure 1. Project vicinity map.

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Figure 2. Project location map.

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Figure 3. Project overview, view to south showing commercial development on south side of W.

Avenue S.

Figure 4. Project area overview from southwest corner, view to west along W. Avenue S.

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Figure 5. Project area overview, view to south along dirt road that bisects the parcel.

Figure 6. Example of dumping, view to west-southwest.

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

REFERENCES
Antevs, E.
1953 The Postpluvial or Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 22:9-23. Berkeley.

Basgall, M. E.
1993 Early Holocene Prehistory of the North-central Mojave Desert. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. 2000 The Structure of Archeological Landscapes in the North -Central Mojave Deser t.

In Archeological Passages, edited by J. S. Schneider, R. M. Yohe II, and J. K.

Gardner, pp. 123- 138. Western Center for Archeology and Paleontology Publications in Archeology No. 1.

Blackburn, T. C., and L. J. Bean
1978 Kitanemuk. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 564 -569. Handbook of North American Ind ians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant , general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Britannica.com
n.d. Palmdale. Available at https://www.britannica.com/place/Palmdale , accessed August 11, 2023.

Campbell, E. W. C., and W. H. Campbell
1935 The Pinto Basin Site: An Ancient Aboriginal Camping Ground in the California Desert. Southwest Museum Papers No. 9. Los Angeles.

City of Palmdale
n.d. Early Palmdale. Available at https://www.city ofpalmdaleca.gov/329/Early- Palmdale, accessed August 11, 2023.
1993 City of Palmdale General Plan. Adopted by City Council Resolution 93- 10, January 25, 1993.

Clewlow, C. W., Jr.
1968 Surface Archeology of the Black Rock Desert, Nevada. University of Ca lifornia Archeological Survey Reports 73(1):1-94.

Davis, E. L. (editor)
1978 The Ancient Californians: Rancholabrean Hunters of the Mojave Lakes Country.

Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Science Series 29.

Earle, David D.
2003 “Mining and Ranching in Soledad Canyon and Antelope Valley.” Santa Clarita Valley History in Pictures website . Electronic document, http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/earle-mining-0103.htm, accessed June 16, 2023.

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Earle, David D., K. Lark, C. Parker, M. Ronning, and J. Underwood 1997 Cultural Resources Overview and Management Plan for Edwards AFB, California. Volume 2: Overview of Historic Cultural Resources. Com puter Sciences Corporation. Submitted to the Air Force Flight Test Center, Environmental Management Di rectorate, Base Historic Preservation Office, Edwards Air Force Base, California.

Grayson, D. K.
1993 The Desert’s Past: A Natural Prehistory of the G reat Basin . Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hundley, Jr., Norris
2001 The Great Thirst. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hunt, C. B.
1960 Archaeology of the Death Valley Salt Pan. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 47. Salt Lake City.

Historicaerials.com
Aerials: 1948, 1953, 1959, 1965, 1971, 1974, 1987, 1990, 1995, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020.

Topos: 1932, 1937, 1960, 1965, 1966, 1975, 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2022.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of Indians of California. University of California, Berkeley.

Loechl, S. K., T. Britt, W. Meyer, R. R. Sands, A. Smith, J. L. Webster, and L. A. Whalley 2002 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan for Edwards Air Force Base, California. Prepared by JT3/CH2M Hill for Department of the Air Force, Base Historic Preservation Office, Edwards Air Force Base, California.

Mehringer, P. J., Jr.
1986 Prehistoric Environments. In Great Basin, edited by W. L. d’Azevedo, pp. 31-50.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Moratto, M. J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.

Pendleton, L. S. A.
1979 Lithic Technology in Early Nevada Assemblages. Unpublished M aster’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach.

September 9, 2023
Anna Choudhari

Rogers, M. J.
1939 Early Lithic Indu stries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers 3.

Serpico, Phil
2000 Railroading through the Antelope Valley. Omni Publications, Palmdale.

Sutton, Mark
1980 Some Aspects of Kitanemuk Prehistory . Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 2(2):214-225.
1988 An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Western Mojave Desert, California.

Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory 14, Salinas. 1990 Two Small Quarry Sites Near Rosamond, Kern County, California. In Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Antelope Valley and Vicinity . Antelope Valley Archaeological Society Occasional Papers No. 2. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Lancaster.

Townsquarepublications.com
n.d. City of Palmdale History. Available at https://townsquarepublications.com/city- of-palmdale-history/, accessed August 11, 2023.

Tuohy, D. R.
1974 A Comparative Study of Lat e Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Western Great Basin. In A Collection of Papers on Great Basin Archaeology, edited by R. Elston and L. Sabini. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Paper 5:90-116. Reno.

Vasek, F. C., and M. G. Barbour
1990 Mojave Desert scrub vegetation. In Terrestrial Vegetation of California, edited by M. G. Barbour and J. Major, California Native Plant Society, Special Publication

9. Warren, Claude
1984 The Desert Region. In Cal ifornia Archaeology , by M. J. Moratto, pp. 339- 430.Academic Press, Orlando.

Weitze, Karen J.
1993 Historic A merican Engineering Record, Little Rock Creek Dam, Addendum of December 1993 Supplementing the Recordation of February 1981 [CA -8].

Available at the Palmdale Water District.

Willig, Judith A., and Melvin Aikens
1988 The Clovis -Archaic Interface in Far Western North America. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis -Archaic Interface, edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 21:1-40. Carson City.

ATTACHMENT A: RECORDS SEARCH SUMMARY TABLES

Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs Palmdale
LA-00033 1974 Impact Assessment of Archaeological
Resources by the Construction of Palmdale
Maintenance Stations
Northridge Archaeological
Research Center, CSUN
Anonymous
LA-00756 1980 Cultural Resources Investigation, Re:

Tentative Parcel Map #38765, Submitted to
Paseo Del Campo Corporation
Robinson, R. W.

LA-00757 1980 Cultural Resources Investigation Re: Parcel Map #12382
R.W. Robinson Consulting
Archaeologist
Robinson, R. W.

LA-01222 1983 An Archaeological Resource Survey and
Impact Assessment of the Area Northeast of
Lake Palmdale, Los Angeles County,
California
University of California, Los
Angeles Archaeological
Survey
Colby, Susan and Robert
Rechtman
LA-01236 1983 An Archaeological Resource Survey and
Impact Assessment of a Pipeline Alignment
From the California Aqueduct North to Lake
Palmdale in Los Angeles County, California
University of California, Los
Angeles Archaeological
Survey
Colby, Susan M.

LA-01547 1986 An Archaeological Resource Survey and
Impact Assessment of the Antelope Valley
Master Plan of Drainage, Anaverde Basin to
Lockheed Basin, Los Angeles County,
California
Brian D. DillonDillon, Brian D.Paleo -
LA-01735 1988 Cultural Resource Investigation of 120 Acres in the City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County,
California
Greenwood and AssociatesRomani, Gwendolyn R.

LA-01806 1989 A Cultural Resources Investigation of
Tentative Tract Number 47046 in the Cityof
Palmdale, North Los Angeles County,
California.

Robinson, R. W.

LA-01827 1989 Archaeological Report for Forty Arces Near Paledale Lake, Palmdale, Los Angeles County
Pyramid ArchaeologyLove, Bruce
LA-01938 1989 Cultural Resources Assessment Southern
California Gas Company Proposed Line 335
Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties
LSA Associates, Inc.Padon, Beth, S.

Crownover, J. Rosenthal,
and R. Conard
19-001618, 19-001619, 19-100310,
19-100311, 19-100312, 19-100313
LA-02206 1989 Appendix G: an Archaeological Assessment
of Tracts 38031, 48183, and 48387 at the
Intersection of Rayburn Rayburn Road and
Tierra Subida Ave., Palmdale, Los Angeles
County
Archaeological Associates,
Ltd.

White, Robert S.

Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs Palmdale
LA-02232 1990 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the
Vincent Hills Proposed Annexation Area,
Approximately 1025 Acres Near Palmdale,
Los Angeles County, California
RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.Becker, Kenneth M. and
Stuart A. Evans
19-000305, 19-001888, 19-001889,
19-001890, 19-001891, 19-001892,
19-001893, 19-001894, 19-001895,
19-001896, 19-001897, 19-001898,
19-001899, 19-001900, 19-001901,
19-001902, 19-001903, 19-001904,
19-001905, 19-001906, 19-001907,
19-001987, 19-001988, 19-001989,
19-100840, 19-100841, 19-100842,
19-100843, 19-100844, 19-100845,
19-100846, 19-100847, 19-100848,
19-100849, 19-100850, 19-100851,
19-100852, 19-100853, 19-100854,
19-100855, 19-100856, 19-100857,
19-100858, 19-100859, 19-100860,
19-100861, 19-100862, 19-100863,
19-100864, 19-100865, 19-100866,
19-100867, 19-100868, 19-100869,
19-100985, 19-101204
LA-02261 1991 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the
Antelope Valley Landfill Expansion,
Approximately 132 Acres Near Palmdale, Los
Angeles County, California
RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.Evans, Stuart A. 19-000876, 19-001917Paleo - LA-02348 1990 A Cultural Resources Investigation of
Thirteen Acres in the Ity of Palmdale, Los
Angeles County, California
Robinson, R. W.

LA-02814 1993 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact
Assessment for a Natural Gas Regulator
Station, Southeast of the Intersection of 7th
Street West and Avenue R-12, Near the City
of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
C.A. Singer & Associates,
Inc.

Singer, Clay A., John E.

Atwood, and Shelley M.

Gomes
LA-03335 1985 Cultural Resources Survey, Anaverde
Retention Basin Antelope Valley, California
University of California, Los
Angeles Archaeological
Survey
Meighan, Clement W.

LA-03428 1996 An Archaeological Resource Review of the
Proposed Anaverde Flood Control Basin
Project, City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County
Petra Resources Inc.Padon, Beth
LA-03537 1996 Archaeological Assessment of the Palmdale Water District 1996 Master Plan Los Angeles
County, California
Dillon, Brian D. 19-001534, 19-001888, 19-002474,
19-002475
LA-03780 1997 Cultural Resources Report Palmdale Sports Complex Project Monitoring and Testing
CRM TechLove, Bruce and Tang,
Bai
19-002535, 19-002536, 19-002537

Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs Palmdale
LA-04069 1996 Avenues S Corridor Study Area Final
Environmental Constraints Analysis Report
Jones & Stokes,
Associates, Inc.

Unknown 19-000239, 19-000806, 19-000878,
19-001419, 19-001534, 19-001709,
19-001845
LA-05049 1999 Cultural Resource Assessment for Pacific
Bell Mobile Services Facility La 687-04,
County of Los Angeles, Ca
LSA Associates, Inc.Duke, Curt
LA-05155 1999 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the Proposed Avenue S Road Widening, Located
in Palmdale, La County, California
RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.Brown, Joan C. and
Ferraro, David
19-002772, 19-002773, 19-002774,
19-002775, 19-002776, 19-100325,
19-100326, 19-186094
Paleo -
LA-05252 2001 A Cultural Resource Investigation of the
Proposed Ana Verde Elementary School Site:

City of Palmdale, County of Los Angeles
Consulting ArchaeologistRobinson, R. W. 19-002535, 19-002536, 19-002537 LA-07168 2003 Archaeological and Paleontological
Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan for
the Palmdale 93 Project Palmdale Los
Angeles County, California
Cogstone Resource
Management, Inc.

Gust, Sherri, Mary Pat
Hickson, and Robin
Turner
Paleo -
LA-07193 2003 Records Search and Site Visit Results for Cingular Telecommunications Facility
Candidate VY-299-01 (East Avenue S & 14
Freeway), 117 East Avenue S, Palmdale, Los
Angeles County, California.

Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne H.

LA-07843 2002 Cultural and Paleontological Resource
Mitigation, Avenue S Widening, City of
Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
LSA Associates, Inc.Goodwin, Riordan L. and
Reynolds, Robert E.
19-002274, 19-002275, 19-002772,
19-002773, 19-002776, 19-186094
Paleo -
LA-08425 2007 Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison Company Acton Substation
Loop-in Project, Los Angeles County,
California
Jones and StokesCooley, Theodore G. 19-000806, 19-001854, 19-002535, 19-002537, 19-003175, 19-003177
LA-08427 2007 Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison Company 66kv Antelope
Bus Split Project Los Angeles County,
California
Jones & StokesCooley, Theodore G. 19-000217, 19-001692, 19-002215, 19-003695, 19-003696, 19-003697,
19-003698, 19-003699, 19-003700,
19-003701, 19-003702, 19-003703,
19-003704, 19-003705, 19-003706,
19-003707, 19-003708, 19-003709,
19-003710, 19-100628, 19-100629,
19-186683

Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs Palmdale
LA-08970 2007 Results of Cultural Resource Assessment for the Ashberry 12kv Dsp Transmission Line
Out of the Anaverde Substation to the
Antelope Valley Substation, City of Palmdale,
County of Los Angeles, California; Wo: 6436-
533 7-5301
PCR Services CorporationPowell, Chris and Marcy
Rockman
LA-09756 2009 Supplemental Cultural Resources
Assessment, Segment 2, Section 1,
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project,
Variance for the Use of Rodeo Yard, Los
Angeles County, California
Cogstone Resource
Management, inc.

Glover, Amy and Sherri
Gust
LA-10053 2004 Phase Ii Archaeological Test Excavation at CA-LAN-1845h, Palmdale, Los Angeles
County, California
W & S ConsultantsSchmidt, June A.

LA-10055 2004 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Two
Parcels at Avenue S and Tierra Subida
Avenue, Palmdale, Los Angeles County,
California
W & S ConsultantsAnonymous
LA-10056 2005 A Cultural Resources Survey for Property at Division and Rayburn, City of Palmdale,
California
Hudlow Cultural Resource
Associates
Hudlow, Scott M.

LA-10060 2005 Archaeological and Paleontological
Assesment Report and Mitigation Plan for the
Quail Valley Project, California
Cogstone Resource
Management, Inc.

Gust, Sherri 19-000343, 19-000809, 19-001845,
19-002535, 19-002537, 19-002776,
19-003175, 19-003177, 19-003178,
19-003179, 19-003343
Paleo -
LA-10156 2009 Results of the Cultural Resource Assessment for the Southern California Edison
Replacement of Deteriorated Pole Nos.
2139312E, 1201942E, 778561E, 693192E
and 1559874E; Los Angeles County, CA
PCR Services Corp.Clark, Fatima and Kyle
Garcia
LA-10533 1998 Cultural Resources Assessment for the 73
Acre Anaverde Detention Basin Project in the
City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County,
California
LSA Associates, Inc.McLean, Deborah 19-002535, 19-002536, 19-002537

Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs Palmdale
LA-10634 2010 Preliminary Archaeological Survey Report for 98 linear Miles of the East Branch Exrention
of the California Aqueduct for the DWR East
Branch Enlargement Project, Los Angeles
and San Bernadino Counties
ESABray, Madeleine 19-000082, 19-000721, 19-000722,
19-001263, 19-001264, 19-001334,
19-001518, 19-001534, 19-001576,
19-001615, 19-001677, 19-001678,
19-001686, 19-001746, 19-001751,
19-001752, 19-001753, 19-001754,
19-001772, 19-001773, 19-001828,
19-001830, 19-001842, 19-001843,
19-001845, 19-001850, 19-001851,
19-001853, 19-001894, 19-001895,
19-001896, 19-001899, 19-001900,
19-001901, 19-001902, 19-001903,
19-001904, 19-001905, 19-001906,
19-001988, 19-002105, 19-002387,
19-002408, 19-002449, 19-002450,
19-002451, 19-002454, 19-002458,
19-002474, 19-002475, 19-002638,
19-002889, 19-003176, 19-003385,
19-003478, 19-003514, 19-003780,
19-100135, 19-100239, 19-100240,
19-186595, 19-186597, 19-186598,
19-186600, 19-186601

Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs Palmdale
LA-11135 2011 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, City of Palmdale Recycled Water
Master Plan Supplement, Los Angeles
County, California
CRM TechTang, Bai "Tom" and
Hogan, Michael
19-000827, 19-000878, 19-001365,
19-001419, 19-001420, 19-001553,
19-001587, 19-001588, 19-001600,
19-001609, 19-001610, 19-001613,
19-001614, 19-001687, 19-001697,
19-001709, 19-001717, 19-001823,
19-001873, 19-001874, 19-002194,
19-002535, 19-002536, 19-002537,
19-002732, 19-002734, 19-002772,
19-002773, 19-002774, 19-002775,
19-002776, 19-002808, 19-002909,
19-002910, 19-002911, 19-002912,
19-003258, 19-003377, 19-003384,
19-003785, 19-003786, 19-003861,
19-004154, 19-004160, 19-004161,
19-004184, 19-100308, 19-100312,
19-100325, 19-100326, 19-100626,
19-150148, 19-186094, 19-186813,
19-186814, 19-186815, 19-186816,
19-186817, 19-186818, 19-186819,
19-186820, 19-186821, 19-186822,
19-186823, 19-186824, 19-186825,
19-186826, 19-186827, 19-186828,
19-186829, 19-186830, 19-186831,
19-186832, 19-186833, 19-186834,
19-186835, 19-186836, 19-186837,
19-186838, 19-186839, 19-186840,
19-186841, 19-186842, 19-186843,
19-186844, 19-186845, 19-186846,
19-186847, 19-186848, 19-186849,
19-186850, 19-186851, 19-186852,
19-186853, 19-186854, 19-186855,
19-186957, 19-188187, 19-188188,
19-188439
LA-11856 2011 3rd Supplemental Survey Report for
Additional Access Roads on Segment 5,
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project,
Los Angeles County, California
Pacific LegacyTejada, Barbara
LA-12433 2013 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for AT&T Mobility Candidate
NL0468 (Palmdale Water El Camino Tank),
36809 El Camino Drive, Palmdale, Los
Angeles County, California
Environmental Assessment
Specialists, Inc.

Bonner, Wayne H. 19-004154

Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs Palmdale
LA-12492 2012 Verizon Wireless Tovey, 37071 Tovey
Avenue, Palmdale, CA 93551 (APN: 3054-
007-006)
URS CorpZalarvis-Chase, Dimitra 19-004154
LA-12740 2014 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Verizon Wireless Candidate
Essierra, Avenue S and 6th Street, Palmdale,
Los Angeles County, California. EBI Project
No. 61143776
MBABonner, Diane F. and
Carrie D. Wills
19-000878, 19-001079, 19-002775,
19-100326, 19-180638, 19-188899
LA-12949 2014 REPORT OF NEGATIVE FINDINGS FOR

CULTURAL RESOURCES AT THE WASTE

MANAGEMENT ANTELOPE VALLEY

PUBLIC LANDFILL (PALMDALE) PHASE V-
A-6, CITY OF PALMDALE, LOS ANGELES

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ArchaeoPaleo Resource
Management, Inc.

Turner, Robin, Linda
Akyüz, Robin D. Turner,
and Denise Ruzicka
LA-12995 2015 REPORT OF NEGATIVE FINDINGS FOR

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AT THE

WASTE MANAGEMENT ANTELOPE

VALLEY PUBLIC LANDFILL (PALMDALE),
AVENUE R-5 LANDFILL ACCESS, CITY OF

PALMDALE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
ArchaeoPaleo Resource
Management Inc.

Ruzicka, Denise, Linda
Akyüz, and Michael X.

Kirby
Paleo -
LA-12998 2015 Archaeological and Paleontological
Resources Phase 1 Assessment, Palmdale
CalVet REN Development, built by Habitat for
Humanity, in the City of Palmdale, Los
Angeles County, California
ArchaeoPaleo Resource
Management Inc.

Ruzicka, Denise, Michael
H. Dice, Robin D. Turner,
and Michael X. Kirby
Paleo -

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
Palmdale
P-19-001907 CA-LAN-001907H Resource Name - VH-20H LA-02232, LA-09563Site Historic AH16 1990 (Kenneth Becker, RMW Paleo Associates)
P-19-002535 CA-LAN-002535H Resource Name - Water Pipeline Site;
Other - CRM Tech 237-3H
LA-03780, LA-
05252, LA-08425,
LA-10060, LA-
10533, LA-11135
Site Historic AH06 1996 (Bruce Love, CRM Tech)
P-19-002536 CA-LAN-002536H Resource Name - Burned House Site;
Other - CRM Tech 237-2H
LA-03780, LA-
05252, LA-10533,
LA-11135
Site Historic AH02; AH04 1996 (Bruce Love, CRM Tech)
P-19-002537 CA-LAN-002537H Resource Name - Hillside House Site;
Other - CRM Tech 237-1H
LA-03780, LA-
05252, LA-08425,
LA-10060, LA-
10533, LA-11135
Site Historic AH04 1996 (Bruce Love, CRM Tech)
P-19-002775 CA-LAN-002775H Resource Name - Old Palmdale Ditch;
Other - AS-4;
Other - AS-5
LA-05155, LA-
09011, LA-10790,
LA-11135, LA-12740
Site Historic AH05; AH06; AH11 1999 (David Ferraro & Patrick O.

Maxon, RMW Paleo Associates,
Inc);
2002 (R. Goodwin, LSA Assoc, Inc)
P-19-002776 CA-LAN-002776H Resource Name - AS-6 LA-05155, LA- 07843, LA-09011,
LA-10060, LA-11135
Site Historic AH02; AH04; AH05 1999 (David Ferraro Patrick O.

Maxon, RMW Paleo Associates,
Inc);
2002 (R. Goodwin, LSA Assoc, Inc)
P-19-004154 CA-LAN-004154H Resource Name - East Branch of the California Aqueduct (EBA);
Other - California Aqueduct
LA-11135, LA-
11798, LA-11889,
LA-12291, LA-
12337, LA-12433,
LA-12492, LA-
12503, LA-12504,
LA-12896, LA-13296
Structure,
Element of
district
Historic AH06; HP20 2009 (Katherine Anderson, ESA);
2011 (N. Lawson, M. Kaye, CH2M
Hill);
2011 (Patricia Ambacher, AECOM);
2013 (M. Strauss and M. Bray);
2015 (Josh Smallwood, Applied
Earthworks);
2017 (A. Hill, AECOM)
P-19-004602 CA-LAN-004602H Resource Name - AE-HST-1H Site Historic AH02; AH04 2011 (R.J. Lichtenstein, M.

Armstrong, Applied Earthworks)
P-19-004603 CA-LAN-004603H Resource Name - AE-HST-2H Site Historic AH04 2011 (R.J. Lichtenstein, M.

Armstrong, Applied Earthworks)
P-19-004604 CA-LAN-004604H Resource Name - AE-HST-3H Site Historic AH04 2011 (R.J. Lichtenstein, M.

Armstrong, Applied Earthworks)
P-19-100312 Resource Name - 335-3 LA-01938, LA-11135Other Prehistoric AP02 1989 (S. Lillard, LSA Associates, Inc)
P-19-100326 Resource Name - ASI-2 LA-05155, LA-
09563, LA-11135,
LA-12740
Other Historic AH04 1999 (P. Maxon, RMW Paleo
Associates)

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
Palmdale
P-19-100626 Resource Name - 2007SCE19.01 LA-11135Other Prehistoric AP02 2007 (T. Cooley, A. Craft, Jones & Stokes)
P-19-100831 Resource Name - D-11 Other Prehistoric AP02 2009 (M. Bray, ESA) P-19-100985 Resource Name - I-32 LA-02232Other Prehistoric AP02 1990 (Kenneth Becker, RMW Paleo Associates)
P-19-101204 Resource Name - I-33H LA-02232Other Historic AH04 1990 (Keneth Becker, RMW Paleo Associates)

ATTACHMENT B: NAHC AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE (to date)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

July 7, 2023

Sherri Andrews
ASM Affiliates

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, Maverik Fueling Station Project, Los Angeles County

Dear Ms. Andrews:

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”)

Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

ACTING CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:

• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.

3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst

Attachment

Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person
Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission
Indians
N Sarah Brunzell, CRM Manager
Morongo Band of Mission Indians F Ann Brierty, THPO
Morongo Band of Mission Indians F Robert Martin, Chairperson Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jordan Joaquin, President,
Quechan Tribal Council
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman -
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
San Fernando Band of Mission Indians N Donna Yocum, Chairperson San Manuel Band of Mission Indians F Alexandra McCleary, Cultural Lands Manager
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians N Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson Serrano Nation of Mission Indians N Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson

07/07/2023 02:11 PM
1 of 6

This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native 07/07/2023 02:11 PM
2 of 6
Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address
1019 Second Street
San Fernando, CA, 91340
(818) 837-0794 [email protected]
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5259 (951) 572-6004 [email protected]
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5110 (951) 755-5177 [email protected]
P.O.Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(760) 919-3600 executivesecretary@quechantribe
.com
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 261-0254 historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 210-8739 culturalcommittee@quechantribe.
com
P.O. Box 221838
Newhall, CA, 91322
(503) 539-0933 (503) 574-3308 [email protected]
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
(909) 633-0054 alexandra.mccleary@sanmanuel-
nsn.gov
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
(909) 528-9032 [email protected]
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
(253) 370-0167 [email protected]
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Los Angeles County
7/7/2023
07/07/2023 02:11 PM
3 of 6
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Los Angeles County
7/7/2023
any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the P Resources Code.

e American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Maverik Fueling Station Project, Los A 07/07/2023 02:11 PM
4 of 6
Cultural Affiliation Last Updated
Tataviam 5/25/2023
Cahuilla
Serrano
Cahuilla
Serrano
Quechan 5/16/2023
Quechan 5/16/2023
Quechan 5/16/2023
Kitanemuk
Vanyume
Tataviam
5/8/2023
Serrano 3/27/2023
Serrano
Serrano 4/29/2019
Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino
Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Kern,Los Angeles,San Bernardino,Ventura
Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino

Counties
Kern,Los Angeles,Ventura
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
07/07/2023 02:11 PM
5 of 6

ublic Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public

Angeles County.

Record: PROJ-2023-003410
Report Type: AB52 GIS
Counties: Los Angeles
NAHC Group: All
07/07/2023 02:11 PM
6 of 6

June 8, 2023

California Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, California 95691
Via email: [email protected]

Re: Sacred Land s File Search Request for the Maverik F ueling Station Project, Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California

To whom it may concern,

ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) is conducting a cultural resource s study for the Maverik Fueling Station Project, located on the north si de of Avenue S just west of Highway 14, Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California. The proposed Project is located on the USGS Ritter Ridge, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (see attached). This study is being undertaken in compliance with CEQA.

A records search has been ordered from the South Central Coastal Information Center. I am writing to request a search of your Sacre d Lands File and to inquire if you have regi stered any cultural resources, traditional cultural propertie s, or areas of heritage sensitivity within this proposed proj ect area. Please send the results of this search to me at our Pasadena office, listed below, and feel free to call, write, fax (626) 793-2008, or e-mail ([email protected] ) if you have any questions.

We appreciate any information you can provide on this project.

Sincerely,

Sherri Andrews, M.A., J.D., RPA
ASM Affiliates, Inc.

Senior Archaeologist

Attachments:

Figure 1. Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale Project area shown on the USGS Ritter Ridge , California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

June 8, 2023
NAHC

Figure 1. Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale shown on the USGS Ritter Ridge, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

July 7, 2023

Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
Sarah Brunzell, CRM Manager
1019 Second Street
San Fernando, California 91340
Via email: [email protected]

Re: Maverik Fueling Station, Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California

Dear Ms. Brunzell,

ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) is conducting a cultural resources study for the Maverik Fueling Station Project, Palmdale, Los Angeles County , California. The proposed Project site is a currently vacant lot located north of West Avenue S and its intersection with West Avenue S -4 in a largely undeveloped area just west of State Route 14. The Project area is illustrated on the Ritter Ridge, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (see attached). This study is being undertaken in compliance with CEQA.

A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File has been undertaken with negative results. The NAHC response also included a list of contacts who may have interest in or information about the Project area , u pon which you appear. As a result, we would appreciate any information you may wish to share regarding Native American cultural resources l ocated in or near the proposed P roject location or concerns you may have regarding the proposed Project . This query is for informational purposes only. Any information concerning the location, identity, character , and traditional use of cultural places identified will be considered strictly confidential.

You may contact me at sandrews@ asmaffiliates.com, (626) 793 -7395, or the Pasadena office address provided below. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,

Sherri Andrews, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist

July 7, 2023
Sarah Brunzell, CRM Manager

Map of the Maverik Fueling Station Project area shown on the USGS Ritter Ridge, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

From: Jill McCormick
To: Sherri Andrews
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]:Palmdale Maverik Fueling Station Project, Los Angeles County Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:46:01 AM
Attachments: image001.png
This email is to inform you that we do not wish to comment on this project. We defer to the more local Tribes and support their determinations on this matter.

H. Jill McCormick M.A.

Ft. Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ 85366-1899
Office: 760-572-2423
Cell: 928-261-0254

From: Sherri Andrews <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:40 AM
To: Jill McCormick <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL]:Palmdale Maverik Fueling Station Project, Los Angeles County

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. McCormick --

Attached please find our letter requesting your comments, if any, on Palmdale Maverik Fueling Station Project, Los Angeles County, California. Thank you for taking time to review this letter and letting us know if there are any issues or concerns.

Best regards,
Sherri

Photograph
Sherri Andrews M.A., J.D., RPA | Senior Archaeologist
20 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 220 Pasadena, CA | O: (626) 793-7395 | M:
[email protected] | https://asmaffiliates.com
JxAEPQD6bacwVEfmxvm4W6R

Appendix D
Geotechnical Engineering Study

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY

Proposed Maverik Store

Highway 14 and Avenue S
Palmdale, California

CMT PROJECT NO. 18988

FOR:

Cardno, Inc.
1142 West 2320 South, Suite A
West Valley City, Utah 84119

September 13, 2022
ENGINEERING •GEOTECHNICAL •ENVIRONMENTAL (ESA I & II) • MATERIALS TESTING •SPECIAL INSPECTIONS •
ORGANIC CHEMISTRY • PAVEMENT
DESIGN •GEOLOGY

ENGINEERING • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL (ESA I & II) • MATERIALS TESTING • SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ORGANIC CHEMISTRY • PAVEMENT DESIGN • GEOLOGY
www.cmttechnicalservices.com
3/31/23
September 13, 2022

Mr. Russ Hamblin
Cardno, Inc.
1142 West 2320 South, Suite A
West Valley City, Utah 84119

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Maverik Store
Highway 14 and Avenue S
Palmdale, California
CMT Project Number: 18988

Mr. Hamblin:

Submitted herewith is the report of our geotechnical engineering study for the subject site. This report contains the results of our findings and an engineering interpretation of the results with respect to the available project characteristics. It also contains recommendations to aid in the design and construction of the earth-related phases of this project.

On August 26, 2022, Cardno personnel were onsite and supervised the drilling of 6 bore holes at the site extending to depths between about 6.5 and 50.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were obtained in the bore holes during the field operations and subsequently transported to our laboratory for further testing and observation.

Natural subsurface soils consisted of SILT (ML) and SA ND (SM). Groundwater was not encountered in the explorations.

Based upon the results of our study the proposed structures may be supported on conventional strip and spread footings founded on suitable, undisturbed, natural sand soils, or on s tructural fill placed on suitable, undisturbed natural so ils. A detailed discussion of design and construction criteria is presented in this report.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you at this stage of the project. CMT offers a full range of Geotechnical Engineering, Geological, Material Testing, Special Inspection services, and Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments.

With offices throughout Utah, Idaho, and Arizona, our staff is capable of efficiently serving your project needs. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us at 801 -492- 4132.

Sincerely,

CMT Technical Services Reviewed By:

Jeffrey J. Egbert, P.E., LEED A.P., M. ASCE William G. Turner, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objectives, Scope and Authorization ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Description of Proposed Construction ............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Infiltration Testing ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................................................. 4

4.0 GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 Geologic Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4

4.2 Faulting ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

4.3 Seismicity ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.3.1 Site Class ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.3.2 Ground Motions ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6

4.3.3 Liquefaction .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

4.4 Other Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Surface Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.2 Subsurface Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.4 Site Subsurface Variations ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

6.0 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ............................................................................................................................... 8

6.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

6.2 Temporary Excavations .................................................................................................................................................................... 8

6.3 Fill Material ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

6.4 Fill Placement and Compaction........................................................................................................................................................ 9

6.5 Utility Trenches .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

6.6 Stabilization .................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 11

7.1 Foundation Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................... 11

7.2 Installation ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

7.3 Estimated Settlement .................................................................................................................................................................... 12

7.4 Lateral Resistance .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12

7.5 Uplift Loads .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

8.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ....................................................................................................................................... 12

9.0 BOUYANT FORCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

10.0 FLOOR SLABS ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

11.0 DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 14

12.0 PAVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 14

13.0 QUALITY CONTROL ................................................................................................................................................... 15

13.1 Field Observations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15

13.2 Fill Compaction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 15

13.3 Excavations .................................................................................................................................................................................. 16

14.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 16

APPENDIX
Figure 1: Site Plan
Figures 2 through 7: Bore Hole Logs
Figure 8: Key to Symbols
Figures 9 through 11: DCP Test Results
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 1
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
CMT Project No. 18988

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

CMT Technical Services (CMT) was retained to conduct a geotechnical subsurface study for a proposed Maverik Store. The site for the proposed development is situated at the north side of Avenue S, just west of Highway 14 in Palmdale, California as shown on the Vicinity Map below.

VICINITY MAP

1.2 Objectives, Scope and Authorization

The objectives and scope of our study were planned in communications between Mr. Russ Hamblin of Cardno, Inc., and Mr. Jeffrey Egbert of CMT. In general, the objectives of this study were to define and evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site , and p rovide appropriate foundation, earthwork, pavement and seismic recommendations to be utilized in the design and construction of the propos ed development.

In accomplishing these objectives, subsurface explorations consisting of the drilling/logging/sampling of 6 bore holes, performing an infiltration test in one of the bore holes, and driving a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) at three locations on the site, were performed by Cardno personnel. Our scope of work included performing laboratory testing on samples of the subsurface soils collected in the bore hole s as delivered to us , and

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 2
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

conducting an office program which included correlating available data, performing engineering analyses, and preparing this summary report.

1.3 Description of Proposed Construction

We understand that construction of a new Maverik convenience store and fuel station with accompanying fuel islands and canopies, and underground fuel storage tanks is planned for the site. We project that wall loads for the store building will not exceed 4,000 pounds per linear foot. Floor slab loads are anticipated to be relatively light, with an average uniform loading not exceeding 150 pounds per square foot.

The fuel island canopies will be supported by steel frames and columns extending to the foundation system. It is projected that the maximum canopy downward column loads will be on the order of 60 ,000 pounds. In addition, uplift and lateral loads will be imposed upon these foundations. If the structural loading conditions are different than we have projected, please notify us so that any appropriate modifications to our conclusions and recommendations contained herein can be made.

We also understand the parking/drive paved areas will be constructed utilizing both asphalt and concrete pavement. Concrete pavement will likely be installed in front of the proposed store structure, as well as in the canopy fuel islands and over the underground storage tank area. In other areas, asphalt concrete sections will likely be used. Traffic is projected to consist of mostly automobiles and light trucks, a few daily medium-weight delivery trucks, a weekly garbage truck, and an occasional fire truck. The site plan indicates 76 hi-flow lanes for which data provided by Maverik indicates up to 200 semi-trucks per day.

1.4 Executive Summary

The most significant geotechnical aspects regarding site development include the following:

1. Moderate vegetation, including large shrubs and small trees, and topsoil to be removed.

2. Subsurface natural soils generally consisted of near surface SILT (ML) layers, followed by SAND (SM).

3. Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum depth explored of about 50 feet.

4. The site is mapped within a liquefaction zone by the State of California, but the potential for liquefaction to occur in the subsurface soils encountered is very low.

5. An earthquake fault is mapped very near the northeast corner of the site and a fault hazard study may be required.

5. Foundations may be constructed on scarified, re -compacted s uitable, natural soils, or on structural/engineered fill which extends to scarified, re-compacted natural soils.

A qualified geotechnical engineer must assess that undocumented fill (if encountered), topsoil, debris, disturbed or unsuitable soils have been removed and that suitable soils have been encountered prior to placing structural/site grading fills, footings, slabs, and pavements.

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 3
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

In the following sections, detailed discussions pertaining to the site , subsurface descriptions, and the geologic/seismic setting are provided, along with recommendations for earthwork, foundations, lateral resistance, lateral pressure, floor slabs, and pavements.

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.1 General

In order to define and evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, 6 bore holes were drilled at the site to depths of approximately 6.5 to 50.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Locations of the bore holes are presented on Figure 1 in the Appendix.

Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were obtained by driving a split-spoon sampler with 2.05- inch outside diameter rings/liners into the undisturbed soils below the drill augers. Disturbed samples were collected utilizing a standard split spoon sampler. The split spoon sampler was driven 18 inches into the soils below the drill augers using a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows needed for each 6 -inch interval was recorded. The sum of t he hammer blows for the final 12 inches of penetration is known as a standard penetration test (SPT) and this ‘blow count’ was recorded on the bore hole logs. Where more than 50 blows occurred before the 6-inch interval was achieved, the sampling was terminated and the number of blows and inches penetrated by the sampler were recorded. The blow count provides a reasonable approximation of the relative density of granular soils, but only a limited indication of the relative consistency of fine-grained soils because the consistency of these soils is significantly influenced by the moisture content.

The subsurface soil samples retrieved in the bore holes were classified in the field based upon visual and textural examination in general accordance with ASTM
1 D-2488. These field classifications were supplemented by subsequent examination and testing of select samples in our laboratory. G raphic log s of the bore hole s, including a description of the soil strata encountered, are presented on the Bore Hole Logs, Figures 2 through 7, included in the Appendix. Sampling information and other pertinent data and observations are also included on the logs. In addition, a Key to Symbols defining the terms and symbols used on the logs is provided as Figure 8 in the Appendix.

2.2 Infiltration Testing

Infiltration testing was also performed in bore hole B -1 within the natural silt soils. The testing consisted of drilling to 5 feet below the surface, sampling, removing the sampler, filling the auger with water and measuring the rate of water drop over approximately 1 hour increments . The final measured rate was approximately 17 minutes per inch. This rate will likely slow over time and an appropriate factor of safety should be applied for design.

1American Society for Testing and Materials
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 4
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected samples of the subsurface soils were subjected to various laboratory tests to assess pertinent engineering properties, as follows:

1. Moisture Content, ASTM D-2216, Percent moisture representative of field conditions

2. Dry Density, ASTM D-2937, Dry unit weight representing field conditions

3. Atterberg Limits, ASTM D-4318, Plasticity and workability

4. Gradation Analysis, ASTM D-1140/C-117, Grain Size Analysis

Laboratory test results are presented on the bore hole logs (Figures 2 through 7) and in the following Lab Summary Table:

LAB SUMMARY TABLE

BORE DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
HOLE (feet) TYPE CLASS CONTENT(%) (pcf) GRAV. SAND FINES LL PL PI B-1 2.5 SPT ML 5 69
B-2 5 SPT CL-ML 4 65 22 15 7
B-3 7.5 SPT ML 2 53
B-4 10 SPT ML 1 1 48 51 NP
B-5 5 SPT ML 3 2 34 64
B-6 5 SPT ML 3 2 34 64
B-6 10 SPT ML 4 0 31 69
B-6 20 SPT SM 7 87 6 55 39
B-6 30 SPT SM 7 3 61 36
B-6 40 SPT ML 11 1 40 59
B-6 50 SPT ML 11 3 47 50

GRADATION ATTERBERG LIMITS

4.0 GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC CONDITIONS

4.1 Geologic Setting

The subject site is located in the south -central portion of the Antelope Valley at the western tip of the Mojave Desert Geomorphic Province in southern California. The site sits at an elevation of approximately 2,660 feet above sea level. The Antelope Valley is a large, flat valley spanning approximately 2,200 square miles. It is located southeast of the Tehachapi Mountains and Garlock Fault, east of the Sierra Pelona Mountains, and north of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Andreas Fault, forming a large topographic and groundwater basin collecting water runoff from the surrounding mountains. Human use such as long-term groundwater pumping has lowered the water table, resulting in land subsidence and drop in elevation of the basin over time.

During the history of the Antelope Valley region, a large intermittent lake formed near the center of the basin and deposited various types of fine -grained sediment based on precipitation. Significant precipitation sourced massive beds of blue clay formed in a deep perennial lake, while mild precipitation deposited thin beds of clay Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 5
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

and evaporate salt deposits formed in playas or shallow intermittent lakes. The clay yields little to no water to wells, but the interbedded, coarser material can yield considerable volumes of water. Soils within the area are derived from loess and alluvial material sourced from granitic rock and others originating along the slopes of the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountains that were shed into the valley.

The geology of CGS Ritter Ridge 7.5’ quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, which includes the location of the subject site, has been m apped by Hernandez

2. The surficial geology of the subject site and adjacent properties is mapped as “Modern alluvium” (map unit Qa) dated to be Holocene. Unit Qa is described in the referenced mapping as “Unconsolidated to weakly consolidated, mostly und issected, fluvial gravel, sand, and silt. Loose, yellowish-grey sand, silt, and pebble -cobble gravel. Consists predominantly of moderately sorted coarse-grained to very coarse-grained arkosic sand.” No fill has been recorded at the location of the site on the geologic map. Refer to the Geologic Map, below.

GEOLOGIC MAP

4.2 Faulting

The nearest mapped fault is the San Andreas Fault very near the northeast corner of the site. According to California Geological Survey mapping3 the site lies within an earthquake fault zone. A special earthquake hazard study may be required.

2Hernandez, J.L., 2009, Preliminary geologic map of the Ritter Ridge 7.5' quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California: A digita l database, California Geological Survey, series unknown, 1:24,000. 3 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
SITE
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 6
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

4.3 Seismicity

4.3.1 Site Class

We understand that the State of California Building Code (SCBC) 2019 was adopted on January 1, 2020, which we anticipate wi ll be the code for design of the structures at this site. SCBC 2019 refers to Chapter 20, Site Classification Procedure for Seismic Design, of ASCE
4 7-16, which stipulates that the average values of shear wave velocity, blow count and/or shear strength within the upper 100 feet (30 meters) be utilized to determine seismic site class. Based on the SPT blow counts obtained in bore hole B -1, which extended approximately 5 0 feet below the surface, and projecting that subsurface soils to 100 feet will be sim ilar, it is our opinion the site best fits Site Class D – Stiff Soil (with data), which we recommend for seismic structural design.

4.3.2 Ground Motions

The seismic mapping utilized by the California Building Code provides values of peak ground, short period and long period spectral accelerations for the Site Class B/C boundary and the Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE
R). This Site Class B/ C boundary represents average bedrock values for the Western United States and must be corrected for local soil conditions. The following table summarizes the peak ground, short period and long period accelerations for the MCE
R event, and incorporates appropriate soil correction factors for a Site Class D (with data) soil profile at site grid coordinates of 34.6596 degrees north latitude and -118.1573 degrees west longitude:

Peak Ground Accel erati on PGA = 1.075 Fpga = 1.100 PGAM = 1.183 1.000 PGAM = 1.183 SS = 2.503 Fa = 1.000 SMS = 2.503 0.667 SDS = 1.669 Fa = (N/A) SMS = (N/A) 0.667 SDS = (N/A)
S1 = 1.068 Fv = N/A SM1 = N/A 0.667 SD1 = N/A
Fv = (1.700) SM1 = (1.816) 0.667 SD1 = (1.210)
NOTES: 1. TL (seconds): 8 * Site Class D With Data

2. Site Class: D 4. ASCE 7-16 Requires Site-Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis (Since S1≥0.2

3. Have data to verify? yes sec) - OR Can Use Exception 2 (per §11.4.8)

DESIGN VALUES
(g)

0.2 Seconds (Long Period
Accel erati on)

1.0 Second (Long Period
Accel erati on)
(no exceptions needed)
(Exception 2:)

SPECTRAL ACCELERATION

PERIOD, T

SITE CLASS B/C BOUNDARY
[mapped values] (g)
SITE

COEFFICIENT
SITE CLASS D* [adjusted
for site class effects] (g)
MULTI-
PLIER

As indicated in the above table, S
1 is greater than 0.2 seconds and a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis (GMHA) is required for the site, unless the Exception 2 values shown are used for seismic design. If a site-specific GMHA is desired instead of using the higher exception values, please contact CMT for a proposal to perform the GMHA.

4 American Society of Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 7
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

4.3.3 Liquefaction

Liquefaction is defined as the condition when saturated, loose, sandy soils lose their support capabilities because of excessive pore water pressure which develops during a seismic event. Clayey soils, even if saturated, will generally not liquefy during a major seismic event.

The previously referenced California Geological Survey mapping indicates the site is within a liquefaction zone.

Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth explored of approximately 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Given these conditions, liquefaction will not occur at the site in the soils encountered.

4.4 Other Geologic Hazards

The site is not located within a known or mapped potential debris flow, stream flooding 5, or rock fall hazard area. No landslide deposits or features, including lateral spread deposits, are mapped on or adjacent to the site.

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Surface Conditions

At the time the bore holes were drilled, the site was vacant land moderately vegetated with weeds, brush, and some cactus. Site grades sloped downward to the sou th. Based on aerial photos dating back to 1995 that are readily available on the internet, the site appears to have been vacant since that time. The site is bordered on the north, east, and west by similar vacant land, and on the south by Avenue S (see Vicinity Map in Section 1.1 above).

5.2 Subsurface Soils

Topsoil approximately 12 inches in thickness was noted on the surface at the bore hole locations. Subsurface natural soils encountered predominately consisted of near surface layers of red-yellow, slightly moist Sandy SILT (ML), and occasionally Sandy SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), extending to the bottom of bore holes B -1 through B-5, and to about 15 feet below the surface in B -6. Based upon the SPT blow counts these soils have stiff to hard consistency. Below the silt in B -6 a layer of brown, slightly moist Silty SAND ( SM), with varying amounts of gravel, was encountered which extended to about 40 feet below the surface. Blow counts indicate the sand is very dense. At about 40 feet the soils turned predominately silty again and were hard based on the blow counts, extending to the bottom of B-6 at about 50 feet below the surface.

For a more descriptive interpretation of subsurface conditions, please refer to the bore hole logs, Figures 2 through 7, which graphically represent the subsurface conditions encountered. The lines designating the

5 Federal Emergency Management Agency:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Highway%2014%20%26%20Avenue%20S%2C%20Palmdale%2C%20California%2 0#searchresultsanchor
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 8
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

interface between soil types on the log generally represent app roximate boundaries ; in situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual.

5.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum depth explored of 50 feet below the existing surface.

We do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during construction at this site.

Groundwater levels can fluctuate seasonally and in response to numerous factors such as heavy precipitation, irrigation of neighboring land, and other unforeseen factor. The detailed evaluation of these and other factors, which may be responsible for ground water fluctuations, and the magnitude of potential fluctuations, is beyond the scope of this study.

5.4 Site Subsurface Variations

Based on the results of the subsurface explorations and our experience, variations in the continuity and nature of subsurface conditions should be anticipated. Due to the heterogeneous characteristics of natural soils, care should be taken in interpolating or extrapolating subsurface conditions between or beyond the exploratory locations.

6.0 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING

6.1 General

All deleterious materials should be stripped from the site prior to commencement of construction activities.

This includes vegetation, topsoil, loose and disturbed soils, etc. Topsoil approximately 12 inches in thickness was noted on the surface at the bore hole locations. When stripping and grubbing, topsoil should be distinguished by the apparent organic content and not solely by color; thus , we estimate that topsoil stripping will need to include at least the upper 6 inches, but roots may locally extend deeper.

Fill placed over large areas to raise overall site grades can induce settlements in the underlying natural soils. If more than 3 feet of site grading fill is anticipated over the existing ground surface, we should be notified to assess potential settlements and provide additional recommendations as needed. These recommendations may include placement of the site grading fill far in advance to allow potential settlements to occur prior to construction.

6.2 Temporary Excavations

Excavations up to 16 feet deep for underground fuel storage tanks are anticipated at the site. Based upon bore hole B-6 it appears that excavations at the proposed tank pit location will encounter mostly silt.

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 9
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

For silty/sandy (cohesionless) soils, temporary construction excavations not exceeding 4 feet in depth should be no steeper than one -half horizontal to one vertica l (0.5H:1V). For excavations up to 16 feet and above groundwater, side slopes should be no steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical (1.5H:1V) unless shored or braced. Excavations encountering saturated cohesionless soils , though not antic ipated, will be very difficult to maintain, and will require very flat side slopes and/or shoring, bracing and dewatering.

All excavations must be inspected periodically by qualified personnel. If any signs of instability or excessive sloughing are noted, immediate remedial action must be initiated. All excavations should be made following OSHA safety guidelines.

6.3 Fill Material

The following table contains our recommendations for the various fill types we anticipate will be used at this site:

FILL MATERIAL TYPE DESCRIPTION | RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATION Structural Fill
Placed immediately below structures, flatwork and pavement. Well-graded sand/gravel mixture, with maximum particle size of 4 inches, a minimum 70% passing 3/4-inch sieve, a maximum 20% passing the No. 200 sieve, and a maximum Plasticity Index of 10.

Import Site Grading
Fill
Placed over larger areas to raise the site grade to within 18 inches of bottom of footing, and to pavement subgrade level . Sandy to gravelly soil, with a maximum particle size of 6 inches, a minimum 70% passing 3/4 -inch sieve, a maximum 50% passing No. 200 sieve and a maximum Plasticity Index of 15.

Non-Structural Fill
Placed below non -structural areas, such as landscaping. On -site soils or imported soils, with a maximum particle size of 8 inches, including silt/clay soils not containing excessive amounts of degradable/organic material (see discussion below).

Stabilization Fill
Placed to stabilize soft areas prior to placing structural fill and/or site grading fill. Coarse angular gravels and cobbles 1 inch to 8 inches in size. May also use 1.5 - to 2.0-inch gravel placed on stabilization fabric, such as Mirafi RS280i or equivalent (see Section 6.6).

The natural soils at this site may be utilized as site grading fill. All on -site soils could be used as non-structural fill. Existing soils will likely be more difficult to work with depending on the fines content and plasticity . If utilized, these soils should be compacted to the requirements given below.

All fill material should be approved by a geotechnical engineer prior to placement.

6.4 Fill Placement and Compaction

The various types of compaction equipment available have their limitations as to the maximum lift thickness that can be compacted. For example, hand operated equipment is limited to lifts of about 4 inches and most “trench compactors” have a maximum, consistent compaction depth of about 6 inches. Large rollers, depending on soil and moisture conditions, can achieve compaction at 8 to 12 inches. The full thickness of each lift should Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 10
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

be compacted to at least the following percentages of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 (or AASHTO6 T-99) in accordance with the following recommendations:

LOCATION

TOTAL FILL

THICKNESS
(FEET)

MINIMUM PERCENTAGE

OF MAXIMUM DRY

DENSITY
Beneath an area extending at least 4 feet beyond the perimeter of structures, and below flatwork and pavement (applies to structural fill and site grading fill) extending at least 2 feet beyond the perimeter 0 to 5
5 to 8
95 98
Site grading fill outside area defined above 0 to 5
5 to 8
90 95
Utility trenches within structural areas -- 95
Roadbase and subbase - 95
Non-structural fill 0 to 5
5 to 8
85 90

Structural fills greater than 8 feet thick are not anticipated at the site. F or best compaction results , w e recommend that the moisture content for structural fill/backfill be within 2 % of optimum. Field density tests should be performed on each lift as necessary to verify that proper compaction is being achieved.

6.5 Utility Trenches

For the bedding zone around the utility, we recommend utilizing sand bedding fill material that meets current local or APWA
7 requirements.

All utility trench backfill material below structurally loaded facilities (foundations, floor slabs, flatwork, parking lots/drive areas, etc.) sh ould be placed at the same density requirements established for structural fill in the previous section.

Most utility companies and local governments are requiring Type A -1a or A -1b (AASHTO Designation) soils (sand/gravel soils with limited fines) be used as backfill over utilities within public rights of way, and the backfill be compacted over the full depth above the bedding zone to at least 9 5% of the maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO T-99 (ASTM D-698).

Where the utility does not underlie structurally loaded facilities and public rights of way, natural soils may be utilized as trench backfill above the bedding layer, provided they are properly moisture conditioned and compacted to the minimum requirements stated above in Section 6.4.

6 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 7 American Public Works Association
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 11
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

6.6 Stabilization

To stabilize soft subgrade conditions a mixture of coarse, clean, angular gravels and cobbles and/or 1.5- to 2.0- inch clean gravel should be utilized. Often the amount of gravelly material can be reduced with the use of a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi RS280i, or equivalent. Its use will also help avoid mixing of the subgrade soils with the gravelly material. After excavating the soft/disturbed soils, the fabric should be spread across the bottom of the excavation and up the sides a minimum of 18 inches. Otherwise, it should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation, including proper overlaps. The gravel material can then be placed over the fabric in compacted lifts as described above.

7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics, the subsurface conditions observed in the field and the laboratory test data, as well as common geotechnical engineering practice.

7.1 Foundation Recommendations

Based on our geotechnical engineering analyses, the proposed structures may be supported upon conventional spread and/or continuous wall foundations placed on suitable, scarified and re-compacted natural soils, or on structural fill placed on suitable, scarified, re-compacted natural soils. Footings may be designed using a net bearing pressure of 2,000 psf if bearing on scarified and re-compacted natural soils, and 2,500 psf if bearing on a minimum of 18 inches of structural fill placed upon scarified, re-compacted natural soils. The term “net bearing pressure” refers to the pressure imposed by the portion of the structure located above lowest adjacent final grade, thus the weight of the footing and backfill to lowest adjacent final grade need not be considered. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for temporary loads such as wind and seismic forces.

We also recommend the following:

1. Exterior footings subject to frost should be placed at least 18 inches below final grade, or per city standards if deeper.

2. Interior footings not subject to frost should be placed at least 12 inches below grade.

3. Continuous footing widths should be maintained at a minimum of 18 inches.

4. Spot footings should be a minimum of 24 inches wide.

7.2 Installation

Under no circumstances shall foundations be placed on undocumented fill, topsoil with organics, sod, rubbish, construction debris, other deleterious materials, frozen soils, or within ponded water. If unsuitable soils are encountered, they must be completely removed and replaced with properly compacted structural fill. The base of footing excavations and floor slab sub grades should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer to confirm that suitable bearing soils have been exposed.

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 12
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

The base of footing excavations should be scarified a minimum of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as needed, and re-compacted to the requirements for structural fill given in Section 6.4 prior to forming for footings or placement of structural fill.

All structural fill should meet the requirements for such, and should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 6 above. The width of structural repla cement fill below footings should be equal to the width of the footing plus 1 foot for each foot of fill thickness. For instance, if the footing width is 2 feet and the structural fill depth beneath the footing is 4 feet, the fill replacement width should be 6 feet, centered beneath the footing.

The minimum thickness of structural fill below footings should be equivalent to one -third the thickness of structural fill below any other portion of the foundations. For example, if the maximum depth of structural fill is 6 feet, all footings for the new structure should be underlain by a minimum 2 feet of structural fill.

7.3 Estimated Settlement

Foundations designed and constructed in accordance with our recommendations could experience some settlement, but we anticipate that total settlements of footings founded as recommended above will not exceed 1 inch, with differential settlements on the order of 0.5 inches over a distance of 25 feet. We expect approximately 50% of the total settlement to initially take place during construction.

7.4 Lateral Resistance

Lateral loads imposed upon foundations due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by the development of passive earth pressures and friction between the base of the footings and the supporting soils. In determining frictional resistance, a coefficient of 0.30 for natural soils and 0.40 for s tructural fill may be utilized for design.

Passive resistance provided by properly placed and compacted natural soils above the water table may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 350 pcf. A combination of passive earth resistance and friction may be utilized if the passive pressure component of the total is divided by 1.5.

7.5 Uplift Loads

Uplift load s may be resisted by the weight of the foundation and the backfill wedge above the top of the foundation within the area defined by an imaginary line extending outward from the outside top edge of the footing 10 degrees from vertical, up to final grade. A unit weight of 120 pounds per square foot can be used for sand and gravel backfill over the footings.

8.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

We anticipate that below-grade walls up to 4 feet high may be constructed at this site. The lateral earth pressure values given in the table below are for a backfill material that will consist of drained sand soils (less than 10% passing No. 200 sieve) placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented herein. If Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 13
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

other soil types will be used as backfill, we should be notified so that appropriate modifications to these values can be provided, as needed.

The lateral pressures imposed upon subgrade facilities will depend upon the relative rigid ity and movement of the backfilled structure. In the table on the following page are the recommended lateral pressure values, which also assume that the soil surface behind the wall is horizontal and that the backfill within 3 feet of the wall will be compacted with hand-operated compacting equipment.

CONDITION STATIC (psf/ft)* SEISMIC (psf)**
Active Pressure (wall is allowed to yield, i.e. move away from the soil, with a minimum 0.001H movement/rotation at the top of the wall, where “H” is the total height of the wall)
40 106
At-Rest Pressure (wall is not allowed to yield) 60 283
Passive Pressure (wall moves into the soil) 350 0
*Equivalent Fluid Pressure (applied at 1/3 Height of 4-foot High Wall) **Uniform Pressure, Seismic Only (applied at 1/2 Height of 4-foot High Wall)

9.0 BOUYANT FORCES

Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth explored of 5 0 feet. Based upon this condition we anticipate that underground tanks will not need to be designed to resist buoyant forces.

10.0 FLOOR SLABS

Floor slabs may be established upon suitable, natural scarified and re -compacted soils and/or on structural fill extending to suitable , natural scarified and re -compacted soils (same as for foundations). Under no circumstances shall floor slabs be established directly on any topsoil, undocumented fills, loose or disturbed soils, sod, rubbish, construction debris, other deleterious materials, frozen soils, or within ponded water.

In order to facilitate curing of the concrete, we recommend that floor slabs be directly underlain by at least 4 inches of “free-draining” fill, such as “pea” gravel or 3/4-inch quarters to 1-inch minus, clean, gap-graded gravel.

To help control normal shrinkage and stress cracking, the floor slabs should have the following features:

1. Adequate reinforcement for the anticipated floor loads with the reinforcement continuous through interior floor joints;

2. Frequent crack control joints; and

3. Non-rigid attachment of the slabs to foundation walls and bearing slabs.

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 14
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

11.0 DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS

It is important to the long-term performance of foundations and floor slabs that water not be allowed to collect near the foundation walls and infiltrate into the underlying soils. We recommend the following:

1. All areas around the structure s should be sloped to provide drainage away from the foundations. We recommend a minimum slope of 4 inches in the first 10 feet away from the structure. This slope should be maintained throughout the lifetime of the structure.

2. All roof drainage should be collected in rain gutters with downspouts designed to discharge at least 10 feet from the foundation walls or well beyond the backfill limits, whichever is greater.

3. Adequate compaction of the foundation backfill should be provided. We suggest a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D-698. Water consolidation methods should not be used under any circumstances.

4. Landscape sprinklers should be a imed away from foundation walls. The sprinkling systems should be designed with proper drainage and be well-maintained. Over watering should be avoided.

5. Other precautions that may become evident during construction.

12.0 PAVEMENTS

All pavement areas must be prepared as discussed above in Section 6.1. Under no circumst ances shall pavements be established over topsoil, un-prepared existing undocumented fill soils, loose or disturbed soils, sod, rubbish, construction debris, other deleterious materials, frozen soils, or within ponded water.

To assess subgrade strength for pavement support Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were performed at three locations within proposed pavement areas. Test results were varied, with correlated average California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value s ranging from 4.3 to 9.1 (see Figures 11 through 13). We have utilized a correlated CBR value of 5 as the basis for the pavement design.

Given the projected traffic as discussed above in Section 1.3, the follo wing pavement sections are recommended for the estimated ESAL’s:

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 15
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

MATERIAL
PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS (inches)

PARKING AREAS
(Moderate Duty)
(4 ESAL'S per day)

HI-FLOW AREAS
(Heavy Duty)
(521 ESAL'S per day)
Asphalt 4* --- 6* 6* 6* 6* ---
Concrete --- 4 --- --- --- --- 6
Road-Base 8* 6 22 10 12† 15‡ 6
Subbase 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
Total Thickness 12 10 28 31 18 21 12
*Maverik Minimum
†Cement Treated
‡Over Tensar TX-7 Geogrid

Untreated base course (UTBC) should conform to city or DOT specifications. Material meeting our specification for structural fill can be used for subbase, as long as the fines content (percent passing No. 200 sieve) does not exceed 15%. Roadbase and subbase material should be compacted as recommended above in Section 6.4.

Asphalt material generally should conform to DOT or APWA requirements.

Concrete pavement should be designed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and joint details should conform to the Portland Cement Association (PCA) guidelines. The concrete should have a minimum 28-day unconfined compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch.

13.0 QUALITY CONTROL

We recommend that a comprehensive quality control testing and observation program be established during construction to help facilitate implementation of our recommendations and address, in a timely manner, any subsurface conditions encountered which vary from those described in this report. Without such a program CMT cannot be respon sible for application of our recommendations to subsurface conditions which may vary from those described herein. This program may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

13.1 Field Observations

Observations should be completed during all phases of construction such as site preparation, foundation excavation, structural fill placement and concrete placement.

13.2 Fill Compaction

Compaction testing is required for all structural supporting fill materials. Maximum Dry Density ( Standard Proctor, ASTM D-698) tests should be requested by the contractor immediately after delivery of any fill materials. The maximum density information should then be used for field density tests on each lift as necessary to ensure that the required compaction is being achieved.

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 16
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

13.3 Excavations

All excavation procedures and processes should be observed by a geotechnical engineer. In addition, for the recommendations in this report to be valid, all backfill and structural fill placed in trenches and all pave ments should be density tested. We recommend that freshly mixed concrete be tested in accordance with ASTM designations.

14.0 LIMITATIONS

The recommendations provided herein were developed by evaluating the information obtained from the subsurface explorations and soils encountered therein. The exploration logs reflect the subsurface conditions only at the specific location at the particular time designated on the logs. Soil and ground water conditions may differ from conditions encountered at the actual exploration locations. The nature and extent of any variation in the explorations may not become evident until during the course of construction. If variations do appear, it may become necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report after we have observed the variation.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us at 801-492-4132.

SUPPORTING

DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX
Date:

Job #
Maverik Store
Figure:
1Hwy 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Site Map
26-Aug-22
18988
N
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
DCP-1
DCP-2
DCP-3
Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), red-yellow, slightly moist
stiff 4
1 5 11 5 69
6 stiff to very stiff 24
2 12 30
18 END AT 6.5'
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Job #:

Maverik Store
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA
Figure:

Bore Hole Log
Total Depth:

Water Depth:

6.5'
(see Remarks)
Blows (N)
18988
Gradation
Soil Description
Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given
Tom Gordon
Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30"
2 B-1
Atterberg
1 of 1
Hollow-Stem Auger
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Geoboden
Date:

Coordinates: 34.55813°, -118.13542°
8/26/22
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), red-yellow, slightly moist
stiff 5
3 6 13
7 Sandy Silty CLAY (CL-ML), red-yellow, slightly moist hard 15 4 16 34 4 65 22 15 7
18 END AT 6.5'
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Tom Gordon
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 6.5'
Water Depth: (see Remarks)
Geoboden
Hollow-Stem Auger
Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given
Soil Description
Figure:Coordinates: 34.55915°, -118.13467°
1 of 1 3
Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30"
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Job #: 18988
Date: 8/26/22
B-2Maverik Store Bore Hole Log
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), red-yellow, slightly moist
very stiff 8
5 8 20
12 hard 6 60/6"
7 60/6" 2 53
8 60/6"
END AT 10.5'
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Tom Gordon
1 of 1
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Figure:Coordinates: 34.55874°, -118.13538° Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30" 4 Geoboden
Soil Description
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Water Depth: (see Remarks) Job #: 18988
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 10.5' Date: 8/26/22 Maverik Store Bore Hole Log B-3
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), trace gravel, red-yellow, slightly moist very stiff 6
9 4 19
15 24
10 10 26
16 hard 11 60/6"
12 60/6" 1 1 48 51 NP NP
END AT 10.5'
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Tom Gordon
1 of 1
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Figure:Coordinates: 34.53869°, -118.13525° Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30" 5 Geoboden
Soil Description
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Water Depth: (see Remarks) Job #: 18988
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 10.5' Date: 8/26/22 Maverik Store Bore Hole Log B-4
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), trace gravel, red-yellow, slightly moist very stiff 2
13 8 20
12 stiff 3
14 6 12 3 2 34 64
6 4
15 6 13
7 hard 12
16 16 32 3 57
16 grades with gravel, brown, moist 17 60/6"
END AT 15.5'
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Tom Gordon
1 of 1
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Figure:Coordinates: 34.55894°, -118.13511° Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30" 6 Geoboden
Soil Description
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Water Depth: (see Remarks) Job #: 18988
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 15.5' Date: 8/26/22 Maverik Store Bore Hole Log B-5
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), trace gravel, red-yellow, slightly moist stiff 6
18 7 14
7 hard 15
19 17 38 3 2 34 64
21 20 60/6"
21 60/6" 4 0 31 69
Silty SAND (SM), some gravel, brown, slightly moist very dense 22 60/6" 23 60/6" 7 87 6 55 39
24 60/6"
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Tom Gordon
1 of 2
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Figure:Coordinates: 34.53818°, -118.13494° Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30" 7 Geoboden
Soil Description
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Water Depth: (see Remarks) Job #: 18988
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 50' Date: 8/26/22 Maverik Store Bore Hole Log B-6
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Silty SAND (SM), some gravel, brown, slightly moist
very dense 25 60/6" 7 3 61 36
26 60/6"
Sandy SILT (ML), trace gravel, brown, slightly moist hard 27 60/6" 11 1 40 59 28 60/6"
REFUSAL AT 50.0' 29 11 3 47 50 26 13 13
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Geoboden
Tom Gordon
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Figure:Coordinates: 34.53818°, -118.13494° Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30" 72 of 2
Job #: 18988
Soil Description
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 50' Date: 8/26/22 Water Depth: (see Remarks)
Maverik Store Bore Hole Log B-6
28 32
36 40
44 48
52 56
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Date:

Job #:

Gradation
① ②④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩

MODIFIERS
Description Thickness Trace
Seam Up to ½ inch <5%
Lense Up to 12 inches Some
Layer Greater than 12 in. 5-12%
Occasional 1 or less per foot With
Frequent More than 1 per foot > 12%
Note: Dual Symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classif ications (i.e. GP-GM, SC-SM, etc.). 8 Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little or
No Fines
Silty Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures

TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
USCS

SYMBOLS
Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixtures
Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little or No
Fines
②MAJOR DIVISIONS
GP

CLEAN SANDS

1. The results of laboratory tests on the samples collected are shown on the logs at the respective sample depths.

2. The subsurface conditions represented on the logs are for the locations specified. Caution should be exercised if interpolating between or extrapolating beyond the exploration locations.

3. The information presented on each log is subject to the limi tations, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report.

Dry: Absence of moisture,
dusty, dry to the touch.

Moist: Damp / moist to the
touch, but no visible water.
①
Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixtures,
Little or No Fines
Poorly-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixtures,
Little or No Fines
Silty Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Silt Mixtures
Figure:
9/12/22
18988
Key to Symbols

COARSE-

GRAINED
SOILS
More than 50%
of material is
larger than No.
200 sieve size.

GRAVELS
The coarse
fraction
retained on
No. 4 sieve.

CLEAN

GRAVELS GW
(< 5% fines)

GRAVELS

WITH FINES
GC
Graphic Log: Graphic depicting type of soil encountered (see ② below). ⑪
PL = Plastic Limit (%): Water content at which a soil changes from liquid to plastic behavior.

Soil Description
Blows(N) Atterberg
⑤ Sample #: Consecutive numbering of soil samples
collected during field exploration.
⑥ Blows: Number of blows to advance sampler in 6"
increments, using a 140-lb hammer with 30" drop.
③ Soil Description: Description of soils, including Unified Soil Classification Symbol (see below).

PI = Plasticity Index (%): Range of water content at which a soil exhibits plastic properties (= Liquid Limit - Plastic Limit).

Gradation: Percentages of Gravel, Sand and Fines (Silt/Clay), from lab test results of soil passing No. 4 and No. 200 sieves.

Organic Silts and Organic Clays of Medium to
High Plasticity
④ Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected; sampler
symbols are explained below-right.
⑦ Total Blows: Number of blows to advance sampler the
2nd and 3rd 6" increments.
⑧ Moisture (%): Water content of soil sample measured in laboratory (percentage of dry weight).
(< 5% fines)
GM
( ≥ 12% fines)
(see Remarks on Logs)
Inorganic Clays of High Plasticity, Fat Clays
ML
CL
Rock Core
MH
Inorganic Silts, Micacious or Diatomacious Fine
Sand or Silty Soils with Plasticity (Elastic Silts)
Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures
Inorganic Clays of Low to Medium Plasticity,
Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean
Organic Silts and Organic Silty Clays o f Low
Plasticity
SP

SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit greater than
50%
SANDS

WITH FINES SM
SW
( ≥ 12% fines)

SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit less than 50%
Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils with High Organic
Contents

3.5" OD, 2.42" ID
D&M Sampler
Block Sample

MOISTURE CONTENT
OH
Inorganic Silts and Very Fine Sands, Silty or
Clayey Fine Sands or Clayey Silts with Slight

WATER SYMBOL

SAMPLER
OL
SC
CH
PT
Atterberg: Individual descriptions of Atterberg Tests are as follows:

Bulk/Bag Sample
Measured Water
Level
Encountered
Water Level
Standard
Penetration Split
Spoon Sampler
②
LL = Liquid Limit (%): Water content at which a soil changes from plastic to liquid behavior.

Saturated: Visible water,
usually soil below
groundwater.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

SYMBOLS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
FINE-

GRAINED
SOILS
More than 50%
of material is
smaller than No.
200 sieve size.

Thin Wall
(Shelby Tube)
SANDS
The coarse
fraction
passing
through
No. 4 sieve.

Maverik Store
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA
Modified California
Sampler

STRATIFICATION
Dry Density (pcf): The dry density of a soil measured in laboratory (pounds per cubic foot).⑨
Depth (ft.): Depth (feet) below the ground surface
(including groundwater depth - see below right). ⑩
⑪
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI
③

Project: Maverik-Palmdale, CA Date:

Location: DCP-1
Hammer: 17.6 lb
Soil Type(s): SILT (ML)
No. of Individual Type of
Blows Penetration Hammer
(mm)
1 0 2
1 21 2
1 15 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 10 2
1 12 2
1 12 2
1 10 2
1 12 2
1 10 2
1 12 2
1 10 2
1 10 2
1 12 2
1 26 2
1 13 2
1 17 2
1 14 2
1 13 2
1 12 2
1 12 2
1 12 2
1 11 2
1 12 2
1 11 2
1 12 2
1 12 2
1 10 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
Figure:

Date: 26-Aug-22
Job # 18988
8/26/2022

DCP TEST DATA
Maverik Store
9Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA DCP Data

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 127
254
381
508
635
762
889
1016
1143

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
DEPTH, in.

CBR
DEPTH, mm

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
DEPTH, in
BEARING CAPACITY, psf
Based on approximate interrelationships
of CBR and Bearing values (Design of
Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland
Cement Association, page 8, 1955)

Project: Maverik-Palmdale, CA Date:

Location: DCP-2
Hammer: 17.6 lb
Soil Type(s): SILT (ML)
No. of Individual Type of
Blows Penetration Hammer
(mm)
1 0 2
1 10 2
1 12 2
1 10 2
1 10 2
1 11 2
1 10 2
1 10 2
1 8 2
1 11 2
1 10 2
1 10 2
1 7 2
1 11 2
1 10 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 10 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 12 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 13 2
1 13 2
1 13 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 13 2
1 14 2
1 2
1 2
Figure:

Date: 26-Aug-22
Job # 18988

DCP TEST DATA
8/26/2022
Maverik Store
10Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA DCP Data

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 127
254
381
508
635
762
889
1016
1143

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
DEPTH, in.

CBR
DEPTH, mm

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 5.5

6.0 6.5

7.0 7.5

8.0 8.5

9.0 9.5

10.0 10.5

11.0 11.5

12.0 12.5

13.0 13.5

14.0 14.5

15.0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
DEPTH, in
BEARING CAPACITY, psf
Based on approximate interrelationships
of CBR and Bearing values (Design of
Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland
Cement Association, page 8, 1955)

Project: Maverik-Palmdale, CA Date:

Location: DCP-3
Hammer: 17.6 lb
Soil Type(s): SILT (ML)
No. of Individual Type of
Blows Penetration Hammer
(mm)
1 0 2
1 26 2
1 31 2
1 27 2
1 26 2
1 25 2
1 23 2
1 21 2
1 22 2
1 20 2
1 20 2
1 18 2
1 19 2
1 18 2
1 19 2
1 20 2
1 19 2
1 21 2
1 23 2
1 23 2
1 23 2
1 20 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
Figure:

Date: 26-Aug-22
Job # 18988

DCP TEST DATA
8/26/2022
Maverik Store
11Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA DCP Data

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 127
254
381
508
635
762
889
1016
1143

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
DEPTH, in.

CBR
DEPTH, mm

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
DEPTH, in
BEARING CAPACITY, psf
Based on approximate interrelationships
of CBR and Bearing values (Design of
Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland
Cement Association, page 8, 1955)

Appendix E
Preliminary Hydrology Report

MAVERIK FUELING STATION PALMDALE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE S AND STATE ROUTE 14

PALMDALE, CA

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT

PREPARED FOR:

SITE DESIGN COLLABORATIVE (SDC)
245 EAST THIRD STREET
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
(800) 484-4717

PREPARED BY:

44-600 VILLAGE COURT, SUITE 100
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
(760) 346-4750

AUGUST 4, 2023

Prepared Under the Supervision of:

____________________________________
James R. Bazua, PE
R.C.E. 58394
Expiration Date: December 31, 2024

MAVERIK FUELING STATION PALMDALE

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

II. DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND SITE CONDITIONS

III. CALCULATIONS

IV. CALCULATED RETENTION VOLUMES

V. INFILTRATION BASIN DRAWDOWN SUMMARY

VI. APPENDIX A – PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY MAP

VII. APPENDIX B – STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL/LID REPORT

VIII. APPENDIX C – HYDRO CALC DATA AND HYDROGRAPHS
(i) PRE‐DEVELOPMENT: 2‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(ii) PRE‐DEVELOPMENT: 10‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(iii) PRE‐DEVELOPMENT: 25‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(iv) PRE‐DEVELOPMENT: 50‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(v) POST DEVELOPMENT: 2‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(vi) POST DEVELOPMENT: 10‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(vii)
POST DEVELOPMENT: 25‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(viii) POST DEVELOPMENT: 50‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM

IV. APPENDIX D – 50 YEAR, 24 HOUR ISOHYET MAP

X. APPENDIX E – NOMOGRAPH DATA

XI. APPENDIX F – SOIL TYPE FEATURE MAP

XII. APPENDIX G – FEMA MAP NO. 06037C0670F

XIII. APPENDIX H – GEOTECHNIC AL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This report was prepared in support of the Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale Entitlement package.

The purpose of this report is to analyze the exis ting and proposed drainage patterns, discuss the on-site drainage design and size th e proposed on-site drainage facilities in order to meet the City of Palmdale and County of Los Angeles Public Department of Works requirements.

The proposed project involves the development of an 8,852 square-f oot gas station and attached convenience store and quick service restaurant located at the north west corner of Avenue S and State Route 14 (APN 3004-016-032), City of Pa lmdale, Los Angeles County, California. The subject parcel is currently undeveloped and 100% pervious in its current condition. The site is bound to the south fully improved public streets; however, there are no public storm drain facilities in this area.

In general, the existing site is not subject to offsite storm flows and th ere is no existing onsite retention of storm flow. The project proposes to obtain access from Avenue S to the south for access onto the site. The site area drains from northeast to the southw est under the existing and proposed conditions.

The proposed impervious area is 77,285 square-f eet (1.77 acres). The ne w improvements will include six fueling station islands, convenience st ore, quick service restaurant, and outdoor patio area. Two on-site stormwater retention basins will be constructed to collect and store storm runoff generated during the 25-year design storm per City of Palmdale drainage requirements. One basin will be located along the southwesterly property boundary; the second basin will be located along the southerly property boundary.

II. DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND SITE CONDITIONS

The 5.91 acre existing site where improvements ar e proposed is currently undeveloped. The site is located in an area consisting of sandy soils that exhibited a m oderate infiltration rate during testing. The terrain slopes mildly from the northeast corner to the southwest corner of the lot. In general, the existing site is not subject to offsite storm flows. In the developed condition, less than half of the project site will be paved surfaces.

The project will provide an on-site storm drain sy stem designed to capture the runoff generated from a 25-year, 24-hour design stor m based on existing undeveloped conditions per the City of Palmdale drainage requirements. Two separate storm retention systems will be proposed to capture, store, and infiltrate the on-site runoff generated during the design storm event. Runoff from the convenience store rooftop and fueling station canopies wi ll be captured and included in the runoff volume conveyed to the retention systems. However, no rainfall will be allowed to land on the portion of the fueling station island where there is a potential for pollutant spills and cleanup.

These areas are protected from rainfall by th e overhead canopies. Additionally, a swale drain system will be implemented to capture surface flows from the fueling is lands and conveyed to a separate oil separator system lo cated onsite. Overflow from the oil separator sy stem will be connected to the site’s sewer septic system to prevent pollutants from co-mingling with storm runoff that could potentially enter into an MS4 facility as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Overflow of pollution el imination systems is generally directed sewer septic rather than infiltration type storm drain facilities in order to prevent potential for soil contamination by pollutants. C onveyance of possible fuel and oil spills via the oil separator that connects to the sewer septic system because it is less likely to leave the site with storm runoff during the overflow condition.

On-site tested infiltration rates are 3.53 in/hr and an assumed infiltration rate of 3 in/hr will be used for design purposes to provide a Factor of Safety. Per City of Palmdale re quirements, the preliminary hydrology calculations will be per th e method outlined in the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual – Section 3 Storm Drain Hydrology – to quantify the runoff volume generated and stored on-site during the design storm return period. Infiltration of stored runoff is assumed to occur on the bottom of the on-si te retention system. The Los Angeles County Soil Types GIS database was used to determine the site soil type.

Pre-Developed Conditions

On-Site:

The existing onsite conditions is considered as a single subarea because the entire site drains from the northeast corner of the propert y boundary to the southwest corner . The site lies within Zone “X” according to FEMA Map No. 06037C0670F, da ted 9/26/2008 (Appendix D). Zone “X” is identified as an area of minimal flood hazard with a 1% chance flood – depth 1 foot or less – annually. The site has no existing drainage struct ures and all runoff is conveyed via sheet flow.

The conveyed flow leaves the site and flows southerly along Guoyan Avenue. Refer to appendices for HydroCalc results. Refer to table below for summary calculations:

Pre-Development Hydrology Summary
Storm Frequency Flows (cfs) Volume (CF)
2-Year 0.6712 5,894
10-Year 3.0555 12,859
25-Year 4.8913 16,820
50-Year 6.0398 19,975

The maximum allowable flow post development is the flow below 85% of the pre-developed peak flow (Q25-Year). Therefore, the following tolerance was calculated:

Q
25- Year = 4.89 cfs
QPeak = Q25-Year*85% = 4.16 cfs

Off-Site:

Along Avenue S, directly adjacent to the propose d project site, there ar e no existing drainage facilities. Sheet flow leaves the project site, is conveyed across the street to Guoyan Avenue, where the is an existing stormwater collection facility within the curb and gutter, under the sidewalk.

Proposed Conditions

The site will no longer convey runoff via sheet flow, but rather be collected in either of the two proposed, on-site retention basins. See A ppendix A for Preliminary Hydrology Map. All HydroCalc results for post development cond itions can be found in Appendix C and are summarized in the table below:

Post-Development H
ydrology Summary
Storm Frequency Flows (cfs) Volume (CF)
2-Year 0.9615 10,735
10-Year 3.7026 21,364
25-Year 5.5235 27,052
50-Year 6.7732 31,445

In accordance with the Los Angeles County H ydrology Manual and City of Palmdale’s DMP requirements, flows greater than 85% of the existing pre-developed peak flow conditions will be retained on-site. As part of c onstruction, two permanent retention basins will be constructed to meet these requirements.

III. CALCULATIONS

DESIGN CRITERIA

The following parameters were used in the preparation of the analyses:

 Assumed Design Percolation Rate 3 in/hr
 Project Area 5.91 acres
 Soil Type 176
 Design Storm Frequency 25-year, 24-hour
 50-year, 24-hour Rainfall Depth 3.75 in

 City of Palmdale. Section 5: Drainage Studies and Improvement Plans; Subsection 3 “Detention Basins”

CALCULATIONS

Using Equation 5.1.2 frm the Los Angelese County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual:

𝐼௧
𝐼ଵସସ଴
ൌ ൬1440
𝑡 ൰
଴.ସ଻

Where:
t = Duration (mins.)
I
t = Rainfall intensity for duration (in/hr)
I1440 = 24-hour rainfall intensity (in/hr)
ூ೟
ூభరరబ
= Peak normalized intensity (unitless)

Using Table 5.3.1, multiplication factor 0.878 to be applied to 25-year, 24-hour storm event:

25 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 ൌ 3.75 𝑖𝑛.∗ 0.878 ൌ𝟑. 𝟐𝟗 𝒊𝒏.

Using 3.29 in, calculate 24-hour rainfall intensity:

𝐼ଵସସ଴ൌ 3.29 𝑖𝑛
24 ℎ𝑟 ൌ𝟎. 𝟏𝟑𝟕 𝒊𝒏/𝒉𝒓

In the developed condition, the longest path of travel for stormwater runoff is 732 linear feet and the change in elevation is 27 feet. Using figure in Appendix E, apply the aforementioned data and are able to assume a time of concentration (Tc) of 8.1 mins.

Equation 5.1.2 can now be solved to calculate It:

𝐼௧
𝐼ଵସସ଴
ൌ ൬1440
𝑡 ൰
଴.ସ଻
→ 𝐼௧

0.137 𝑖𝑛
ℎ𝑟
ൌ ൬ 1440

8.1 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠൰
଴.ସ଻
→ 𝑰𝒕 ൌ𝟏. 𝟓𝟔 𝒊𝒏/𝒉𝒓

Where:
t = 8.1 mins
I
1440 = 0.137 in/hr
The rational equation is used to calculate the peak flow for the design frequency:

𝑄ൌ𝐶∗𝐼∗𝐴

Where:

Q = Peak discharge (cfs)
C = Runoff Coefficient (unitless)
I = I
t = Rainfall intensity for duration (in/hr)
A = Project site area (acres)

In undeveloped conditions, C = 0.35. In developed conditions, C = 0.95. For the proposed project site, 29.9% of the parcel will be impervious (I MP = 1.77 acres) and 70.1% will remain pervious (PER = 4.14 acres). Therefore:

𝐶ൌ
଴.ଷହሺூெ௉ሻା଴.ଽହሺ௉ாோሻ
∑஺ ൌ
଴.ଷହሺଵ.଻଻௔௖௥௘ሻା଴.ଽହሺସ.ଵସ௔௖௥௘ሻ
ହ.ଽଵ௔௖௥௘ ൌ 𝟎. 𝟕𝟕

Application of the Rational Equation:

𝑄ൌ𝐶∗𝐼∗𝐴

Where:

C = 0.77
I = I
t = 1.56 in/hr
A = 5.91 acres

𝑄
ଶହି௣௘௔௞ൌ𝐶∗𝐼∗𝐴ൌ 0.77 ൬1.56 𝑖𝑛
ℎ𝑟൰ሺ5.91 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒ሻൌ𝟕. 𝟏𝟎 𝒄𝒇𝒔

Per the City of Palmdale Engineering Design Guidelines Policies and Procedures, a spillway overflow structure is required to discharge 125% of the 25-year storm runoff without flooding upstream development. Therefore, the design overflow discharge is calculated as follows:

𝑄ଵଶହ% ൌ1.25 ∗𝑄 ଶହି௣௘௔௞ൌ1.25 ∗ 7.10𝑐𝑓𝑠 ൌ 𝟖. 𝟖𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒇𝒔

Using the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works HydroCalc Program, the following required stormwater storage volumes were calculated:

𝑉௣௥௘ൌ16,820 𝑐𝑢. 𝑓𝑡.

𝑉௣௢௦௧ൌ27,052 𝑐𝑢. 𝑓𝑡
𝑉௥௘௤ൌ∆ 𝑉ൌ 𝑉௣௢௦௧െ 𝑉௣௥௘ൌ27,052 𝑐𝑢. 𝑓𝑡. െ16,820 𝑐𝑢. 𝑓𝑡. ൌ𝟏 𝟎, 𝟐𝟑𝟐 𝒄𝒖. 𝒇𝒕.

See appendices for HydroCalc sheets.

IV. CALCULATED RETENTION VOLUMES

25-YEAR, 24-HOUR REQUIRED STORAGE =10,232 CU. FT.

TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED = 45,321 CU. FT.

STORAGE DEPTH = 3.00 FT

V. INFILTRATION BASIN DRAWDOWN SUMMARY

Project runoff stored in the on-site retention basin system will be designed to infiltrate into the soil to eliminate the presence of standing water within a period of 7 days in accordance with the City of Palmdale basin design criteria.

Assuming that the effec tive infiltration in the underground retention syst em occurs along the bottom surface area of the basin, th e design infiltration rate can be applied to the stored volume depth to calculate the drawdown time for complete evacuation as follows:

Effective Surface Area – Underground Chamber System:

Stored Runoff Volume Depth = 3.00 ft = 36 in

Assumed Infiltration Rate = 3 in/hr

36 𝑖𝑛
3 𝑖𝑛/ℎ𝑟
ൌ12 ℎ𝑟𝑠 ൏ 7 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ≪ 𝑂 . 𝐾.

The total stored runoff volume in the on-site surface retention basin can be evacuated completely via infiltration within a period of 12 hours, assuming a conservative design infiltration rate of 3 in/hr. This satisfies City requirements.

VI. APPENDIX A – PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY MAP

2883
28872886288428852883
2878287928802881288228842885288628872878287828782877287828792880288128822877287728772876287628742875287328742875287328742875287728762876 287528742873287628772876287628772877287728772877287828782878287928782875 VAN
F
AVENUE SGUYON AVENUEENGINEERING | PLANNING | SURVEY | ENVIRONMENTAL44-600 Village Court, Suite 100Palm Desert, CA 92260t.760.346.4750 f. 760.340.0089TheAltumGroup.com(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) LEGEND
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY MAPSITE DATALOS ANGELES COUNTY DATA25-YEAR, 24-HOUR DESIGN FLOWSPRECIPITATION DATA FROM ISOHETYL GISVICINITY MAP MAVERIK FUEL STATION PALMDALEPROJECTSITE25-YEAR, 24-HOUR DESIGN VOLUME

VII. APPENDIX B – STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL/LID REPORT

Stormwater Quality Control Measure for Designated Project

The  proposed  project  is  a  retail  gasoline  outlet  with  more  than  5,000  square  feet  with  the following, post development, characteristics:

 Subarea ID: Maverick Fuel Station
 Development Area (ac): 5.91
 Flow Path Length (ft): 732 LF
 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft):

3.69%
 0.75‐inch Rainfall Depth (in)
 Development is 29.9% impervious
 Soil Type: 176 per https://geohub.lacity.org/datasets/lacounty::soil‐types‐feature‐layer/  Corrected in‐situ infiltration rate = 3 in/hr

Additional soil information may be found in the geotechnical report from CMT Technical Services, dated September 13, 2022, attached hereto in the appendices.

Per section 5 of the Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Standards Manual, table 5‐1, the following
source control measures will be implemented on‐site in accordance with Appendix D: storm drain message and signage (S‐1), landscape irrigation practices to be implemented (S‐ 8), and building materials selection (S‐9).

Determine the SWQDv

The design storm for the proposed project location is 0.75‐inch, 24‐hour rain event. Using the
HydroCalc  program  provided  by  the  Los  Angeles  County  Department  of  Public  Works,  the stormwater quality design volume (SWQDv) was calculated with the characteristics above.

Under  pre‐development  conditions,  the  required  24‐hour  clear  runoff  volume  is  2,873  cu‐ft.

Under post development conditions, the 24‐hour clear
runoff volume is 5,413 cu‐ft. Therefore,
the ∆SWQDv is 2,540 cu‐ft.

See attached for HydroCalc data and related hydrographs.

Determine the Design Infiltration Rate

The design infiltration rate is the corrected in‐situ infiltration rate as determined according to the most recent Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division (GMED) Policy GS 200.1. The design
infiltration rate (fdesign) is 3.0 in/hr.

Calculate the Bioretention Surface Area

Maximum depth that can be infiltrated within the maximum retention time:

𝑑
௠௔௫ൌ 𝑓ௗ௘௦௜௚௡
12 ∗𝑡

Where:

 dmax = Maximum depth of water that can be infiltrated within the maximum detention time (ft);
 fdesign = Design infiltration rate (in/hr); and
 t = Maximum retention time (96 hrs)

𝑑௠௔௫ൌ 𝑓ௗ௘௦௜௚௡
12 ∗𝑡ൌ

3.0 ቀ𝑖𝑛
ℎ𝑟ቁ
12 ∗ 96 ℎ𝑟 ൌ 24 𝑓𝑡

Assume ponding depth less than the maximum ponding depth:   𝑑௠௔௫ ൒ 𝑑௣

 dmax = Maximum depth of water that can be infiltrated within the maximum detention time (ft); and
 dp = Ponding depth (ft)
 dp = 20 ft

Infiltrating surface area (bottom of bioretention area) required:

𝐴ൌ 𝑆𝑊𝑄𝐷𝑣
𝑑
௣

Where:

 A = Bottom surface area of bioretention area (ft2);
 SWQDv = Stormwater quality design volume (cu. ft.); and  dp = Ponding depth (ft)

𝐴ൌ 𝑆𝑊𝑄𝐷𝑣
𝑑
௣
ൌ 2,540 𝑐𝑢 െ 𝑓𝑡
20 𝑓𝑡 ൌ127 𝑓𝑡ଶ

Stormwater Runoff Harvest and Use

The full SWQDv will be retained on‐site through infiltration. Therefore, no additional measures will be required.

Stormwater Quality Control Measures

Retention‐based stormwater quality control measures will be implemented to retain 100 percent of the ∆SWQDv (2,540 cu‐ft). The proposed, on‐site, privately owned and maintained retention for  this  project  has  been  designed  to  retain  the  25‐year,  24‐hour  storm  event.  The  proposed retention
volume for this project is 45,321 cu‐ft, which is sufficient to store the LID storm event (0.75‐inch, 24‐hour rain). No off‐site mitigation will be required for the proposed improvements.

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: L:/projects/C1904 Maverik Fueling Station Lancaster/engineering/reports/drainage/LID Report/Maverik Fuel Station Lancaster - Pre-Development.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Maverik Fuel Station Lancaster
Subarea ID Pre-Development
Area (ac) 1.92
Flow Path Length (ft) 410.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.0114

0.75-inch Rainfall Depth (in) 0.75
Percent Impervious 0.1
Soil Type 124
Design Storm Frequency 0.75 inch storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (0.75 inch storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.1261
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.18
Time of Concentration (min) 74.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.0436
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.0436
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.0214
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 933.1871

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: L:/projects/C1904 Maverik Fueling Station Lancaster/engineering/reports/drainage/LID Report/Maverik Fuel Station Lancaster - Post Development.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Maverik Fuel Station Lancaster
Subarea ID Post Development
Area (ac) 1.92
Flow Path Length (ft) 380.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.016

0.75-inch Rainfall Depth (in) 0.75
Percent Impervious 0.86
Soil Type 124
Design Storm Frequency 0.75 inch storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (0.75 inch storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.2141
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.788
Time of Concentration (min) 24.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3239
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3239
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.0938
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 4085.0219

VIII. APPENDIX C – HYDRO CALC DATA AND HYDROGRAPHS

(i) PRE‐DEVELOPMENT: 2‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(ii) PRE‐DEVELOPMENT: 10‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(iii) PRE‐DEVELOPMENT: 25‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(iv) PRE‐DEVELOPMENT: 50‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(v) POST DEVELOPMENT: 2‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(vi) POST DEVELOPMENT: 10‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(vii) POST DEVELOPMENT: 25‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM
(viii) POST DEVELOPMENT: 50‐YEAR, 24‐HOUR SOTRM

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: L:/projects/C1913 Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale/engineering/reports/drainage/Hydrology Report/Appendices/App C1_Maverik Fuel Station - Pre-Development_2 Yr Storm.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Maverik Fuel Station
Subarea ID Pre-Development (2-Year)
Area (ac) 5.91
Flow Path Length (ft) 752.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.0344
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 3.75
Percent Impervious 0.1
Soil Type 176
Design Storm Frequency 2-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.4512
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.373
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.2383
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.3045
Time of Concentration (min) 30.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.6712
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.6712
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1353
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 5893.7483

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: L:/projects/C1913 Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale/engineering/reports/drainage/Hydrology Report/Appendices/App C2_Maverik Fuel Station - Pre-Development_10 Yr Storm.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Maverik Fuel Station
Subarea ID Pre-Development (10-Year)
Area (ac) 5.91
Flow Path Length (ft) 752.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.0344
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 3.75
Percent Impervious 0.1
Soil Type 176
Design Storm Frequency 10-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.6775
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.8987
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.5392
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.5753
Time of Concentration (min) 17.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.0555
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.0555
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2952
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12859.2664

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: L:/projects/C1913 Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale/engineering/reports/drainage/Hydrology Report/Appendices/App C3_Maverik Fuel Station - Pre-Development_25 Yr Storm.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Maverik Fuel Station
Subarea ID Pre-Development (25-Year)
Area (ac) 5.91
Flow Path Length (ft) 752.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.0344
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 3.75
Percent Impervious 0.1
Soil Type 176
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.2925
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.2537
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6335
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6602
Time of Concentration (min) 13.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.8913
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.8913
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3861
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 16820.1911

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: L:/projects/C1913 Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale/engineering/reports/drainage/Hydrology Report/Appendices/App C4_Maverik Fuel Station - Pre-Development_50 Yr Storm.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Maverik Fuel Station
Subarea ID Pre-Development (50-Year)
Area (ac) 5.91
Flow Path Length (ft) 752.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.0344
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 3.75
Percent Impervious 0.1
Soil Type 176
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.4826
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6659
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6893
Time of Concentration (min) 12.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 6.0398
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 6.0398
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.4586
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 19975.1756

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: L:/projects/C1913 Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale/engineering/reports/drainage/Hydrology Report/Appendices/App C4_Maverik Fuel Station - Post-Development_2 Yr Storm.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Maverik Fuel Station
Subarea ID Post-Development (2-Year)
Area (ac) 5.91
Flow Path Length (ft) 732.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.036885
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 3.75
Percent Impervious 0.299
Soil Type 176
Design Storm Frequency 2-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.4512
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.373
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.2383
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.4362
Time of Concentration (min) 30.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.9615
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.9615
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2464
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 10735.1278

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: L:/projects/C1913 Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale/engineering/reports/drainage/Hydrology Report/Appendices/App C6_Maverik Fuel Station - Post-Development_10 Yr Storm.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Maverik Fuel Station
Subarea ID Post-Development (10-Year)
Area (ac) 5.91
Flow Path Length (ft) 732.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.036885
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 3.75
Percent Impervious 0.299
Soil Type 176
Design Storm Frequency 10-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.6775
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.9532
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.5537
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6573
Time of Concentration (min) 15.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.7026
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.7026
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.4905
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 21364.1365

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: L:/projects/C1913 Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale/engineering/reports/drainage/Hydrology Report/Appendices/App C7_Maverik Fuel Station - Post-Development_25 Yr Storm.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Maverik Fuel Station
Subarea ID Post-Development (25-Year)
Area (ac) 5.91
Flow Path Length (ft) 732.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.036885
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 3.75
Percent Impervious 0.299
Soil Type 176
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.2925
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.3018
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6403
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.718
Time of Concentration (min) 12.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.5235
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.5235
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.621
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 27052.4756

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: L:/projects/C1913 Maverik Fueling Station Palmdale/engineering/reports/drainage/Hydrology Report/Appendices/App C8_Maverik Fuel Station - Post-Development_50 Yr Storm.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Maverik Fuel Station
Subarea ID Post-Development (50-Year)
Area (ac) 5.91
Flow Path Length (ft) 732.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.036885
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 3.75
Percent Impervious 0.299
Soil Type 176
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.5445
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6746
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.742
Time of Concentration (min) 11.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 6.7732
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 6.7732
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.7219
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 31445.2688

IV. APPENDIX D – 50 YEAR, 24 HOUR ISOHYET MAP

/83/76/69/69/80/89/32/86/65/76/76/69/89/32/32/32/32/49/46/72/49/46/53/54 /50/53/45/89/69/65/82/32/50/52/45/72/79/85/82/32/73/83/79/72/89/69/84/32/82/69/68/85/67/84/73/79/78/32/70/65/67/84/79/82/58/32/48/46/56/55/56 /49/48/45/89/69/65/82/32/50/52/45/72/79/85/82/32/73/83/79/72/89/69/84/32/82/69/68/85/67/84/73/79/78/32/70/65/67/84/79/82/58/32/48/46/55/49/52 /80/32/65/32/76/32/77/32/68/32/65/32/76/32/69/32/32/32/32/49/45/72/49/46/53/56 /65/32/67/32/84/32/79/32/78/32/32/32/32/49/45/72/49/46/52/55 /76/65/78/67/65/83/84/69/82/32/87/69/83/84/32/32/32/32/49/45/72/49/46/54/55 /49 /48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/53/46/48
/52/46/48
/54/46/48
/54/46/54
/53/46/56
/51/46/56
/51/46/54
/52/46/56/52/46/54/52/46/52/52/46/50
/53/46/56/53/46/54
/53/46/52/53/46/50
/54/46/52
/54/46/54
/54/46/52
/54/46/50
/54/46/48/54/46/50
/53/46/56
/53/46/48/53/46/50
/53/46/52
/53/46/54
/52/46/56
/52/46/48/52/46/50/52/46/52/52/46/54
/51/46/56
/51/46/52
/51/46/54
/49/49/53
/49/48/51
/49/48
/48/57/56
/49/48/51
/49/48/55
/45/49
/49/55/54
/49/49/55/51
/49/50/52
/49/51/52
/49/56/48
/49/55/56
/49/49/48
/48/57/56
/49/48/51
/49/48/55
/45/49/50/52
/49/55/54
/49/50/52
/49/48/51
/48/57/56
/49/48/51 /49/48/51
/49/48/55/45/45/49/48/55/45/45
/49/48/51
/49/48/51
/49/48/55/48/57/56
/49/48/52 /49/49/50
/49/49/54
/49/56/48
/49/56/48
/49/56/48
/49/51/52
/49/55/55
/49/51/52
/49/55/52
/49/51/52
/49/50/48
/49/55/53
/49/51/52
/49/55/54
/49/55/51
/49/49/49
/49/49/49
/49/49/49
/49/55/57
/45/48/55/56
/49/48/52/49/48/52
/49/48/52/48/57/56
/49/48/50
/45/45/49/48/55
/49/48/51/49/48/55
/48/57/56
/48/57/56
/49/49/48
/49/49/55/54/45
/68/80/65/32/45/32/49/48
/68/80/65/32/45/32/57
/68/80/65/32/45/32/57
/68/80/65/32/45/32/57
/68/80/65/32/45/32/53
/45/45/45/68/80/65/32/45/32/56
/45/45/68/80/65/32/45/32/56
/68/80/65/32/45/32/56/45/45
/68/80/65/32/45/32/56
/45/45/68/80/65/32/45/32/56
/68/80/65 /56
/45
/68/80/65/32/45/32/57
/68/80/65/32/45/32/49/49
/68/80/65/32/45/32/56
/68/80/65/32/32/56
/68/80/65/32/45/32/56
/68/80/65/32/45/32/56
/68/80/65/32/45/32/57
/68/80/65/32/45/32/49/48
/68/80/65/32/45/32/53
/68/80/65/32/45/32/56/45/45/45
/82/73/84/84/69/82/32/82/73/68/71/69
/53/48/45/89/69/65/82/32/50/52/45/72/79/85/82/32/73/83/79/72/89/69/84 /78
/69/87
/83
/49/45/72/49/46/53/55
/51/52/186/32/51/55/39/32/51/48/39/39
/51/52/186/32/51/48/39/32/48/48/39/39
/45/49/49/56/186/32/49/53/39/32/48/48/39/39
/45/49/49/56/186/32/48/55/39/32/51/48/39/39
/55/46/50
/48/49/54
/68/80/65/32/45/32/54
/68/69/66/82/73/83
/80/79/84/69/78/84/73/65/76
/65/82/69/65
/83/79/73/76
/67/76/65/83/83/73/70/73/67/65/84/73/79/78
/65/82/69/65
/73/78/67/72/69/83/32/79/70
/82/65/73/78/70/65/76/76

X. APPENDIX E – NOMOGRAPH DATA

XI. APPENDIX F – SOIL TYPE FEATURE MAP

County of Los Angeles
Soils Type Feature Layer

Source: htps://egis-lacounty.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/e754a6de1ba448f68d15d0d48ee6ba49/explore?loca�on=34.562966%2C-118.133714%2C14.43

XII. APPENDIX G – FEMA MAP NO. 060370C0670F

N a t io n a l F lo o d H a z a r d L a y e r F I R M e t t e 0 5 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 1 , 5 0 0 2 , 0 0 02 5 0
F e e t
Ü

S E E F I S R E P O R T F O R D E T A I L E D L E G E N D A N D I N D E X M A P F O R F I R M P A N E L L A Y O U T

S P E C I A L F L O O D

H A Z A R D A R E A S
W i t h o u t B a s e F l o o d E l e v a t i o n ( B F E ) Z o n e A , V , A 9 9
W i t h B F E o r D e p t hZ o n e A E , A O , A H , V E , A R R e g u l a t o r y F l o o d w a y
0 . 2 % A n n u a l C h a n c e F l o o d H a z a r d , A r e a s o f 1 % a n n u a l c h a n c e f l o o d w i t h a v e r a g e d e p t h l e s s t h a n o n e f o o t o r w i t h d r a i n a g e a r e a s o f l e s s t h a n o n e s q u a r e m i l eZ o n e X F u t u r e C o n d i t i o n s 1 % A n n u a l
C h a n c e F l o o d H a z a r dZ o n e X
A r e a w i t h R e d u c e d F l o o d R i s k d u e t o L e v e e . S e e N o t e s .Z o n e X
A r e a w i t h F l o o d R i s k d u e t o L e v e eZ o n e D N O S C R E E NA r e a o f M i n i m a l F l o o d H a z a r dZ o n e X A r e a o f U n d e t e r m i n e d F l o o d H a z a r dZ o n e D C h a n n e l , C u l v e r t , o r S t o r m S e w e r L e v e e , D i k e , o r F l o o d w a l l
C r o s s S e c t i o n s w i t h 1 % A n n u a l C h a n c e 1 7 . 5W a t e r S u r f a c e E l e v a t i o n
C o a s t a l T r a n s e c t
C o a s t a l T r a n s e c t B a s e l i n e
P r o f i l e B a s e l i n e
H y d r o g r a p h i c F e a t u r e
B a s e F l o o d E l e v a t i o n L i n e ( B F E ) E f f e c t i v e L O M R s
L i m i t o f S t u d y
J u r i s d i c t i o n B o u n d a r y
D i g i t a l D a t a A v a i l a b l e
N o D i g i t a l D a t a A v a i l a b l e
U n m a p p e d
T h i s m a p c o m p l i e s w i t h F E M A 's s t a n d a r d s f o r t h e u s e o f d i g i t a l f l o o d m a p s i f i t i s n o t v o i d a s d e s c r i b e d b e l o w .

T h e b a s e m a p s h o w n c o m p l i e s w i t h F E M A 's b a s e m a p a c c u r a c y s t a n d a r d s
T h e f l o o d h a z a r d i n f o r m a t i o n i s d e r i v e d d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e N F H L w e b s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y F E M A . T h i s m a p w a s e x p o r t e d o n 8 / 3 / 2 0 2 3 a t 5 : 0 3 P M a n d d o e s n o t r e f l e c t c h a n g e s o r a m e n d m e n t s s u b s e q u e n t t o t h i s d a t e a n d t i m e . T h e N F H L a n d e f f e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n m a y c h a n g e o r b e c o m e s u p e r s e d e d b y n e w d a t a o v e r t i m e .

T h i s m a p i m a g e i s v o i d i f t h e o n e o r m o r e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g m a p e l e m e n t s d o n o t a p p e a r : b a s e m a p i m a g e r y , f l o o d z o n e l a b e l s , l e g e n d , s c a l e b a r , m a p c r e a t i o n d a t e , c o m m u n i t y i d e n t i f i e r s , F I R M p a n e l n u m b e r , a n d F I R M e f f e c t i v e d a t e . M a p i m a g e s f o r u n m a p p e d a n d u n m o d e r n i z e d a r e a s c a n n o t b e u s e d f o r r e g u l a t o r y p u r p o s e s .

L e g e n d

O T H E R A R E A S O F

F L O O D H A Z A R D

O T H E R A R E A S

G E N E R A L

S T R U C T U R E S

O T H E R

F E A T U R E S

M A P P A N E L S
8 B
2 0 . 2
T h e p i n d i s p l a y e d o n t h e m a p i s a n a p p r o x i m a t e p o i n t s e l e c t e d b y t h e u s e r a n d d o e s n o t r e p r e s e n t a n a u t h o r i t a t i v e p r o p e r t y l o c a t i o n . 1 : 6 , 0 0 0
1 1 8 ° 8 '2 2 " W 3 4 ° 3 3 '4 7 " N
1 1 8 ° 7 '4 5 " W 3 4 ° 3 3 '1 8 " N
B a s e m a p I m a g e r y S o u r c e : U S G S N a t i o n a l M a p 2 0 2 3

XIII. APPENDIX H – GEOTECHNIC AL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY

Proposed Maverik Store

Highway 14 and Avenue S
Palmdale, California

CMT PROJECT NO. 18988

FOR:

Cardno, Inc.
1142 West 2320 South, Suite A
West Valley City, Utah 84119

September 13, 2022
ENGINEERING •GEOTECHNICAL •ENVIRONMENTAL (ESA I & II) • MATERIALS TESTING •SPECIAL INSPECTIONS •
ORGANIC CHEMISTRY • PAVEMENT
DESIGN •GEOLOGY

ENGINEERING • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL (ESA I & II) • MATERIALS TESTING • SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ORGANIC CHEMISTRY • PAVEMENT DESIGN • GEOLOGY
www.cmttechnicalservices.com
3/31/23
September 13, 2022

Mr. Russ Hamblin
Cardno, Inc.
1142 West 2320 South, Suite A
West Valley City, Utah 84119

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Maverik Store
Highway 14 and Avenue S
Palmdale, California
CMT Project Number: 18988

Mr. Hamblin:

Submitted herewith is the report of our geotechnical engineering study for the subject site. This report contains the results of our findings and an engineering interpretation of the results with respect to the available project characteristics. It also contains recommendations to aid in the design and construction of the earth-related phases of this project.

On August 26, 2022, Cardno personnel were onsite and supervised the drilling of 6 bore holes at the site extending to depths between about 6.5 and 50.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were obtained in the bore holes during the field operations and subsequently transported to our laboratory for further testing and observation.

Natural subsurface soils consisted of SILT (ML) and SA ND (SM). Groundwater was not encountered in the explorations.

Based upon the results of our study the proposed structures may be supported on conventional strip and spread footings founded on suitable, undisturbed, natural sand soils, or on s tructural fill placed on suitable, undisturbed natural so ils. A detailed discussion of design and construction criteria is presented in this report.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you at this stage of the project. CMT offers a full range of Geotechnical Engineering, Geological, Material Testing, Special Inspection services, and Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments.

With offices throughout Utah, Idaho, and Arizona, our staff is capable of efficiently serving your project needs. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us at 801 -492- 4132.

Sincerely,

CMT Technical Services Reviewed By:

Jeffrey J. Egbert, P.E., LEED A.P., M. ASCE William G. Turner, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objectives, Scope and Authorization ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Description of Proposed Construction ............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Infiltration Testing ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................................................. 4

4.0 GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 Geologic Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4

4.2 Faulting ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

4.3 Seismicity ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.3.1 Site Class ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.3.2 Ground Motions ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6

4.3.3 Liquefaction .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

4.4 Other Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Surface Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.2 Subsurface Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.4 Site Subsurface Variations ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

6.0 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ............................................................................................................................... 8

6.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

6.2 Temporary Excavations .................................................................................................................................................................... 8

6.3 Fill Material ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

6.4 Fill Placement and Compaction........................................................................................................................................................ 9

6.5 Utility Trenches .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

6.6 Stabilization .................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 11

7.1 Foundation Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................... 11

7.2 Installation ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

7.3 Estimated Settlement .................................................................................................................................................................... 12

7.4 Lateral Resistance .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12

7.5 Uplift Loads .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

8.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ....................................................................................................................................... 12

9.0 BOUYANT FORCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

10.0 FLOOR SLABS ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

11.0 DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 14

12.0 PAVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 14

13.0 QUALITY CONTROL ................................................................................................................................................... 15

13.1 Field Observations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15

13.2 Fill Compaction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 15

13.3 Excavations .................................................................................................................................................................................. 16

14.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 16

APPENDIX
Figure 1: Site Plan
Figures 2 through 7: Bore Hole Logs
Figure 8: Key to Symbols
Figures 9 through 11: DCP Test Results
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 1
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
CMT Project No. 18988

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

CMT Technical Services (CMT) was retained to conduct a geotechnical subsurface study for a proposed Maverik Store. The site for the proposed development is situated at the north side of Avenue S, just west of Highway 14 in Palmdale, California as shown on the Vicinity Map below.

VICINITY MAP

1.2 Objectives, Scope and Authorization

The objectives and scope of our study were planned in communications between Mr. Russ Hamblin of Cardno, Inc., and Mr. Jeffrey Egbert of CMT. In general, the objectives of this study were to define and evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site , and p rovide appropriate foundation, earthwork, pavement and seismic recommendations to be utilized in the design and construction of the propos ed development.

In accomplishing these objectives, subsurface explorations consisting of the drilling/logging/sampling of 6 bore holes, performing an infiltration test in one of the bore holes, and driving a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) at three locations on the site, were performed by Cardno personnel. Our scope of work included performing laboratory testing on samples of the subsurface soils collected in the bore hole s as delivered to us , and

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 2
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

conducting an office program which included correlating available data, performing engineering analyses, and preparing this summary report.

1.3 Description of Proposed Construction

We understand that construction of a new Maverik convenience store and fuel station with accompanying fuel islands and canopies, and underground fuel storage tanks is planned for the site. We project that wall loads for the store building will not exceed 4,000 pounds per linear foot. Floor slab loads are anticipated to be relatively light, with an average uniform loading not exceeding 150 pounds per square foot.

The fuel island canopies will be supported by steel frames and columns extending to the foundation system. It is projected that the maximum canopy downward column loads will be on the order of 60 ,000 pounds. In addition, uplift and lateral loads will be imposed upon these foundations. If the structural loading conditions are different than we have projected, please notify us so that any appropriate modifications to our conclusions and recommendations contained herein can be made.

We also understand the parking/drive paved areas will be constructed utilizing both asphalt and concrete pavement. Concrete pavement will likely be installed in front of the proposed store structure, as well as in the canopy fuel islands and over the underground storage tank area. In other areas, asphalt concrete sections will likely be used. Traffic is projected to consist of mostly automobiles and light trucks, a few daily medium-weight delivery trucks, a weekly garbage truck, and an occasional fire truck. The site plan indicates 76 hi-flow lanes for which data provided by Maverik indicates up to 200 semi-trucks per day.

1.4 Executive Summary

The most significant geotechnical aspects regarding site development include the following:

1. Moderate vegetation, including large shrubs and small trees, and topsoil to be removed.

2. Subsurface natural soils generally consisted of near surface SILT (ML) layers, followed by SAND (SM).

3. Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum depth explored of about 50 feet.

4. The site is mapped within a liquefaction zone by the State of California, but the potential for liquefaction to occur in the subsurface soils encountered is very low.

5. An earthquake fault is mapped very near the northeast corner of the site and a fault hazard study may be required.

5. Foundations may be constructed on scarified, re -compacted s uitable, natural soils, or on structural/engineered fill which extends to scarified, re-compacted natural soils.

A qualified geotechnical engineer must assess that undocumented fill (if encountered), topsoil, debris, disturbed or unsuitable soils have been removed and that suitable soils have been encountered prior to placing structural/site grading fills, footings, slabs, and pavements.

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 3
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

In the following sections, detailed discussions pertaining to the site , subsurface descriptions, and the geologic/seismic setting are provided, along with recommendations for earthwork, foundations, lateral resistance, lateral pressure, floor slabs, and pavements.

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.1 General

In order to define and evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, 6 bore holes were drilled at the site to depths of approximately 6.5 to 50.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Locations of the bore holes are presented on Figure 1 in the Appendix.

Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were obtained by driving a split-spoon sampler with 2.05- inch outside diameter rings/liners into the undisturbed soils below the drill augers. Disturbed samples were collected utilizing a standard split spoon sampler. The split spoon sampler was driven 18 inches into the soils below the drill augers using a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows needed for each 6 -inch interval was recorded. The sum of t he hammer blows for the final 12 inches of penetration is known as a standard penetration test (SPT) and this ‘blow count’ was recorded on the bore hole logs. Where more than 50 blows occurred before the 6-inch interval was achieved, the sampling was terminated and the number of blows and inches penetrated by the sampler were recorded. The blow count provides a reasonable approximation of the relative density of granular soils, but only a limited indication of the relative consistency of fine-grained soils because the consistency of these soils is significantly influenced by the moisture content.

The subsurface soil samples retrieved in the bore holes were classified in the field based upon visual and textural examination in general accordance with ASTM
1 D-2488. These field classifications were supplemented by subsequent examination and testing of select samples in our laboratory. G raphic log s of the bore hole s, including a description of the soil strata encountered, are presented on the Bore Hole Logs, Figures 2 through 7, included in the Appendix. Sampling information and other pertinent data and observations are also included on the logs. In addition, a Key to Symbols defining the terms and symbols used on the logs is provided as Figure 8 in the Appendix.

2.2 Infiltration Testing

Infiltration testing was also performed in bore hole B -1 within the natural silt soils. The testing consisted of drilling to 5 feet below the surface, sampling, removing the sampler, filling the auger with water and measuring the rate of water drop over approximately 1 hour increments . The final measured rate was approximately 17 minutes per inch. This rate will likely slow over time and an appropriate factor of safety should be applied for design.

1American Society for Testing and Materials
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 4
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected samples of the subsurface soils were subjected to various laboratory tests to assess pertinent engineering properties, as follows:

1. Moisture Content, ASTM D-2216, Percent moisture representative of field conditions

2. Dry Density, ASTM D-2937, Dry unit weight representing field conditions

3. Atterberg Limits, ASTM D-4318, Plasticity and workability

4. Gradation Analysis, ASTM D-1140/C-117, Grain Size Analysis

Laboratory test results are presented on the bore hole logs (Figures 2 through 7) and in the following Lab Summary Table:

LAB SUMMARY TABLE

BORE DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
HOLE (feet) TYPE CLASS CONTENT(%) (pcf) GRAV. SAND FINES LL PL PI B-1 2.5 SPT ML 5 69
B-2 5 SPT CL-ML 4 65 22 15 7
B-3 7.5 SPT ML 2 53
B-4 10 SPT ML 1 1 48 51 NP
B-5 5 SPT ML 3 2 34 64
B-6 5 SPT ML 3 2 34 64
B-6 10 SPT ML 4 0 31 69
B-6 20 SPT SM 7 87 6 55 39
B-6 30 SPT SM 7 3 61 36
B-6 40 SPT ML 11 1 40 59
B-6 50 SPT ML 11 3 47 50

GRADATION ATTERBERG LIMITS

4.0 GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC CONDITIONS

4.1 Geologic Setting

The subject site is located in the south -central portion of the Antelope Valley at the western tip of the Mojave Desert Geomorphic Province in southern California. The site sits at an elevation of approximately 2,660 feet above sea level. The Antelope Valley is a large, flat valley spanning approximately 2,200 square miles. It is located southeast of the Tehachapi Mountains and Garlock Fault, east of the Sierra Pelona Mountains, and north of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Andreas Fault, forming a large topographic and groundwater basin collecting water runoff from the surrounding mountains. Human use such as long-term groundwater pumping has lowered the water table, resulting in land subsidence and drop in elevation of the basin over time.

During the history of the Antelope Valley region, a large intermittent lake formed near the center of the basin and deposited various types of fine -grained sediment based on precipitation. Significant precipitation sourced massive beds of blue clay formed in a deep perennial lake, while mild precipitation deposited thin beds of clay Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 5
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

and evaporate salt deposits formed in playas or shallow intermittent lakes. The clay yields little to no water to wells, but the interbedded, coarser material can yield considerable volumes of water. Soils within the area are derived from loess and alluvial material sourced from granitic rock and others originating along the slopes of the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountains that were shed into the valley.

The geology of CGS Ritter Ridge 7.5’ quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, which includes the location of the subject site, has been m apped by Hernandez

2. The surficial geology of the subject site and adjacent properties is mapped as “Modern alluvium” (map unit Qa) dated to be Holocene. Unit Qa is described in the referenced mapping as “Unconsolidated to weakly consolidated, mostly und issected, fluvial gravel, sand, and silt. Loose, yellowish-grey sand, silt, and pebble -cobble gravel. Consists predominantly of moderately sorted coarse-grained to very coarse-grained arkosic sand.” No fill has been recorded at the location of the site on the geologic map. Refer to the Geologic Map, below.

GEOLOGIC MAP

4.2 Faulting

The nearest mapped fault is the San Andreas Fault very near the northeast corner of the site. According to California Geological Survey mapping3 the site lies within an earthquake fault zone. A special earthquake hazard study may be required.

2Hernandez, J.L., 2009, Preliminary geologic map of the Ritter Ridge 7.5' quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California: A digita l database, California Geological Survey, series unknown, 1:24,000. 3 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
SITE
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 6
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

4.3 Seismicity

4.3.1 Site Class

We understand that the State of California Building Code (SCBC) 2019 was adopted on January 1, 2020, which we anticipate wi ll be the code for design of the structures at this site. SCBC 2019 refers to Chapter 20, Site Classification Procedure for Seismic Design, of ASCE
4 7-16, which stipulates that the average values of shear wave velocity, blow count and/or shear strength within the upper 100 feet (30 meters) be utilized to determine seismic site class. Based on the SPT blow counts obtained in bore hole B -1, which extended approximately 5 0 feet below the surface, and projecting that subsurface soils to 100 feet will be sim ilar, it is our opinion the site best fits Site Class D – Stiff Soil (with data), which we recommend for seismic structural design.

4.3.2 Ground Motions

The seismic mapping utilized by the California Building Code provides values of peak ground, short period and long period spectral accelerations for the Site Class B/C boundary and the Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE
R). This Site Class B/ C boundary represents average bedrock values for the Western United States and must be corrected for local soil conditions. The following table summarizes the peak ground, short period and long period accelerations for the MCE
R event, and incorporates appropriate soil correction factors for a Site Class D (with data) soil profile at site grid coordinates of 34.6596 degrees north latitude and -118.1573 degrees west longitude:

Peak Ground Accel erati on PGA = 1.075 Fpga = 1.100 PGAM = 1.183 1.000 PGAM = 1.183 SS = 2.503 Fa = 1.000 SMS = 2.503 0.667 SDS = 1.669 Fa = (N/A) SMS = (N/A) 0.667 SDS = (N/A)
S1 = 1.068 Fv = N/A SM1 = N/A 0.667 SD1 = N/A
Fv = (1.700) SM1 = (1.816) 0.667 SD1 = (1.210)
NOTES: 1. TL (seconds): 8 * Site Class D With Data

2. Site Class: D 4. ASCE 7-16 Requires Site-Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis (Since S1≥0.2

3. Have data to verify? yes sec) - OR Can Use Exception 2 (per §11.4.8)

DESIGN VALUES
(g)

0.2 Seconds (Long Period
Accel erati on)

1.0 Second (Long Period
Accel erati on)
(no exceptions needed)
(Exception 2:)

SPECTRAL ACCELERATION

PERIOD, T

SITE CLASS B/C BOUNDARY
[mapped values] (g)
SITE

COEFFICIENT
SITE CLASS D* [adjusted
for site class effects] (g)
MULTI-
PLIER

As indicated in the above table, S
1 is greater than 0.2 seconds and a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis (GMHA) is required for the site, unless the Exception 2 values shown are used for seismic design. If a site-specific GMHA is desired instead of using the higher exception values, please contact CMT for a proposal to perform the GMHA.

4 American Society of Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 7
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

4.3.3 Liquefaction

Liquefaction is defined as the condition when saturated, loose, sandy soils lose their support capabilities because of excessive pore water pressure which develops during a seismic event. Clayey soils, even if saturated, will generally not liquefy during a major seismic event.

The previously referenced California Geological Survey mapping indicates the site is within a liquefaction zone.

Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth explored of approximately 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Given these conditions, liquefaction will not occur at the site in the soils encountered.

4.4 Other Geologic Hazards

The site is not located within a known or mapped potential debris flow, stream flooding 5, or rock fall hazard area. No landslide deposits or features, including lateral spread deposits, are mapped on or adjacent to the site.

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Surface Conditions

At the time the bore holes were drilled, the site was vacant land moderately vegetated with weeds, brush, and some cactus. Site grades sloped downward to the sou th. Based on aerial photos dating back to 1995 that are readily available on the internet, the site appears to have been vacant since that time. The site is bordered on the north, east, and west by similar vacant land, and on the south by Avenue S (see Vicinity Map in Section 1.1 above).

5.2 Subsurface Soils

Topsoil approximately 12 inches in thickness was noted on the surface at the bore hole locations. Subsurface natural soils encountered predominately consisted of near surface layers of red-yellow, slightly moist Sandy SILT (ML), and occasionally Sandy SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), extending to the bottom of bore holes B -1 through B-5, and to about 15 feet below the surface in B -6. Based upon the SPT blow counts these soils have stiff to hard consistency. Below the silt in B -6 a layer of brown, slightly moist Silty SAND ( SM), with varying amounts of gravel, was encountered which extended to about 40 feet below the surface. Blow counts indicate the sand is very dense. At about 40 feet the soils turned predominately silty again and were hard based on the blow counts, extending to the bottom of B-6 at about 50 feet below the surface.

For a more descriptive interpretation of subsurface conditions, please refer to the bore hole logs, Figures 2 through 7, which graphically represent the subsurface conditions encountered. The lines designating the

5 Federal Emergency Management Agency:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Highway%2014%20%26%20Avenue%20S%2C%20Palmdale%2C%20California%2 0#searchresultsanchor
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 8
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

interface between soil types on the log generally represent app roximate boundaries ; in situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual.

5.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum depth explored of 50 feet below the existing surface.

We do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during construction at this site.

Groundwater levels can fluctuate seasonally and in response to numerous factors such as heavy precipitation, irrigation of neighboring land, and other unforeseen factor. The detailed evaluation of these and other factors, which may be responsible for ground water fluctuations, and the magnitude of potential fluctuations, is beyond the scope of this study.

5.4 Site Subsurface Variations

Based on the results of the subsurface explorations and our experience, variations in the continuity and nature of subsurface conditions should be anticipated. Due to the heterogeneous characteristics of natural soils, care should be taken in interpolating or extrapolating subsurface conditions between or beyond the exploratory locations.

6.0 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING

6.1 General

All deleterious materials should be stripped from the site prior to commencement of construction activities.

This includes vegetation, topsoil, loose and disturbed soils, etc. Topsoil approximately 12 inches in thickness was noted on the surface at the bore hole locations. When stripping and grubbing, topsoil should be distinguished by the apparent organic content and not solely by color; thus , we estimate that topsoil stripping will need to include at least the upper 6 inches, but roots may locally extend deeper.

Fill placed over large areas to raise overall site grades can induce settlements in the underlying natural soils. If more than 3 feet of site grading fill is anticipated over the existing ground surface, we should be notified to assess potential settlements and provide additional recommendations as needed. These recommendations may include placement of the site grading fill far in advance to allow potential settlements to occur prior to construction.

6.2 Temporary Excavations

Excavations up to 16 feet deep for underground fuel storage tanks are anticipated at the site. Based upon bore hole B-6 it appears that excavations at the proposed tank pit location will encounter mostly silt.

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 9
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

For silty/sandy (cohesionless) soils, temporary construction excavations not exceeding 4 feet in depth should be no steeper than one -half horizontal to one vertica l (0.5H:1V). For excavations up to 16 feet and above groundwater, side slopes should be no steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical (1.5H:1V) unless shored or braced. Excavations encountering saturated cohesionless soils , though not antic ipated, will be very difficult to maintain, and will require very flat side slopes and/or shoring, bracing and dewatering.

All excavations must be inspected periodically by qualified personnel. If any signs of instability or excessive sloughing are noted, immediate remedial action must be initiated. All excavations should be made following OSHA safety guidelines.

6.3 Fill Material

The following table contains our recommendations for the various fill types we anticipate will be used at this site:

FILL MATERIAL TYPE DESCRIPTION | RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATION Structural Fill
Placed immediately below structures, flatwork and pavement. Well-graded sand/gravel mixture, with maximum particle size of 4 inches, a minimum 70% passing 3/4-inch sieve, a maximum 20% passing the No. 200 sieve, and a maximum Plasticity Index of 10.

Import Site Grading
Fill
Placed over larger areas to raise the site grade to within 18 inches of bottom of footing, and to pavement subgrade level . Sandy to gravelly soil, with a maximum particle size of 6 inches, a minimum 70% passing 3/4 -inch sieve, a maximum 50% passing No. 200 sieve and a maximum Plasticity Index of 15.

Non-Structural Fill
Placed below non -structural areas, such as landscaping. On -site soils or imported soils, with a maximum particle size of 8 inches, including silt/clay soils not containing excessive amounts of degradable/organic material (see discussion below).

Stabilization Fill
Placed to stabilize soft areas prior to placing structural fill and/or site grading fill. Coarse angular gravels and cobbles 1 inch to 8 inches in size. May also use 1.5 - to 2.0-inch gravel placed on stabilization fabric, such as Mirafi RS280i or equivalent (see Section 6.6).

The natural soils at this site may be utilized as site grading fill. All on -site soils could be used as non-structural fill. Existing soils will likely be more difficult to work with depending on the fines content and plasticity . If utilized, these soils should be compacted to the requirements given below.

All fill material should be approved by a geotechnical engineer prior to placement.

6.4 Fill Placement and Compaction

The various types of compaction equipment available have their limitations as to the maximum lift thickness that can be compacted. For example, hand operated equipment is limited to lifts of about 4 inches and most “trench compactors” have a maximum, consistent compaction depth of about 6 inches. Large rollers, depending on soil and moisture conditions, can achieve compaction at 8 to 12 inches. The full thickness of each lift should Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 10
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

be compacted to at least the following percentages of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 (or AASHTO6 T-99) in accordance with the following recommendations:

LOCATION

TOTAL FILL

THICKNESS
(FEET)

MINIMUM PERCENTAGE

OF MAXIMUM DRY

DENSITY
Beneath an area extending at least 4 feet beyond the perimeter of structures, and below flatwork and pavement (applies to structural fill and site grading fill) extending at least 2 feet beyond the perimeter 0 to 5
5 to 8
95 98
Site grading fill outside area defined above 0 to 5
5 to 8
90 95
Utility trenches within structural areas -- 95
Roadbase and subbase - 95
Non-structural fill 0 to 5
5 to 8
85 90

Structural fills greater than 8 feet thick are not anticipated at the site. F or best compaction results , w e recommend that the moisture content for structural fill/backfill be within 2 % of optimum. Field density tests should be performed on each lift as necessary to verify that proper compaction is being achieved.

6.5 Utility Trenches

For the bedding zone around the utility, we recommend utilizing sand bedding fill material that meets current local or APWA
7 requirements.

All utility trench backfill material below structurally loaded facilities (foundations, floor slabs, flatwork, parking lots/drive areas, etc.) sh ould be placed at the same density requirements established for structural fill in the previous section.

Most utility companies and local governments are requiring Type A -1a or A -1b (AASHTO Designation) soils (sand/gravel soils with limited fines) be used as backfill over utilities within public rights of way, and the backfill be compacted over the full depth above the bedding zone to at least 9 5% of the maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO T-99 (ASTM D-698).

Where the utility does not underlie structurally loaded facilities and public rights of way, natural soils may be utilized as trench backfill above the bedding layer, provided they are properly moisture conditioned and compacted to the minimum requirements stated above in Section 6.4.

6 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 7 American Public Works Association
Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 11
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

6.6 Stabilization

To stabilize soft subgrade conditions a mixture of coarse, clean, angular gravels and cobbles and/or 1.5- to 2.0- inch clean gravel should be utilized. Often the amount of gravelly material can be reduced with the use of a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi RS280i, or equivalent. Its use will also help avoid mixing of the subgrade soils with the gravelly material. After excavating the soft/disturbed soils, the fabric should be spread across the bottom of the excavation and up the sides a minimum of 18 inches. Otherwise, it should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation, including proper overlaps. The gravel material can then be placed over the fabric in compacted lifts as described above.

7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics, the subsurface conditions observed in the field and the laboratory test data, as well as common geotechnical engineering practice.

7.1 Foundation Recommendations

Based on our geotechnical engineering analyses, the proposed structures may be supported upon conventional spread and/or continuous wall foundations placed on suitable, scarified and re-compacted natural soils, or on structural fill placed on suitable, scarified, re-compacted natural soils. Footings may be designed using a net bearing pressure of 2,000 psf if bearing on scarified and re-compacted natural soils, and 2,500 psf if bearing on a minimum of 18 inches of structural fill placed upon scarified, re-compacted natural soils. The term “net bearing pressure” refers to the pressure imposed by the portion of the structure located above lowest adjacent final grade, thus the weight of the footing and backfill to lowest adjacent final grade need not be considered. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for temporary loads such as wind and seismic forces.

We also recommend the following:

1. Exterior footings subject to frost should be placed at least 18 inches below final grade, or per city standards if deeper.

2. Interior footings not subject to frost should be placed at least 12 inches below grade.

3. Continuous footing widths should be maintained at a minimum of 18 inches.

4. Spot footings should be a minimum of 24 inches wide.

7.2 Installation

Under no circumstances shall foundations be placed on undocumented fill, topsoil with organics, sod, rubbish, construction debris, other deleterious materials, frozen soils, or within ponded water. If unsuitable soils are encountered, they must be completely removed and replaced with properly compacted structural fill. The base of footing excavations and floor slab sub grades should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer to confirm that suitable bearing soils have been exposed.

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 12
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

The base of footing excavations should be scarified a minimum of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as needed, and re-compacted to the requirements for structural fill given in Section 6.4 prior to forming for footings or placement of structural fill.

All structural fill should meet the requirements for such, and should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 6 above. The width of structural repla cement fill below footings should be equal to the width of the footing plus 1 foot for each foot of fill thickness. For instance, if the footing width is 2 feet and the structural fill depth beneath the footing is 4 feet, the fill replacement width should be 6 feet, centered beneath the footing.

The minimum thickness of structural fill below footings should be equivalent to one -third the thickness of structural fill below any other portion of the foundations. For example, if the maximum depth of structural fill is 6 feet, all footings for the new structure should be underlain by a minimum 2 feet of structural fill.

7.3 Estimated Settlement

Foundations designed and constructed in accordance with our recommendations could experience some settlement, but we anticipate that total settlements of footings founded as recommended above will not exceed 1 inch, with differential settlements on the order of 0.5 inches over a distance of 25 feet. We expect approximately 50% of the total settlement to initially take place during construction.

7.4 Lateral Resistance

Lateral loads imposed upon foundations due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by the development of passive earth pressures and friction between the base of the footings and the supporting soils. In determining frictional resistance, a coefficient of 0.30 for natural soils and 0.40 for s tructural fill may be utilized for design.

Passive resistance provided by properly placed and compacted natural soils above the water table may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 350 pcf. A combination of passive earth resistance and friction may be utilized if the passive pressure component of the total is divided by 1.5.

7.5 Uplift Loads

Uplift load s may be resisted by the weight of the foundation and the backfill wedge above the top of the foundation within the area defined by an imaginary line extending outward from the outside top edge of the footing 10 degrees from vertical, up to final grade. A unit weight of 120 pounds per square foot can be used for sand and gravel backfill over the footings.

8.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

We anticipate that below-grade walls up to 4 feet high may be constructed at this site. The lateral earth pressure values given in the table below are for a backfill material that will consist of drained sand soils (less than 10% passing No. 200 sieve) placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented herein. If Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 13
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

other soil types will be used as backfill, we should be notified so that appropriate modifications to these values can be provided, as needed.

The lateral pressures imposed upon subgrade facilities will depend upon the relative rigid ity and movement of the backfilled structure. In the table on the following page are the recommended lateral pressure values, which also assume that the soil surface behind the wall is horizontal and that the backfill within 3 feet of the wall will be compacted with hand-operated compacting equipment.

CONDITION STATIC (psf/ft)* SEISMIC (psf)**
Active Pressure (wall is allowed to yield, i.e. move away from the soil, with a minimum 0.001H movement/rotation at the top of the wall, where “H” is the total height of the wall)
40 106
At-Rest Pressure (wall is not allowed to yield) 60 283
Passive Pressure (wall moves into the soil) 350 0
*Equivalent Fluid Pressure (applied at 1/3 Height of 4-foot High Wall) **Uniform Pressure, Seismic Only (applied at 1/2 Height of 4-foot High Wall)

9.0 BOUYANT FORCES

Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth explored of 5 0 feet. Based upon this condition we anticipate that underground tanks will not need to be designed to resist buoyant forces.

10.0 FLOOR SLABS

Floor slabs may be established upon suitable, natural scarified and re -compacted soils and/or on structural fill extending to suitable , natural scarified and re -compacted soils (same as for foundations). Under no circumstances shall floor slabs be established directly on any topsoil, undocumented fills, loose or disturbed soils, sod, rubbish, construction debris, other deleterious materials, frozen soils, or within ponded water.

In order to facilitate curing of the concrete, we recommend that floor slabs be directly underlain by at least 4 inches of “free-draining” fill, such as “pea” gravel or 3/4-inch quarters to 1-inch minus, clean, gap-graded gravel.

To help control normal shrinkage and stress cracking, the floor slabs should have the following features:

1. Adequate reinforcement for the anticipated floor loads with the reinforcement continuous through interior floor joints;

2. Frequent crack control joints; and

3. Non-rigid attachment of the slabs to foundation walls and bearing slabs.

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 14
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

11.0 DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS

It is important to the long-term performance of foundations and floor slabs that water not be allowed to collect near the foundation walls and infiltrate into the underlying soils. We recommend the following:

1. All areas around the structure s should be sloped to provide drainage away from the foundations. We recommend a minimum slope of 4 inches in the first 10 feet away from the structure. This slope should be maintained throughout the lifetime of the structure.

2. All roof drainage should be collected in rain gutters with downspouts designed to discharge at least 10 feet from the foundation walls or well beyond the backfill limits, whichever is greater.

3. Adequate compaction of the foundation backfill should be provided. We suggest a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D-698. Water consolidation methods should not be used under any circumstances.

4. Landscape sprinklers should be a imed away from foundation walls. The sprinkling systems should be designed with proper drainage and be well-maintained. Over watering should be avoided.

5. Other precautions that may become evident during construction.

12.0 PAVEMENTS

All pavement areas must be prepared as discussed above in Section 6.1. Under no circumst ances shall pavements be established over topsoil, un-prepared existing undocumented fill soils, loose or disturbed soils, sod, rubbish, construction debris, other deleterious materials, frozen soils, or within ponded water.

To assess subgrade strength for pavement support Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were performed at three locations within proposed pavement areas. Test results were varied, with correlated average California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value s ranging from 4.3 to 9.1 (see Figures 11 through 13). We have utilized a correlated CBR value of 5 as the basis for the pavement design.

Given the projected traffic as discussed above in Section 1.3, the follo wing pavement sections are recommended for the estimated ESAL’s:

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 15
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

MATERIAL
PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS (inches)

PARKING AREAS
(Moderate Duty)
(4 ESAL'S per day)

HI-FLOW AREAS
(Heavy Duty)
(521 ESAL'S per day)
Asphalt 4* --- 6* 6* 6* 6* ---
Concrete --- 4 --- --- --- --- 6
Road-Base 8* 6 22 10 12† 15‡ 6
Subbase 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
Total Thickness 12 10 28 31 18 21 12
*Maverik Minimum
†Cement Treated
‡Over Tensar TX-7 Geogrid

Untreated base course (UTBC) should conform to city or DOT specifications. Material meeting our specification for structural fill can be used for subbase, as long as the fines content (percent passing No. 200 sieve) does not exceed 15%. Roadbase and subbase material should be compacted as recommended above in Section 6.4.

Asphalt material generally should conform to DOT or APWA requirements.

Concrete pavement should be designed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and joint details should conform to the Portland Cement Association (PCA) guidelines. The concrete should have a minimum 28-day unconfined compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch.

13.0 QUALITY CONTROL

We recommend that a comprehensive quality control testing and observation program be established during construction to help facilitate implementation of our recommendations and address, in a timely manner, any subsurface conditions encountered which vary from those described in this report. Without such a program CMT cannot be respon sible for application of our recommendations to subsurface conditions which may vary from those described herein. This program may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

13.1 Field Observations

Observations should be completed during all phases of construction such as site preparation, foundation excavation, structural fill placement and concrete placement.

13.2 Fill Compaction

Compaction testing is required for all structural supporting fill materials. Maximum Dry Density ( Standard Proctor, ASTM D-698) tests should be requested by the contractor immediately after delivery of any fill materials. The maximum density information should then be used for field density tests on each lift as necessary to ensure that the required compaction is being achieved.

Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 16
Proposed Maverik Store, Palmdale, CA
Project No. 18988

13.3 Excavations

All excavation procedures and processes should be observed by a geotechnical engineer. In addition, for the recommendations in this report to be valid, all backfill and structural fill placed in trenches and all pave ments should be density tested. We recommend that freshly mixed concrete be tested in accordance with ASTM designations.

14.0 LIMITATIONS

The recommendations provided herein were developed by evaluating the information obtained from the subsurface explorations and soils encountered therein. The exploration logs reflect the subsurface conditions only at the specific location at the particular time designated on the logs. Soil and ground water conditions may differ from conditions encountered at the actual exploration locations. The nature and extent of any variation in the explorations may not become evident until during the course of construction. If variations do appear, it may become necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report after we have observed the variation.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us at 801-492-4132.

SUPPORTING

DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX
Date:

Job #
Maverik Store
Figure:
1Hwy 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Site Map
26-Aug-22
18988
N
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
DCP-1
DCP-2
DCP-3
Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), red-yellow, slightly moist
stiff 4
1 5 11 5 69
6 stiff to very stiff 24
2 12 30
18 END AT 6.5'
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Job #:

Maverik Store
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA
Figure:

Bore Hole Log
Total Depth:

Water Depth:

6.5'
(see Remarks)
Blows (N)
18988
Gradation
Soil Description
Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given
Tom Gordon
Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30"
2 B-1
Atterberg
1 of 1
Hollow-Stem Auger
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Geoboden
Date:

Coordinates: 34.55813°, -118.13542°
8/26/22
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), red-yellow, slightly moist
stiff 5
3 6 13
7 Sandy Silty CLAY (CL-ML), red-yellow, slightly moist hard 15 4 16 34 4 65 22 15 7
18 END AT 6.5'
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Tom Gordon
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 6.5'
Water Depth: (see Remarks)
Geoboden
Hollow-Stem Auger
Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given
Soil Description
Figure:Coordinates: 34.55915°, -118.13467°
1 of 1 3
Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30"
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Job #: 18988
Date: 8/26/22
B-2Maverik Store Bore Hole Log
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), red-yellow, slightly moist
very stiff 8
5 8 20
12 hard 6 60/6"
7 60/6" 2 53
8 60/6"
END AT 10.5'
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Tom Gordon
1 of 1
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Figure:Coordinates: 34.55874°, -118.13538° Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30" 4 Geoboden
Soil Description
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Water Depth: (see Remarks) Job #: 18988
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 10.5' Date: 8/26/22 Maverik Store Bore Hole Log B-3
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), trace gravel, red-yellow, slightly moist very stiff 6
9 4 19
15 24
10 10 26
16 hard 11 60/6"
12 60/6" 1 1 48 51 NP NP
END AT 10.5'
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Tom Gordon
1 of 1
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Figure:Coordinates: 34.53869°, -118.13525° Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30" 5 Geoboden
Soil Description
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Water Depth: (see Remarks) Job #: 18988
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 10.5' Date: 8/26/22 Maverik Store Bore Hole Log B-4
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), trace gravel, red-yellow, slightly moist very stiff 2
13 8 20
12 stiff 3
14 6 12 3 2 34 64
6 4
15 6 13
7 hard 12
16 16 32 3 57
16 grades with gravel, brown, moist 17 60/6"
END AT 15.5'
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Tom Gordon
1 of 1
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Figure:Coordinates: 34.55894°, -118.13511° Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30" 6 Geoboden
Soil Description
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Water Depth: (see Remarks) Job #: 18988
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 15.5' Date: 8/26/22 Maverik Store Bore Hole Log B-5
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Topsoil
Sandy SILT (ML), trace gravel, red-yellow, slightly moist stiff 6
18 7 14
7 hard 15
19 17 38 3 2 34 64
21 20 60/6"
21 60/6" 4 0 31 69
Silty SAND (SM), some gravel, brown, slightly moist very dense 22 60/6" 23 60/6" 7 87 6 55 39
24 60/6"
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Tom Gordon
1 of 2
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Figure:Coordinates: 34.53818°, -118.13494° Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30" 7 Geoboden
Soil Description
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Water Depth: (see Remarks) Job #: 18988
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 50' Date: 8/26/22 Maverik Store Bore Hole Log B-6
0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Silty SAND (SM), some gravel, brown, slightly moist
very dense 25 60/6" 7 3 61 36
26 60/6"
Sandy SILT (ML), trace gravel, brown, slightly moist hard 27 60/6" 11 1 40 59 28 60/6"
REFUSAL AT 50.0' 29 11 3 47 50 26 13 13
Remarks:

Equipment:

Excavated By:

Logged By:

Page:

Geoboden
Tom Gordon
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.

Figure:Coordinates: 34.53818°, -118.13494° Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elev. (approx): Not Given Automatic Hammer, Wt=140 lbs, Drop=30" 72 of 2
Job #: 18988
Soil Description
Blows (N) Gradation Atterberg
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA Total Depth: 50' Date: 8/26/22 Water Depth: (see Remarks)
Maverik Store Bore Hole Log B-6
28 32
36 40
44 48
52 56
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC
LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI

Date:

Job #:

Gradation
① ②④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩

MODIFIERS
Description Thickness Trace
Seam Up to ½ inch <5%
Lense Up to 12 inches Some
Layer Greater than 12 in. 5-12%
Occasional 1 or less per foot With
Frequent More than 1 per foot > 12%
Note: Dual Symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classif ications (i.e. GP-GM, SC-SM, etc.). 8 Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little or
No Fines
Silty Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures

TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
USCS

SYMBOLS
Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixtures
Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little or No
Fines
②MAJOR DIVISIONS
GP

CLEAN SANDS

1. The results of laboratory tests on the samples collected are shown on the logs at the respective sample depths.

2. The subsurface conditions represented on the logs are for the locations specified. Caution should be exercised if interpolating between or extrapolating beyond the exploration locations.

3. The information presented on each log is subject to the limi tations, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report.

Dry: Absence of moisture,
dusty, dry to the touch.

Moist: Damp / moist to the
touch, but no visible water.
①
Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixtures,
Little or No Fines
Poorly-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixtures,
Little or No Fines
Silty Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Silt Mixtures
Figure:
9/12/22
18988
Key to Symbols

COARSE-

GRAINED
SOILS
More than 50%
of material is
larger than No.
200 sieve size.

GRAVELS
The coarse
fraction
retained on
No. 4 sieve.

CLEAN

GRAVELS GW
(< 5% fines)

GRAVELS

WITH FINES
GC
Graphic Log: Graphic depicting type of soil encountered (see ② below). ⑪
PL = Plastic Limit (%): Water content at which a soil changes from liquid to plastic behavior.

Soil Description
Blows(N) Atterberg
⑤ Sample #: Consecutive numbering of soil samples
collected during field exploration.
⑥ Blows: Number of blows to advance sampler in 6"
increments, using a 140-lb hammer with 30" drop.
③ Soil Description: Description of soils, including Unified Soil Classification Symbol (see below).

PI = Plasticity Index (%): Range of water content at which a soil exhibits plastic properties (= Liquid Limit - Plastic Limit).

Gradation: Percentages of Gravel, Sand and Fines (Silt/Clay), from lab test results of soil passing No. 4 and No. 200 sieves.

Organic Silts and Organic Clays of Medium to
High Plasticity
④ Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected; sampler
symbols are explained below-right.
⑦ Total Blows: Number of blows to advance sampler the
2nd and 3rd 6" increments.
⑧ Moisture (%): Water content of soil sample measured in laboratory (percentage of dry weight).
(< 5% fines)
GM
( ≥ 12% fines)
(see Remarks on Logs)
Inorganic Clays of High Plasticity, Fat Clays
ML
CL
Rock Core
MH
Inorganic Silts, Micacious or Diatomacious Fine
Sand or Silty Soils with Plasticity (Elastic Silts)
Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures
Inorganic Clays of Low to Medium Plasticity,
Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean
Organic Silts and Organic Silty Clays o f Low
Plasticity
SP

SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit greater than
50%
SANDS

WITH FINES SM
SW
( ≥ 12% fines)

SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit less than 50%
Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils with High Organic
Contents

3.5" OD, 2.42" ID
D&M Sampler
Block Sample

MOISTURE CONTENT
OH
Inorganic Silts and Very Fine Sands, Silty or
Clayey Fine Sands or Clayey Silts with Slight

WATER SYMBOL

SAMPLER
OL
SC
CH
PT
Atterberg: Individual descriptions of Atterberg Tests are as follows:

Bulk/Bag Sample
Measured Water
Level
Encountered
Water Level
Standard
Penetration Split
Spoon Sampler
②
LL = Liquid Limit (%): Water content at which a soil changes from plastic to liquid behavior.

Saturated: Visible water,
usually soil below
groundwater.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

SYMBOLS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
FINE-

GRAINED
SOILS
More than 50%
of material is
smaller than No.
200 sieve size.

Thin Wall
(Shelby Tube)
SANDS
The coarse
fraction
passing
through
No. 4 sieve.

Maverik Store
Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA
Modified California
Sampler

STRATIFICATION
Dry Density (pcf): The dry density of a soil measured in laboratory (pounds per cubic foot).⑨
Depth (ft.): Depth (feet) below the ground surface
(including groundwater depth - see below right). ⑩
⑪
Depth (ft)

GRAPHIC LOG
Sample Type
Sample #
Total
Moisture (%)
Dry Density(pcf)
Gravel %
Sand %
Fines %
LL
PL
PI
③

Project: Maverik-Palmdale, CA Date:

Location: DCP-1
Hammer: 17.6 lb
Soil Type(s): SILT (ML)
No. of Individual Type of
Blows Penetration Hammer
(mm)
1 0 2
1 21 2
1 15 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 10 2
1 12 2
1 12 2
1 10 2
1 12 2
1 10 2
1 12 2
1 10 2
1 10 2
1 12 2
1 26 2
1 13 2
1 17 2
1 14 2
1 13 2
1 12 2
1 12 2
1 12 2
1 11 2
1 12 2
1 11 2
1 12 2
1 12 2
1 10 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
Figure:

Date: 26-Aug-22
Job # 18988
8/26/2022

DCP TEST DATA
Maverik Store
9Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA DCP Data

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 127
254
381
508
635
762
889
1016
1143

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
DEPTH, in.

CBR
DEPTH, mm

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
DEPTH, in
BEARING CAPACITY, psf
Based on approximate interrelationships
of CBR and Bearing values (Design of
Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland
Cement Association, page 8, 1955)

Project: Maverik-Palmdale, CA Date:

Location: DCP-2
Hammer: 17.6 lb
Soil Type(s): SILT (ML)
No. of Individual Type of
Blows Penetration Hammer
(mm)
1 0 2
1 10 2
1 12 2
1 10 2
1 10 2
1 11 2
1 10 2
1 10 2
1 8 2
1 11 2
1 10 2
1 10 2
1 7 2
1 11 2
1 10 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 10 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 12 2
1 11 2
1 11 2
1 13 2
1 13 2
1 13 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 14 2
1 13 2
1 14 2
1 2
1 2
Figure:

Date: 26-Aug-22
Job # 18988

DCP TEST DATA
8/26/2022
Maverik Store
10Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA DCP Data

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 127
254
381
508
635
762
889
1016
1143

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
DEPTH, in.

CBR
DEPTH, mm

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 5.5

6.0 6.5

7.0 7.5

8.0 8.5

9.0 9.5

10.0 10.5

11.0 11.5

12.0 12.5

13.0 13.5

14.0 14.5

15.0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
DEPTH, in
BEARING CAPACITY, psf
Based on approximate interrelationships
of CBR and Bearing values (Design of
Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland
Cement Association, page 8, 1955)

Project: Maverik-Palmdale, CA Date:

Location: DCP-3
Hammer: 17.6 lb
Soil Type(s): SILT (ML)
No. of Individual Type of
Blows Penetration Hammer
(mm)
1 0 2
1 26 2
1 31 2
1 27 2
1 26 2
1 25 2
1 23 2
1 21 2
1 22 2
1 20 2
1 20 2
1 18 2
1 19 2
1 18 2
1 19 2
1 20 2
1 19 2
1 21 2
1 23 2
1 23 2
1 23 2
1 20 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
Figure:

Date: 26-Aug-22
Job # 18988

DCP TEST DATA
8/26/2022
Maverik Store
11Highway 14 & Avenue S, Palmdale, CA DCP Data

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 127
254
381
508
635
762
889
1016
1143

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
DEPTH, in.

CBR
DEPTH, mm

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
DEPTH, in
BEARING CAPACITY, psf
Based on approximate interrelationships
of CBR and Bearing values (Design of
Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland
Cement Association, page 8, 1955)

Appendix F
Noise Impact Study

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA

Prepared for:

Ms. Anna Choudhuri
The Altum Group
44-600 Village Court Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260

Prepared by:

MD Acoustics, LLC
Samuel Hord
Robert Pearson
1197 Los Angeles Ave, Ste C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065

Date: 11/2/2023

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Table of Contents

MD Acoustics, LLC ii
JN: 07412309_Report.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives 1

1.2 Site Location and Study Area 1

1.3 Proposed Project Description 1

2.0 Fundamentals of Noise ................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics 4

2.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels 4

2.4 Addition of Decibels 4

2.5 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels 5

2.6 Noise Descriptors 5

2.7 Traffic Noise Prediction 6

2.8 Sound Propagation 6

3.0 Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals ........................................................................................ 8

3.1 Vibration Descriptors 8

3.2 Vibration Perception 8

3.3 Vibration Perception 8

4.0 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Federal Regulations 10

4.2 State Regulations 10

4.3 City of Palmdale Noise Regulations 12

5.0 Study Method and Procedure ..................................................................................................... 16

5.1 Noise Measurement Procedure and Criteria 16

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations 16

5.3 SoundPLAN Noise Model (Operational Noise) 16

5.4 Traffic Noise Prediction Modeling 17

5.5 Construction Noise Modeling 18

6.0 Existing Noise Environment ......................................................................................................... 19

7.0 Future Noise Environment Impacts and Mitigation .................................................................... 21

7.1 Off-Site Traffic Noise Impact 21

7.2 On-Site Traffic Noise Impact 21

7.3 Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Stationary Noise Sources 22

8.0 Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts .................................................................................. 24

8.1 Construction Noise 24

8.2 Construction Vibration 25

9.0 CEQA Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 28

10.0 References .................................................................................................................................. 30

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Table of Contents

MD Acoustics, LLC iii
JN: 07412309_Report.docx

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Measurement Data
Appendix B: SoundPLAN Noise Modeling Data
Appendix C: FHWA Roadway Noise Modeling Worksheets
Appendix D: Construction Noise Modeling Output
Appendix E: Construction Vibration Modeling Output

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Location Map .................................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit B: Site Plan ............................................................................................................................ 3 Exhibit C: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels ...................................................................................... 4 Exhibit D: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ................................................................................. 11 Exhibit E: Measurement Locations ................................................................................................. 20 Exhibit F: Project Leq Operational Noise Levels ............................................................................. 23

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Maximum Acceptable Noise Levels ........................................................................................... 12 Table 2: SoundPLAN Modeling Assumptions .......................................................................................... 17 Table 3: Roadway Parameters and Vehicle Distribution ......................................................................... 18 Table 4: Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA)1 ........................................................................... 19 Table 5: Existing Scenario - Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) ................................................... 21 Table 6: Operational Noise Levels (dBA, Leq) .......................................................................................... 22 Table 7: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels1 .......................................................................... 24 Table 8: Construction Noise Level by Phase (dBA, Leq) ........................................................................... 25 Table 9: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ......................................................... 26 Table 10: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .............................................................. 27 Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Introduction

1 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
This noise assessment was prepared to evaluate the potential noise impacts for the project study area and to recommend noise mitigation measures, if necessary, to minimize the potential noise impacts. The assessment was conducted and compared to the noise standards set forth by the Federal, State , and Local agencies. Consistent with the City’s Noise Guidelines, the project must demonstrate compliance to the applicable noise criteria as outlined within the City of Lancaster Noise Element and Municipal Code.

The following is provided in this report:
• A description of the study area and the proposed project; • Information regarding the fundamentals of noise;
• A description of the local noise guidelines and standards; • An analysis of traffic noise impacts to the sensitive receptors and the project site; and • An analysis of construction noise impacts.

1.2 Site Location and Study Area
The project site is located near the corner of West Avenue South and State Route 14 (APN: 3004 -016- 032) in the City of Palmdale, CA, as shown in Exhibit A. The site is currently zoned as special development by the City of Palmdale. The project borders special development uses to the east and west, low density residential use to the north, industrial use to the south, and rural land uses to the southeast and southwest. West Avenue South is to the south and State Route 14 is to the east.

1.3 Proposed Project Description
The project proposes the construction of a 5,637-square foot convenience store, a total of thirty seven (37) parking spaces, twenty-four (24) gasoline fueling stations. Exhibit B demonstrates the site plan for the project.

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA
Exhibit A
Location Map
2 Site
Exhibit B
Site Plan
3 Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Fundamentals of Noise

4 2.0 Fundamentals of Noise
This section of the report provides basic information about noise and presents some of the terms used within the report.

2.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
Sound is a disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a moving object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to a human ear. For traffic or stationary noise, the medium of concern is air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted.

2.2 Frequency and Hertz
A continuous sound is described by its frequency
(pitch) and its amplitude (loudness). Frequency
relates to the number of pressure oscillations per
second. Low-frequency sounds are low in pitch (bass
sounding) and high -frequency sounds are high in
pitch (squeak). These oscillations per second (cycles)
are commonly referred to as Hertz (Hz). The human
ear can hear from the bass pitch starting at 20 Hz to
the high pitch of 20,000 Hz.

2.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness.

The loudness of sound increases or decreases as the
amplitude increases or decreases. Sound pressure
amplitude is measured in units of micro-Newton per
square inch meter (N/m2), also called micro -Pascal
(µPa). One µPa i s approximately one hundred
billionths (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric
pressure. Sound pressure level (SPL or L p) is used to
describe in logarithmic units the ratio of actual
sound pressures to a reference pressure squared.

These units are called decibels abbreviated dB. Exhibit C illustrates references sound levels for different noise sources.

2.4 Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by simple plus or minus addition. When two sounds or equal SPL are combined, they will produce an SPL 3 dB greater than the original single SPL. In other words, sound energy must be doubled to produce a 3 dB increase. If two sounds differ by approximately 10 dB, the higher sound level is the predominant sound.

Exhibit C: Typical A-Weighted Noise
Levels

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Fundamentals of Noise

5 2.5 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, (A - weighted scale) and it perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. For purp oses of this report as well as with most environmental documents, the A -scale weighting is typically reported in terms of A -weighted decibel (dBA). Typically, the human ear can barely perceive a change in the noise level of 3 dB. A change in 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change in 10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud. As previously discussed, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g. doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.

2.6 Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, others are random. Some noise levels are constant while others are sporadic. Noise descriptors were created to describe the different time-varying noise levels.

A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.

Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24- hour day, obtained after the addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after the addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM.

Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals. dB(A): A-weighted sound level (see definition above).

Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ): The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period.

Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, or other applicable regulations, which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, and similar spaces.

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Fundamentals of Noise

6 L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly L50, L90, and L99, etc.

Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...".

Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise -sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas).

Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).

Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.

Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.

Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): The dB(A) level which, if it lasted for one second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.

2.7 Traffic Noise Prediction
Noise levels associated with traffic depends on a variety of factors: (1) volume of traffic, (2) speed of traffic, (3) auto, medium truck (2 axle), and heavy truck percentage (3 axle and greater), and (4) sound propagation. The greater the volume of traffi c, the higher speeds and truck percentages equate to a louder volume in noise. A doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along a roadway will increase noise levels by approximately 3 dB; reasons for this are discussed in the sections above.

2.8 Sound Propagation
As sound propagates from a source it spreads geometrically. Sound from a small, localized source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per d oubling of distance. The movement of vehicles down a roadway makes the source of the sound appear to propagate from a line (i.e., line source) rather than a point source. This line source results in the noise propagating from a roadway in a cylindrical spr eading Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Fundamentals of Noise

7 versus a spherical spreading that results from a point source. The sound level attenuates for a line source at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance.

As noise propagates from the source, it is affected by the ground and atmosphere. Noise models use hard site (reflective surfaces) and soft site (absorptive surfaces) to help calculate predicted noise levels.

Hard site conditions assume no excessive ground absorption between the noise source and the receiver.

Soft site conditions such as grass, soft dirt or landscaping attenuate noise at a rate of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance. When added to the geometric spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall noise attenuation of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance for a line source and 7.5 dB per doubling of distance for a point source.

Research has demonstrated that atmospheric conditions can have a significant effect on noise levels when noise receivers are located 200 feet from a noise source. Wind, temperature, air humidity, and turbulence can further impact how far sound can travel.

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals

8 3.0 Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals

3.1 Vibration Descriptors
Ground-borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground-borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings ma y occur. Although ground-borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Ground-borne noise is an effect of ground-borne vibration and only exists indoors since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.

Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude.

PPV – Known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) which is the maximum instantaneous peak in vibration velocity, typically given in inches per second.

RMS – Known as root mean squared (RMS) can be used to denote vibration amplitude VdB – A commonly used abbreviation to describe the vibration level (VdB) for a vibration source.

3.2 Vibration Perception
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB.

Outdoor sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground- borne noise or vibration. To counter the effects of ground -borne vibration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FTA, fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.3 inches per second without experiencing structural damage.

3.3 Vibration Perception
There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wavefront, similar to ripp les produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P -waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wavefront. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P- waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wavefront. However, unlike P -waves, the particle motion is transverse, or side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.

As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source.

As stated above, this drop -off rate can vary gr eatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals

9 effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests.

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

10 4.0 Regulatory Setting
The proposed project is located in Palmdale, California, and noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.

4.1 Federal Regulations
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
• Publicize noise emission standards for interstate commerce • Assist state and local abatement efforts
• Promote noise education and research
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) originally was tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated leaving other federal agencies and committees to develop noise policies and programs. Some example s of these agencies are as follows: The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various agencies. The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible for regulating noise from aircraft and airports.

The Feder al Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for regulating noise from the interstate highway system. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive noise exposure to workers. The Housing and Urb an Development (HUD) is responsible for establishing noise regulations as it relates to exterior/interior noise levels for new HUD- assisted housing developments near high noise areas.

The federal government advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being constructed adjacent to a highway or that the developmen ts are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.

Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.

4.2 State Regulations
Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model is the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix.” The matrix allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate the compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise.

The State of California has established noise insulation standards as outlined in Title 24 and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which in some cases requires acoustical analyses to outline exterior noise levels and Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

11 to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed the interior threshold. The State mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan.

The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable as illustrated in Exhibit D, which presents the City of Palmdale’s adaptation of these guidelines.

Exhibit D: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

12 4.3 City of Palmdale Noise Regulations
The City of Palmdale outlines their noise regulations and standards within the Noise Element from the General Plan and Chapter 9.18 of the Municipal Code. For purposes of this analysis, the City’s General Plan and Noise Ordinance is used to evaluate the ro adway noise and stationary noise impacts to and from the proposed project. The Noise Element outlines Goals and Polices and establishes Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria (Table N -1). This assessment will compare the project noise levels to the commercial noise limits since the proposed project and surrounding uses are zoned as commercial land uses. The project impacts were compared to the City’s commercial and residential noise standards.

The City of Palmdale outlines their noise regulations and standards within the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan and the Noise Code located in the City’s Municipal Code.

City of Palmdale General Plan
The City requires that acoustical analysis reports include an evaluation of impacts associated with noise levels at the project site as well as the impact of the project on the existing noise environment. Where appropriate, the City will require acoustical analysis reports to include acoustical design to achieve the appropriate interior and exterior noise levels through sound insulation, or other means, as indicated in Table 1. For commercial land uses, an interior noise level of 55 dBA Leq would apply to t he proposed commercial building, and a “noise level which does not interfere with normal business activity” is the standard for on-site exterior noise levels.

Table 1: Maximum Acceptable Noise Levels

Land Use Exterior Interior Scale
Residential
SFR 65 45 dBA, CNEL
MFR 65 45 dBA, CNEL
MHP 65 45 dBA, CNEL
Commercial including, but not limited to: A noise level which does not jeopardize health, safety,
and welfare of visitors.

Retail 55 Leq(h)
Services 55 Leq(h)
Office 55 Leq(h)
Institutional including, but not limited to: A noise level which does not jeopardize health, safety,
and welfare of visitors.

School 45 Leq(h)
Hospitals 45 Leq(h)
Nursing Homes 45 Leq(h)
Industrial including but not limited to: A noise level which does not interfere with normal
business activity.

Industrial Park 65 Leq(h)
Business Park 65 Leq(h)
Quarry
Maximum 65 Leq(h) at the
interface with residentially
designated land. n/a n/a
Source: City of Palmdale General Plan Noise Element, 1993

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

13 General Plan Noise Element Goals, objectives and policies applicable to the proposed project are presented below.

Goal N1: Minimize the exposure of residents to excessive noise to the extent possible, through the land planning and the development review process.

Objective N1.1: Utilize appropriate land use planning as the primary method of achieving noise compatibility among adjacent land uses.

Policy N1.1.1: Locate noise compatible land uses near existing and future air, rail and highway transportation noise sources.

Policy N1.1.3: When proposed stationary noise sources could exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL at present, or could impact future noise sensitive land uses, require preparation of an acoustical analysis and mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to no mor e than 65 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA CNEL interior; if the noise level cannot be reduced to these thresholds through mitigation, the new noise source should not be permitted.

Policy N1.1.4: Consider the noise environment when making land use decisions with respect to the guidelines contained in Table 2, and require noise standards consistent with the criteria listed on Table 1. The State Recommended Acceptable Noise Guidelines, listed in Tab le 2, are provided as guidelines only, and are not represented as standards.

Objective N1.2: Protect and maintain those areas having acceptable noise environments.

Policy N1.2.2: Restrict construction hours during the evening, early morning and Sundays.

Policy N1.2.3: Utilize any or all of the following measures in order to maintain acceptable noise environments throughout the City:

1. Control of noise at its source, including noise barriers and other muffling devices built into the noise source;

2. The provision of buffer areas and/or wide setbacks between the noise source and other development;

3. The reduction of densities, where practical, adjacent to the noise source (freeway, airport, railroad);

4. The use of sound insulation, blank walls, double paned windows and other design or architectural techniques to reduce interior noise levels; and

5. Designation of appropriate land uses adjacent to known noise sources.

City of Palmdale Municipal Code

Section 9.18.101 Noise
Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

14 Section 9.18.010 of the City of Palmdale Municipal Code makes it unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause or permit to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The characteristics and conditions, which may be considered in determining whether such noise violates the provisions of this section, shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) The volume of the noise;
(2) The intensity of the noise;
(3) Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; (4) Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; (5) The volume and intensity of the background noise, if any; (6) The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities;
(7) The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; (8) The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; (9) The time of the day or night the noise occurs;
(10) The duration of the noise;
(11) Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; (12) Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity.

Section 9.18.020 Acts constituting disturbing, excessive, loud, offensive noise Section 9.18.020 of the code identifies horns, signaling devices, etc. and radios, television sets, phonograph, amplifiers and similar devices as noise sources that among others, that can be disturbing, excessive, loud, or offensive noise. Causing or allow ing such activities in a manner that is disturbing to the peace is unlawful. This section of the ordinance clarifies that these are not the only noise sources that may be found to cause disturbing, excessive, loud, or offensive noises,

Section 9.18.020 also prohibits the use of jake brakes, using compression release engine brakes, and any method of using engine compression to slow a vehicle is prohibited in the City of Palmdale and unlawful.

Section 8.28.030 Construction noise prohibited in residential zones Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person shall perform any construction or repair work on any Sunday, or any other day after 8:00 p.m. or before 6:30 a.m., in any residential zone or within 500 feet of any residence, hotel, motel or recreati onal vehicle park. For the purposes of this section, construction and repair work includes work of any kind upon any building or structure, earth excavating, filling, or moving, and delivery, preparation or operation of construction equipment, materials or supplies where any of the foregoing entails the use of an air compressor, jack hammer, power -driven drill, riveting machine, excavator, semi-truck, diesel power truck, tractor, cement truck, or earth moving equipment, hand hammer, or other machine, tool, device or equipment which makes loud noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness sleeping or residing in the area.

The City of Palmdale has not adopted a numerical threshold that identifies what a substantial increase Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

15 would be. For purposes of this analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) criteria will be used to establish significance thresholds. The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction. For residential uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA Leq averaged over an 8- hour period (L eq (8-hr)); and the nighttime noise threshold is 70 dBA L eq (8-hr). For commercial uses, the daytime and nighttime noise threshold is 85 dBA Leq (8-hr). In compliance with the City’s Code, it is assumed that construction would not occur during the noise-sensitive nighttime hours.

Threshold Applied to the Project
According to Table N -3 of the Noise Element of the Palmdale General Plan (see Table 1), there are different thresholds and different noise metrics applied to commercial and residential uses adjacent to the project. Uses bordering the project are zoned commercial to the east and north, and residential uses to the south and west. Therefore, the adjacent residential use is compared to the residential limits set forth in the General Plan and the adjacent commercial uses are compared to the commercial limits described in the General Plan.

The threshold applied to the nearest adjacent residential use is that the project only CNEL may not exceed the exterior limit of 65 dBA, CNEL or the interior limit of 45 dBA, CNEL. Typical building construction will provide a very conservative 20 dBA noise level reduction, so it is safe to assume that if the project meets the exterior limit of 65 dBA, CNEL, it will also comply with the interior noise limit.

The threshold applied to the nearest existing and zoned commercial uses is computed using an Leq(h) metric. There is no exterior commercial limit so long as the project does not produce sufficient noise to “jeopardize health, safety, and welfare of visitor s.” However, there is a commercial interior limit of 55 dBA, Leq(h). Typical building construction will provide a very conservative 20 dBA noise level reduction, so it is safe to assume that if the project noise level at the façade of an adjacent commercial use is less than 75 dBA, Leq(h), it will also comply with the interior noise limit of 55 dBA, Leq(h).

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

16 5.0 Study Method and Procedure
The following section describes the noise modeling procedures and assumptions used for this assessment.

5.1 Noise Measurement Procedure and Criteria
Noise measurements are taken to determine the existing noise levels. A noise receiver or receptor is any location in the noise analysis in which noise might produce an impact. The following criteria are used to select measurement locations and receptors:
• Locations expected to receive the highest noise impacts, such as the first row of houses • Locations that are acoustically representative and equivalent of the area of concern • Human land usage
• Sites clear of major obstruction and contamination

All measurements equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). MD noise measurement procedures are presented below:

• The sound level meter was calibrated (Piccolo-II) before and after the measurement • Following the calibration of equipment, a windscreen was placed over the microphone • Frequency weighting was set on “A” and slow response
• Results of the noise measurements were recorded on field data sheets • Temperature and sky conditions were observed and documented

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations
The noise monitoring location was selected to obtain a baseline of the existing noise environment. One short-term noise measurement was conducted at the Project site. Appendix A includes photos, the field sheet, and measured noise data. Exhibit E illustrates the location of the measurement.

5.3 SoundPLAN Noise Model (Operational Noise)
SoundPLAN acoustical modeling software was utilized to model project operational noise at nearby sensitive receptors. The SoundPLAN software utilizes algorithms (based on the inverse square law) to calculate noise level projections. It allows the user to i nput specific noise sources, spectral content, sound barriers, building placement, topography, and sensitive receptor locations. It also calculates noise level increases due to the reflection of noise from hard surfaces.

The future worst-case noise level projections were modeled using referenced sound level data for the various stationary on -site sources (parking spaces , gas and diesel canopies ). The model assumes that approximately thirty (37) parking spaces, twenty (24) gasoline fueling stations.

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

17 The S oundPLAN model assumes that all noise sources are operating simultaneously (worst -case scenario) when in actuality the noise will be intermittent and lower in noise level. The model is able to evaluate the noise attenuating effects of any existing or proposed property line walls.

Parking was modeled as three (3) car movements per parking/fueling space per hour. Three movements per hour was determined by taking the AM peak hour trip generation of 156 movements and divided by 61 parking and fueling spaces for 3 cars per hour. Modeling assumptions are summarized in Table 2.

Input and output calculations are provided in Appendix B.

Table 2: SoundPLAN Modeling Assumptions
Noise Source Source Type Movements per Hour
Parking/Fueling Area Parking Lot Tool 3

5.4 Traffic Noise Prediction Modeling
The FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Methodology (FHWA-RD-77-108) was utilized to model future traffic noise levels on the project site and existing and existing plus project traffic noise volumes along roadways affected by project generated vehicle traffic. The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL).

Project-generated vehicle traffic will result in an incremental increase in ambient noise levels. To determine the project’s noise impact to the surrounding land uses, MD generated noise contours for existing ADT, and existing plus project conditions. Table 3 indicates the roadway parameters and vehicle distribution utilized for the modeling. Noise contours are used to provide a characterization of sound levels experienced at a set distance from the centerline of a subject roadway. They are intended to represent a worst -case scenario and do not take into account structures, sound walls, topography, and/or other sound attenuating features that may further reduce the actual noise level. Noise contours are developed for comparative purposes and are used to demonstrate potential increases/decreases along subject roadways as a result of a project. The referenced traffic data and traffic noise calcu lation worksheets outputs are located in Appendix C.

• Roadway classification – (e.g., freeway, major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc.), • Roadway Active Width – (distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway)
• Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT), Speeds, Percentages of autos, medium and heavy trucks
• Roadway grade and angle of view
• Site Conditions (e.g., soft vs. hard)
• Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

18 Table 3: Roadway Parameters and Vehicle Distribution

Roadway/Type Segment Existing ADT1 Existing + Project ADT2 Speed (MPH) Site Conditions West Avenue S W. of SR14 SB ramp 11,600 12,500 55 Hard
Motor-Vehicle Type3 Daytime % Evening % Night % Total % of (7AM to 7 PM) (7 PM to 10 PM) (10 PM to 7 AM) Traffic Flow Automobiles 77.5 12.9 9.6 97.4
Medium Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 1.8
Heavy Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 0.7
Notes:
1 See Appendix C for Traffic Volume Flow Map for the City of Lancaster. 2 Traffic – IEG Maverik Gas Station Transportation Impact Analysis. See Appendix C. 3 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census

5.5 Construction Noise Modeling
Construction noise associated with the proposed project was calculated utilizing methodology presented in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) together with several key construction parameters including distance to each sensitive receiver, equipment usage, percent usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site. Construction activities are anticipated to include four phases site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving.

Construction noise levels were calculated for each phase based on the CalEEMod Air Quality Model assumptions. All equipment was assumed to be situated at the center of the project site. Construction worksheets are provided in Appendix D.

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

19 6.0 Existing Noise Environment
One (1) 1-hour noise measurement w as conducted at the project site to document the existing noise environment. The measurements include the Leq, Lmin, Lmax, and other statistical data (e.g. L2, L8). The results of the noise measurement are presented in Table 4. Noise measurement field sheets are provided in Appendix A.

Table 4: Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA)1

Short.

Date Time 1-Hour dB(A)
LEQ LMAX LMIN L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
6/1/2023 9:41AM-10:41 AM 61.5 72.0 46.1 68.0 65.9 63.0 59.1 49.8 Notes:

1. Short-term noise monitoring location (ST-1) is illustrated in Exhibit E.

Site
Exhibit E
Measurement Locations
20 = Measurement locationX
Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA
1 Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

21 7.0 Future Noise Environment Impacts and Mitigation
This assessment analyzes future noise impacts to sensitive receptors and the project and compares the results to the City’s Noise Standards. The analysis details the estimated exterior noise levels associated with traffic from adjacent roadway sources. The City has established different significance thresholds for different types of noise impacts.

7.1 Off-Site Traffic Noise Impact
The potential off-site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the project were calculated at a distance of 287 feet from the centerline of affected road segments. The noise levels at 287 feet both with and without project-generated vehicle traffic were compared and the increase was calculated. The distance to the 70, 6 5, 6 0, and 55 dBA CNEL noise contours are also provided for reference (Appendix C). Noise contours were calculated for the following scenarios and conditions:

• Existing Condition: This scenario refers to the existing year traffic noise condition and is demonstrated in Table 5.

• Existing + Project Condition: This scenario refers to the existing year plus project traffic noise condition and is demonstrated in Table 5.

As shown in Table 5, the addition of project-generated vehicle traffic to West Avenue South would result in negligible increases in ambient noise levels and would not be significant.

Table 5: Existing Scenario - Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL)

Existing Without Project Exterior Noise Levels
Roadway Segment CNEL
at 287 Ft (dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 55 dBA CNEL
West Avenue S W. of SR14 SB ramp 58.1 46 100 215 462
Existing With Project Exterior Noise Levels
Roadway Segment CNEL
at 287 Ft (dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 55 dBA CNEL
West Avenue S W. of SR14 SB ramp 58.4 49 105 226 486
Change in Existing Noise Levels as a Result of Project
Roadway1 Segment
CNEL at 70 Feet dBA2
Existing
Without Project
Existing With
Project
Change in
Noise Level
Potential Significant
Impact
West Avenue S W. of SR14 SB ramp 58.1 58.4 0.3 No
Notes:
1 Exterior noise levels calculated at 5 feet above ground level. 2 Noise levels calculated from centerline of subject roadway.

7.2 On-Site Traffic Noise Impact
Future noise levels associated with traffic were modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model calculations to evaluate the project. The results of the FHWA calculations were compared with the City’s Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

22 exterior standards presented in Table 1 of this report as they apply to future traffic noise impacts to the proposed project. The Project noise level is less than the 70 dBA CNEL maximum applied to commercial properties. It will not change due to the increase in traffic levels due to the project. There are no outdoor uses for this Project, and the on-site traffic noise impact is considered less than significant.

7.3 Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Stationary Noise Sources The project is surrounded by vacant land to the north, east, and west with West Avenue S to the south.

There are no sensitive receptors surrounding the site. The vacant land surrounding the site is zoned commercial and has the potential to be affected by t he projects operational noise Worst -case operational noise was modeled using SoundPLAN acoustical modeling software. Three (3) receptors representative of the potential commercial uses adjacent to the site were modeled using the SoundPLAN noise model to ev aluate the proposed project’s operational impact. A receptor is denoted by a yellow dot. All yellow dots represent property lines. The results are presented in Table 6.

Project Operational Noise Levels
Worst-case “project only” exterior operational noise is presented in Exhibit F. Operational noise levels are expected to reach 53 to 56 dBA CNEL at the adjacent receptors.

Project Plus Ambient Operational Noise Levels
Existing plus project noise level projections are anticipated to reach up to 66 dBA Leq at the nearest commercial receptors. The project-generated operational noise is expected to result in a interior noise level of 45 to 46 dBA at the adjacent commercial sites. This does not exceed the Interior Commercial noise limit of 55 dBA. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Table 6: Operational Noise Levels (dBA, Leq)

Receptor1
Existing Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)2
Project
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)3
Total Combined
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)
Interior Noise
Limit (dBA,
Leq)
Interior noise level
(dBA, Leq)
R1
62 56 66
55 46
R2 53 65 45
R3 55 66 46
Notes:

1. R1 to R3 represent potential commercial uses.

2. See Table 5 for measured ambient noise levels.

3. See Exhibit E for the operational noise level projections at said receptors.

Exhibit F
Project Leq Operational Noise Levels
23 Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

24 8.0 Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts
The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Project construction will occur in five (5) phases: site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and finishing . This section summarizes and discusses noise and ground- borne vibration modeling efforts, impact analysis, and mitigation, if necessary.

8.1 Construction Noise
Typical construction equipment noise levels are presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels1

EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet
Earth Moving
Compactors (Ground) 80
Front Loaders 80
Backhoes 80
Tractors 84
Scrapers, Graders 85
Pavers 85
Trucks 84
Materials Handling
Concrete Mixers 85
Concrete Pumps 82
Cranes 85
Stationary
Pumps 77
Generators 82
Compressors 80

IMPACT EQUIPMENT
Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet
Concrete Saws 90
Vibratory Pile Driver 95
Notes:
1 Referenced Noise Levels from the FHWA Construction Noise Handbook

Construction noise associated with each phase of the project was calculated at nearby sensitive receptors utilizing methodology presented in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Construction Noise Model together with several key construction parameters including distance to each sensitive Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

25 receiver, equipment usage, percent usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site.

Construction was modeled from the edge of the site to the nearest adjacent properties in use.

Construction activities are anticipated to include five phases: site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Noise levels associated with each phase are shown in Table 8. The construction noise calculation output worksheet is located in Appendix D.

Table 8: Construction Noise Level by Phase (dBA, Leq)

Location Phase
Construction Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)
South Commercial
Prep 59.1
Grade 61.6
Build 63.1
Paving 57.2
Finish 51.0

As shown in Table 8, project construction noise will range between 51 to 63 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors, which is the commercial use south across West Avenue South from the project.

The Project will be required to adhere to Section 08.28.030 of the City of Palmdale Municipal Code which outlines the allowed times for construction. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

In addition to complying with Section 08.28.030 of the City of Palmdale Municipal Code, the following best practices are recommended to reduce construction noise:

1. During construction, the contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices.

2. The contractor should locate equipment staging areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

3. Idling equipment should be turned off when not in use.

4. Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

8.2 Construction Vibration
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

26 be from a bulldozer. A large bulldozer has a vibration impact of 0.089 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet which is perceptible but below any risk to architectural damage.

The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows:

PPVequipment = PPVref (100/Drec)n
Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 100ft.

Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft.
n = 1.5 (the value related to the attenuation rate through the ground)

The thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in Table 9 (below) provides general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts.

Table 9: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria

Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Table 19, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, Sept. 2013.

Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Table 10 gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. This data provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.

<Table 10, next page>

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA Error! AutoText entry not defined.

27 Table 10: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity Approximate Vibration Level
(inches/second) at 25 feet LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112

0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105

0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2018.

The nearest existing building is 212 feet west of the center of the project site. At this distance, a large bulldozer would yield a worst -case 0.008 PPV (in/sec) which is not perceptible and will not result in architectural damage. The impact is not significant. The ground -borne vibration worksheet is provided in Appendix E.

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA CEQA Analysis

28 9.0 CEQA Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Appendix D) establishes thresholds for noise impact analysis as presented below:
(a) Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise Code, or applicable standards of other agencies? Transportation Noise Impacts
Transportation noise impacts would be considered significant if the existing plus project levels are expected to increase by more than 3 dB. Compared to existing traffic noise levels, future traffic volumes are expected to increase 0.3 dBA CNEL at existing land uses. The impact is therefore less than significant.

Stationary Noise Sources
Stationary noise impacts would be considered significant if they result in exceedances of Policy N1.1.3 of the General Plan . Implementation of the proposed project may result in stationary noise related to cars coming and going from the project site.

Operational noise levels are expected to reach 53 to 56 dBA Leq at the adjacent commercial receptors.

The city does not have an exterior noise level for commercial uses. However, the city does have an interior noise level of 55 dBA for commercial uses. Standard building construction would result in a minimum 20 dBA decrease of the exterior noise levels. These noise levels do not exceed the City’s interior commercial noise standard of 55 dBA. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Construction Noise and Vibration
Construction noise will be significant if construction activities occur outside of the permitted construction hours specified in Section 08.28.030 of the City of Palmdale Municipal Code.

Noise due to construction will result in short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities.

The site preparation and building phases of on -site construction activities will generate the highest temporary noise levels . The loudest construction equipment on the site will be tractors, graders, scrapers, and dozers. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. The maximum Leq level for the loudest phase of construction is expected to be 63.1 dBA Leq and 67.3 dBA Lmax at the nearest existing adjacent commercial building.
b) Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Construction vibration will be significant if vibration exceeds levels that would result in structural damage to existing buildings. Construction activity is not anticipated to occur within 50 feet of sensitive Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA CEQA Analysis

29 receptors. At a distance of 212 feet, the nearest commercial building to the project property line, a large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.008 PPV (in/sec) which is below the threshold of any risk of damage.

The project may result in temporary daytime residential annoyance. Construction activity is not expected to fall within the limits of structural damage, and therefore, the impact is less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The nearest airport to the project site is the Palmdale Regional Airport. The Palmdale Regional Airport is approximately 5 miles to the southeast of the project. The project would be located outside the noise contours of Palmdale Re gional Airport. Therefore, no substantial noise exposure from airport noise would occur and it would have no impact.

Maverik Fueling Station Project
Noise Impact Study
City of Palmdale, CA References

30 10.0 References
City of Palmdale
2023 2045 General Plan
2023 Municipal Code

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2013 Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. 2018 Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sept.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
2006 Construction Noise Handbook

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State of California General Plan Guidelines, 1998

SoundPLAN International, LLC
2019 SoundPLAN Essential 8.1 Manual.

Appendix A:

Field Measurement Data

/0/1/2/3/4/5/i255/7/3/8/9/10/i255/11/10/12/9/4/5/10/13/10/14/15/i255/16/12/15/12/9/17/10/10/15 /18/5/3/19/10/20/15/i255/7/12/13/10/21/i255 /23/24/25/26/27/28/29/i255/30/24/31/32/33/24/31/26/i255/34/35/28/36/26 /18/5/3/19/10/20/15/21/i255/37/38/7/12/13/10/21/i255/39/40/41/42/43/44/39/44/45/43/39/39/46 /47/8/15/10/i255/48/49/49/5/10/9/9/38/50/3/20/12/51/3/14/21/i255/52/26/36/53/i255/54/25/26/55/56/26/i255/57/35/56/53/58/i255/24/55/33/i255/57/53/24/53/26/i255/59/35/56/53 /16/12/15/10/21/i255 /39/60/61/39/42/61/44/39/44/45
/62/8/10/63/49/i255/64/10/20/17/38/65/14/66/8/14/10/10/5/21/i255/67/26/55/55/28/36/i255/68/35/27/33/24/55/i255/61/i255/59/35/69/26/27/53/i255/30/26/24/27/36/35/55 /i255
/47/3/4/14/49/i255/11/10/15/10/5/21/i255 /70/71/44/72/i255/34/73/74/i255 /47/7/21/i255/54/44/54/43/39/75/46/60/40/43/76/39 /47/10/77/14/66/9/21/i255 /54/43/78/26/28/79/58/53/26/33/72/i255/36/31/35/78/72/i255/42/43/36/26/80/72/i255/42/43/58/35/56/27/i255/28/55/53/26/27/25/24/31 /47/8/15/10/i255/81/49/21/i255 /57/73/43/42
/47/8/15/10/i255/82/83/9/10/5/84/12/51/3/14/9/21
/60/45/85/72/i255/36/56/55/55/86/i255/24/55/33/i255/80/31/26/24/27/72/i255/78/28/55/33/36/i255/42/39/i255/53/35/i255/44/39/i255/32/87/58/72/i255/53/27/24/88/80/i255/31/28/79/58/53/i255/53/35/i255/32/35/33/26/27/24/53/26 /89
/90/91/92/i255/94/91/95/91/i255/96/97/98/97/99/i255/100/101/91/102/103/104/105/i255/96/97/98/97/99/i255/106/107/104/108/109/110/111/i255/112/113/114/115/i255/116/i255/106/107/104/108/109/110/111/i255/90/91/117/91/104/i255/118/103/119/120/121/122/123/122/102/107/103/110/111/i255/124/125/115/125/i255/126/103/122/123/122/102/107/119/91/123/i255/115/109/104/127/103/105 /128/103/92/122/104/95/i255/91/i255/101/91/92/i255/103/104/104/122/104

/0/1/2/3/4/5/i255/7/3/8/9/10/i255/11/10/12/9/4/5/10/13/10/14/15/i255/16/12/15/12/9/17/10/10/15/i255/1/i255/18/3/14/15/19 /20/5/3/21/10/22/15/i255/7/12/13/10/23/i255 /25/26/27/28/29/30/31/i255/32/26/33/34/35/26/33/28/i255/36/37/30/38/28 /39/8/15/10/i255/40/41/41/5/10/9/9/42/43/3/22/12/44/3/14/23/i255/45/28/38/46/i255/47/27/28/48/49/28/i255/50/37/49/46/51/i255/26/48/35/i255/50/46/26/46/28/i255/52/37/49/46 /39/8/15/10/i255/53/41/23/i255 /50/54/55/56
/57/30/58/49/29/28/i255/56/59/i255/50/54/55/56
/54/26/60/33/28/i255/56/59/i255/61/26/38/28/33/30/48/28/i255/36/37/30/38/28/i255/25/28/26/38/49/29/28/34/28/48/46/i255/50/49/34/34/26/29/62 /43/3/22/12/44/3/14/39 /15/12/5/15/39 /15/3/63/43 /10/64/43 /13/12/65/43 /13/8/14/43 /66/43 /67/43 /66/68/43 /68/69/43 /70/69 /50/54/55/56/71 /59/72/56/i255/47/25/56 /73/59/72/56/i255/47/25/74 /56/75/76/77 /78/75/73/72 /74/75/56/74 /79/74 /76/75/71/74 /80/76 /71/75/56/72 /71/75/79 /0/1/2/3/4/5/i255/7/3/8/9/10/i255/11/10/12/9/4/5/10/13/10/14/15/i255/16/12/15/12/9/17/10/10/15/i255/1/i255/18/3/14/15/19 /20/5/3/21/10/22/15/i255/7/12/13/10/23/i255 /25/26/27/28/29/30/31/i255/32/26/33/34/35/26/33/28/i255/36/37/30/38/28 /39/8/15/10/i255/40/41/41/5/10/9/9/42/43/3/22/12/44/3/14/23/i255/45/28/38/46/i255/47/27/28/48/49/28/i255/50/37/49/46/51/i255/26/48/35/i255/50/46/26/46/28/i255/52/37/49/46 /39/8/15/10/i255/53/41/23/i255 /50/54/55/56
/39/57/1/0/i255/40/13/58/8/10/14/15/i255/7/3/8/9/10/i255/43/10/59/10/60/i255/61/0/1/9/10/22/62 /39/8/15/10/i255/57/3/63/3/23/i255 /50/30/48/64/33/28/i255/38/46/37/29/65/i255/51/37/49/38/30/48/64/66/67/49/30/33/35/30/48/64/38 /11/10/15/10/3/5/3/60/3/68/8/22/12/60/i255/18/3/14/41/19/23/i255/69/70/71/72/i255/73/30/48/35/38/i255/56/74/i255/46/37/i255/75/74/i255/34/76/51/72/i255/38/49/48/48/65/i255/26/48/35 /77/33/28/26/29
/78/5/3/4/14/41/i255/57/79/63/10/23/i255 /47/38/76/51/26/33/46/72/i255/80/30/29/46/i255/26/48/35/i255/81/28/64/28/46/26/82/37/48 /7/3/8/9/10/i255/39/3/4/5/22/10/61/9/62/i255/83/42/i255/16/8/9/15/12/14/22/10/23 /52/37/26/35/i255/36/37/30/38/28/i255/66/i255/47/27/28/48/49/28/i255/50/i255/84/85/i255/86/72/i255/87/73/65/i255/56/88/i255/26/76/76/29/37/89/i255/56/66/88 /34/30/33/28
/90/91/92/93
/94/95/96/97/i255/99/100/101
/102/103/104/105/93/104/102/93
/102/103/104/105/106/104/102/102
/102/103/104/105/106/104/107/103
/102/103/104/105/108/104/107/109
/102/103/104/105/105/104/107/110
/102/103/104/105/107/104/107/111
/102/103/104/105/111/104/107/107
/102/103/104/105/110/104/107/105
/102/103/104/105/109/104/107/108
/102/103/104/105/103/104/107/106
/102/103/104/107/102/104/107/93
/102/103/104/107/93/104/107/102
/102/103/104/107/106/104/105/103
/102/103/104/107/108/104/105/109
/102/103/104/107/105/104/105/110
/102/103/104/107/107/104/105/111
/102/103/104/107/111/104/105/107
/102/103/104/107/110/104/105/105
/102/103/104/107/109/104/105/108
/102/103/104/107/103/104/105/106
/93/102/104/102/102/104/105/93
/93/102/104/102/93/104/105/102
/93/102/104/102/106/104/108/103
/93/102/104/102/108/104/108/109
/93/102/104/102/105/104/108/110
/93/102/104/102/107/104/108/111
/93/102/104/102/111/104/108/107
/93/102/104/102/110/104/108/105
/93/102/104/102/109/104/108/108
/93/102/104/102/103/104/108/106
/93/102/104/93/102/104/108/93
/93/102/104/93/93/104/108/102
/93/102/104/93/106/104/106/103
/93/102/104/93/108/104/106/109
/93/102/104/93/105/104/106/110
/93/102/104/93/107/104/106/111
/93/102/104/93/111/104/106/107
/93/102/104/93/110/104/106/105
/93/102/104/93/109/104/106/108
/93/102/104/93/103/104/106/106
/93/102/104/106/102/104/106/93
/93/102/104/106/93/104/106/102
/93/102/104/106/106/104/93/103
/93/102/104/106/108/104/93/109
/93/102/104/106/105/104/93/110
/93/102/104/106/107/104/93/111
/93/102/104/106/111/104/93/107
/93/102/104/106/110/104/93/105
/93/102/104/106/109/104/93/108
/93/102/104/106/103/104/93/106
/93/102/104/108/102/104/93/93
/93/102/104/108/93/104/93/102
/93/102/104/108/106/104/102/103
/93/102/104/108/108/104/102/109
/93/102/104/108/105/104/102/110
/93/102/104/108/107/104/102/111
/93/102/104/108/111/104/102/107
/93/102/104/108/110/104/102/105
/93/102/104/108/109/104/102/108
/93/102/104/108/103/104/102/106
/93/102/104/105/102/104/102/93
/93/102/104/105/93/104/102/102
/105/102
/107/102
/111/102
/110/102
/109/102
/112/113/114/115
/116/117/118
/0/1/2/3/4/1/5/i255/7/8/5/9/2/10/3/i255/7/8/5/i255/11/12/11/13/14/12/15/14/12/16 /17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/18/18/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/18/22/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/18/17/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/18/19/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/18/25/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/18/26/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/18/21/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/18/27/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/18/28/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/18/29/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/22/18/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/22/22/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/22/17/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/22/19/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/22/25/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/22/26/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/22/21/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/22/27/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/22/28/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/22/29/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/17/18/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/17/22/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18/22/23/17/17/24/18/18
/17/18/17/19/20/18/21/20/18
/25/27/30/26
/26/18/30/18
/26/17/30/26
/26/26/30/18
/26/27/30/26
/21/18/30/18
/21/17/30/26
/21/26/30/18
/21/27/30/26
/27/18/30/18
/31/32/33/34
/35/34/36/37/34/38/32/33/39/38/34/i255/41/42/43/44
/0/1/2/3/i255/5/6/7/7/3/i255/8/2/3/i255/3/1/9/7/10/11/1/12/2/5/i255/13/12/9/i255/14/15/14/16/17/15/18/17/15/19 /20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/21/21/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/21/25/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/21/20/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/21/22/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/21/28/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/21/29/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/21/24/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/21/30/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/21/31/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/21/32/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/25/21/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/25/25/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/25/20/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/25/22/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/25/28/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/25/29/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/25/24/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/25/30/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/25/31/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/25/32/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/20/21/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/20/25/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21/25/26/20/20/27/21/21
/20/21/20/22/23/21/24/23/21
/25/31
/20/21
/20/20
/20/28
/20/24
/20/31
/22/21
/22/20
/33/34/35/36
/37/38/39/40/i255/42/43/36/36/40/i255/44/45/43/46/47/48

Appendix B:

SoundPLAN Noise Modeling Data

Maverik Palmdale Noise
Contribution spectra
-
002
-
Maverik Palmdale 3 Events per
Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
Receiver Rec 1 Fl G dB(A) Ldn 56.5 dB(A) Sigma(Ldn) 0.0 dB(A) Ldn

56.5 42.2

51.6 41.5

47.1 49.0

49.5 46.1

37.6 19.7
Receiver Rec 2 Fl G dB(A) Ldn 52.7 dB(A) Sigma(Ldn) 0.0 dB(A) Ldn

52.7 38.8

48.0 36.9

42.4 45.3

45.9 42.3

33.2 13.6
Receiver Rec 3 Fl G dB(A) Ldn 55.0 dB(A) Sigma(Ldn) 0.0 dB(A) Ldn

55.0 40.9

50.3 39.4

45.0 47.6

48.3 44.7

35.5 15.5
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 Maverik Palmdale Noise
Contribution level
-
002
-
Maverik Palmdale 3 Events per Hour
-
9 Source group
Source type
Ldn
dB(A)
A
dB
Receiver Rec 1 Fl G dB(A) Ldn 56.5 dB(A) Sigma(Ldn) 0.0 dB(A) Default parking lot noise
PLot

56.5 0.0
Receiver Rec 2 Fl G dB(A) Ldn 52.7 dB(A) Sigma(Ldn) 0.0 dB(A) Default parking lot noise
PLot

52.7 0.0
Receiver Rec 3 Fl G dB(A) Ldn 55.0 dB(A) Sigma(Ldn) 0.0 dB(A) Default parking lot noise
PLot

55.0 0.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 Maverik Palmdale Noise
3rd octave spectra of the sources in dB(A)
-
002
-
Maverik Palmdale 3 Events per Hour
-
Outdoor SP
4 Name
l or A
m,m²
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Auto Parking
5189.14

50.4 87.5
66 66.1

66.1 77.7

77.7 77.7

70.2 70.2

70.2 74.7

74.7 74.7

74.8 74.8

74.8 75.2

75.2 75.2

72.5 72.5

72.5 66.3

66.3 66.3

53.5 53.5

53.5 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 Appendix C:

FHWA Roadway Noise Modeling Worksheets

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: Maverik Palmdale JOB #: 0741-2023-09
ROADWAY: West Avenue S -EXISTING DATE: 26-Oct-23
LOCATION: BUILDING FACADE ENGINEER:R. Pearson
ADT = 11,600 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 287
SPEED = 55 DIST C/L TO WALL = 0
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 0 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 287 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.5
GRADE = 1.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 1,160 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 15 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9742 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 287.02
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.049 0.103 0.0184 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 287.00 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.027 0.108 0.0074 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 287.01

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 57.9 56.0 54.2 48.1 56.8 57.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 47.7 46.2 39.9 38.3 46.8 47.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 47.8 46.3 37.3 38.5 46.9 47.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 58.6 56.8 54.4 49.0 57.6 58.1

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 57.9 56.0 54.2 48.1 56.8 57.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 47.7 46.2 39.9 38.3 46.8 47.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 47.8 46.3 37.3 38.5 46.9 47.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 58.6 56.8 54.4 49.0 57.6 58.1
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL 46 100 215 462
LDN 43 92 198 426

NOISE INPUT DATA

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

0.775 - -

GRADE ADJUSTMENTDAY

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
- -

0.00 0.848

0.865

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: Maverik Palmdale JOB #: 0741-2023-09
ROADWAY: West Avenue S -EXISTING DATE: 26-Oct-23
LOCATION: BUILDING FACADE ENGINEER:R. Pearson
ADT = 12,500 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 287
SPEED = 55 DIST C/L TO WALL = 0
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 0 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 287 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.5
GRADE = 1.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 1,250 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 15 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9742 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 287.02
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.049 0.103 0.0184 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 287.00 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.027 0.108 0.0074 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 287.01

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 58.2 56.3 54.5 48.5 57.1 57.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 48.1 46.6 40.2 38.7 47.1 47.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 48.1 46.7 37.6 38.9 47.2 47.4
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 59.0 57.1 54.8 49.3 57.9 58.4

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 58.2 56.3 54.5 48.5 57.1 57.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 48.1 46.6 40.2 38.7 47.1 47.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 48.1 46.7 37.6 38.9 47.2 47.4
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 59.0 57.1 54.8 49.3 57.9 58.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL 49 105 226 486
LDN 45 96 208 448
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

NOISE INPUT DATA

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)

DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.775 - -

0.848 - -

0.865 0.00

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)

Appendix D:

Construction Noise Modeling Output

Construction Phase Equipment
Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50
feet, dBA1
Edge of Site to
Receptor, feet
Center of Site to
Receptor, feet
Item Usage
Percent1 Ground Factor2 Usage Factor Receptor Item
Lmax, dBA
Recptor. Item
Leq, dBA

SITE PREP
Tractor 1 84 212 368 40 0.66 0.40 67.3 57.0
Dozer 1 82 212 368 40 0.66 0.40 65.3 55.0
Log Sum 67.3 59.1
GRADE
Excavator 2 81 212 368 40 0.66 0.40 64.3 54.0
Grader 1 85 212 368 40 0.66 0.40 68.3 58.0
Dozer 1 82 212 368 40 0.66 0.40 65.3 55.0

68.3 61.6
BUILD
Crane 1 81 212 368 16 0.66 0.16 64.3 50.0
Man lift 3 75 212 368 20 0.66 0.20 58.3 45.0
Generator 1 81 212 368 50 0.66 0.50 64.3 54.9
Tractor 3 84 212 368 40 0.66 0.40 67.3 57.0
Welder/Torch 1 74 212 368 40 0.66 0.40 57.3 47.0

67.3 63.1
PAVE
Paver 1 77 212 368 50 0.66 0.50 60.3 50.9
Compactor (ground) 1 83 212 368 20 0.66 0.20 66.3 53.0
Roller 2 80 212 368 20 0.66 0.20 63.3 50.0

66.3 57.2

ARCH COAT
Compressor (air) 1 78 212 368 40 0.66 0.40 61.3 51.0

61.3 51.0
1FHWA Construction Noise Handbook: Table 9.1 RCNM Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors Receptor - Commercial to the South

Appendix E:

Construction Vibration Modeling Output

Project: Maverik Palmdale Date: 10/31/23
Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: Palmdale
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment = INPUT SECTION IN BLUE
Type
PPVref = 0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 212.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.10 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.008 IN/SEC OUTPUT IN RED

DATA OUT RESULTS
2 Large Bulldozer
Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2006, pgs 38-43.

VIBRATION LEVEL IMPACT
Adjacent residences

DATA INPUT

Appendix G
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition –
Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA
238001856

Prepared by
Cardno Now Stantec, Inc.
1142 West 2320 South, Suite
A
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
Phone: (801) 256-3800
Fax: (801) 973-1095
Prepared for
Maverik, Inc.

August 22, 2022
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno ii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary 1

1.1 General Information 1

1.2 Findings and Conclusions Summary 2

1.3 Significant Data Gap Summary 3

1.4 Findings 3

1.4.1 Recognized Environmental Condition 3

1.4.2 Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition 3

1.4.3 Historical Recognized Environmental Condition 3

1.4.4 Environmental Issue 4

1.5 Conclusions, Opinions and Recommendations 4
2 Introduction 5

2.1 Purpose 5

2.2 Scope 5

2.3 Significant Assumption 6

2.4 Limitations and Exceptions 6

2.5 Special Terms and Conditions (User Reliance) 8
3 Site Description 9

3.1 Local and Legal Description 9

3.2 Surrounding Area General Characteristics 9

3.3 Current Use of the Property 9

3.4 Description of Property Improvements 9

3.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties 10
4 User-Provided Information 11

4.1 Title Records 11

4.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations 11

4.3 Specialized Knowledge 11

4.4 Significant Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues 11

4.5 Owner, Property Manager and Occupant Information 11

4.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA 11

4.7 Other User Provided Documents 11
5 Records Review 12

5.1 Standard Environmental Records 12

5.1.1 Subject Property Listings 15

5.1.2 Adjacent Property Listings 15

5.1.3 Sites of Concern Listings 16

5.1.4 Orphan Listings 16

5.1.5 Local Environmental Records Search 16

5.1.6 Health Department 16

5.1.7 Fire Department 17

5.1.8 Planning Department 17

5.1.9 Oil & Gas Exploration 17

5.1.10 Assessor’s Office 18
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno iii

5.1.11 Utilities 18

5.1.12 Other Local Environmental Records Sources 18

5.2 Physical Setting Sources 18

5.2.1 Topography 18

5.2.2 Geology/Soils 18

5.2.3 Hydrology 19

5.2.4 Other Physical Setting Sources 19

5.3 Historical Records Sources 19

5.3.1 Aerial Photographs 19

5.3.2 Fire Insurance Maps 20

5.3.3 Property Tax Files 20

5.3.4 Recorded Land Title Records and AULs 20

5.3.5 Historical USGS Topographic Quadrangles 20

5.3.6 City Directories 21

5.3.7 Building Department Records 21

5.3.8 Zoning/Land Use Records 21

5.3.9 Prior Reports 21

5.3.10 Other Historical Sources 21
6 Site Reconnaissance 22

6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions 22

6.2 Hazardous Substance Use, Storage, and Disposal 22

6.3 Aboveground and Underground Hazardous Substance or Petroleum Product Storage Tanks 22

6.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 22

6.5 Unidentified Substance Containers 22

6.6 Non-hazardous Solid Waste 22

6.7 Wastewater 23

6.8 Waste Pits, Ponds and Lagoons 23

6.9 Sumps 23

6.10 Septic Systems 23

6.11 Storm water Management System 23

6.12 Wells 23
7 Interviews 24
8 Other Environmental Conditions 25

8.1 Asbestos-Containing Material 25

8.2 Radon 25

8.3 Lead in Drinking Water 25

8.4 Lead-Based Paint 26

8.5 Mold Screening 26

8.6 Vapor Encroachment 26
9 References 27

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno iv
Appendices
Appendix A Site Vicinity Map
Appendix B Site Plan
Appendix C Subject Property Photographs
Appendix D User Provided Documentation
Appendix E Regulatory Database Report
Appendix F Aerial Photographs
Appendix G Historical Research Documentation
Appendix H Prior Reports
Appendix I Resumes
Appendix J Laboratory Reports
Appendix K Other Supporting Documentation
Appendix L Terminology

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 1
1 Executive Summary

1.1 General Information
Project Information Approximate 6.08-acre parcel
Site Information Potential Maverik Acquisition
Hwy 14 & Ave S
Palmdale, Lost Angeles County
California
Site Access Contact Casey McKeon, Owner Representative
Client Information Maverik, Inc.
185 South State Street, Suite 800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Paul Heywood, Sr. Real Estate Development Manager
Consultant Information Cardno Now Stantec, Inc.
1142 West 2320 South, Suite A
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
Phone: (801) 256-3800
Fax: (801) 973-1095
Reconnaissance Date August 9, 2022
Site Assessor Thomas Gordon
Report Writer Alisha Harper
Environmental Professional Russell D. Hamblin
Environmental Professional Statement
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in § 312.10 part of 40 CFR 312. We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Subject Property. We have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

Russell D. Hamblin, P.G.

National Client Manager
Environmental Professional

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 2

1.2 Findings and Conclusions Summary
Cardno Now Stantec (Cardno) performed this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in conformance with the scope and limitations of American Society of Testing and Material (ASTM) Standard Practice E 1527-21. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.0 of this report. This assessment did not reveal evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Subject Property.

Information regarding this finding is detailed in the following table.

Findings and Conclusions Summary
Report Section Further
Action
De Minimis
Condition REC Historical
REC
Controlled
REC
ASTM Non-
Scope Condition Description

4.0 User Provided
Information No

5.1.1 Federal Database
Findings No

5.1.2 State and Tribal
Database Findings No

5.1.3 Local Environmental
Record Sources No

5.3 Historical Records
Sources No

6.2 Hazardous
Substance Use,
Storage and
Disposal
No

6.3 Underground
Storage Tanks No

6.4 Aboveground
Storage Tanks No

6.5 Other Petroleum
Products No

6.6 Polychlorinated
Biphenyls No

6.7 Unidentified
Substance
Containers
No

6.8 Nonhazardous Solid
Waste Yes X Removal of illegally dumped
trash and furniture

6.9 Wastewater No

6.10 Waste Pits, Ponds
and Lagoons No

6.11 Sumps No

6.12 Septic Systems No

6.13 Storm water
Management System No

6.14 Wells No

7.0 Interviews No

8.1 Asbestos-Containing
Material No

8.2 Radon No

8.3 Lead in Drinking
Water No

8.4 Lead-Based Paint No

8.5 Mold Screening No
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 3
Report Section Further
Action
De Minimis
Condition REC Historical
REC
Controlled
REC
ASTM Non-
Scope Condition Description

8.6 Vapor Encroachment No

1.3 Significant Data Gap Summary
Data gaps may have been encountered during the performance of this Phase I ESA and are discussed within the section of the report where they were encountered. According to ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21, data gaps are only significant if "other information and/or professional experience raise reasonable concerns involving the data gap." The following is a list of common sources of significant data gaps and Cardno’s experience with them on this Phase I ESA.

Significant Data Gap Summary
Report Section Description

3.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties No significant data gap identified.

4.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations No significant data gap identified.

5.1 Standard Environmental Records No significant data gap identified.

5.2 Physical Setting Sources No significant data gap identified.

5.3 Historical Records Sources No significant data gap identified.

6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions No significant data gap identified.

7.0 Interviews No significant data gap identified.

1.4 Findings

1.4.1 Recognized Environmental Condition
A REC refers to the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property due to release to the environment, under conditions indicative of a release to the environment, or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

Cardno did not identify any RECs at the Subject Property during the course of this assessment.

1.4.2 Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
A controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) refers to a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.

Cardno did not identify any CRECs at the Subject Property during the course of this assessment.

1.4.3 Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
An historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) refers to a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that occurred in connection with the Subject Property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the Subject Property to any required controls.

Cardno did not identify any HRECs at the Subject Property during the course of this assessment.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 4

1.4.4 Environmental Issue
An environmental issue refers to environmental concerns identified by Cardno that warrant further discussion, but that do not qualify as RECs.

Cardno did not identify any environmental issues during the course of this assessment.

1.5 Conclusions, Opinions and Recommendations
Cardno performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 of Hwy 14 & Ave S in the City of Palmdale, Lost Angeles County, California (the “Subject Property”). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, are described in Section 1.3 of this report.

This assessment did not reveal evidence of RECs or environmental issues in connection with the Subject Property.

Based on the conclusions of this assessment no further investigation of the Subject Property is warranted at this time.

Cardno recommends the removal of on-site trash and illegally dumped furniture found on the Subject Property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 5
2 Introduction

2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Phase I ESA was to identify RECs and certain potential environmental conditions outside the scope of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21 in connection with the Subject Property at the time of the site reconnaissance. This report documents the findings, opinions, and conclusions of the Phase I ESA.

2.2 Scope
This Phase I ESA was conducted in general accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21, consistent with a level of care and skill ordinarily practiced by the environmental consulting profession currently providing similar services under similar circumstances. Significant additions, deletions, or exceptions to ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21 are noted below or in the corresponding sections of this report. The scope of this assessment included an evaluation of the following:
• Physical setting characteristics of the Subject Property through a review of referenced sources such as topographic maps and geologic, soils, and hydrologic reports. • Usage of the Subject Property, adjoining properties, and surrounding area through a review of referenced historical sources such as land title records, fire insurance maps, city directories, aerial photographs, prior reports, and interviews.
• Observations and interviews regarding current Subject Property usage and conditions including the use, treatment, storage, disposal, or generation of hazardous substances, petroleum products, hazardous wastes, non-hazardous solid wastes, and wastewater.
• Usage of adjoining and surrounding properties and the likely impact of known or suspected releases of hazardous substances or petroleum products on the Subject Property. • Information referenced in environmental agency databases and local environmental records within the specified approximate minimum search distance from the Subject Property.

The scope of the assessment also included consideration of the following environmental issues or conditions that are beyond the scope of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21:
• Mold screening to report the findings of a baseline survey of readily observable mold and conditions conducive to mold on the Subject Property identified by limited interview, document review, and physical observation and to provide an opinion on whether an identified condition warrants further action. The scope of work for the mold screening was intended to be consistent with ASTM Standard Practice E 2418-06: Standard Guide for Readily Observable Mold and Conditions Conducive to Mold in Commercial Buildings: Baseline Survey Process. The scope of work, including potential deviations from the Standard Guide, is described as follows.

The interview was limited to one knowledgeable person from property management or engineering staff. The document review was limited to only those relevant documents made readily available to Cardno in a timely manner. The physical observations were limited to certain heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system areas and other readily accessible building areas likely to become subject to water damage, plumbing leaks, and flooding. Unless noted otherwise herein, Cardno observed the HVAC equipment room(s) and readily accessible mechanical rooms and, in buildings with package units in the ceiling, at least one unit per floor. Also, unless noted otherwise, Cardno observed readily accessible areas of the basement (or lowest level), the top floor, the roof and at least one mid-level floor (if applicable). For multi-story buildings, the total number of floors observed (inclusive of those already mentioned) was intended to be up to 10% of the total number of floors (if readily accessible). For hotel and multi-family buildings, Cardno targeted the lowest and highest levels and roof as described above and up to 10% of units, including one per floor if readily accessible.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 6
The mold screening did not include destructive methods of observation. No sampling or laboratory analyses were conducted. The mold screening service as described herein was limited in scope and by the time and cost considerations typically associated with performin g a Phase I ESA. No method can guarantee that a hazard will be discovered if evidence of the hazard is not encountered within the performance of the mold screening as authorized and that opinions and conclusions must, out of necessity, be extrapolated from limited information and discrete, non-continuous data points. Unidentified mold or other microbial conditions may exist on the Subject Property.
• Visual observation and limited sampling of suspect asbestos -containing material (ACM) at the Subject Property. The visual observation consists of providing an opinion on the condition of suspect ACM on the Subject Property, based upon visual observation during the site reconnaissance. The limited sampling, if conducted, consists of the submission of bulk material samples to an accredited laboratory for determination of asbestos concentrations. The sampling was “limited” in that it was not intended to comply with the sampling requirements described in 40 CFR Part 763 or 40 CFR Part 61. Limited surveys are performed to identify the presence of readily accessible suspect ACM and to develop recommendations as to the need for a more thorough survey and/or an operations and maintenance (O&M) program. • Radon document review, consisting of the review of published radon data with regard to the potential for elevated levels of radon gas in the surrounding area of the Subject Property. • Lead in drinking water data review, consisting of contacting the water s upplier for information regarding whether or not the potable water provided to the Subject Property meets or exceeds drinking water standards for lead.
• Visual observation of lead-based paint (LBP), consisting of providing an opinion on the potential for LBP based on the construction date of buildings on the Subject Property and visual observation of the condition of suspect LBP.
• Wetlands document review, consisting of a review of a current National Wetlands Inventory map of the surrounding area to note if the Subject Property is identified as having a wetland. • Flood plain document review, consisting of a review of a reasonably ascertainable flood plain map of the surrounding area to note if the Subject Property is identified as being located within a flood plain.

2.3 Significant Assumption
Any assumptions in this report were not considered as having significant impact on the determination of RECs associated with the Subject Property.

2.4 Limitations and Exceptions
Cardno prepared this Phase I ESA report using reasonable efforts to identify RECs associated with hazardous substances or petroleum products at the Subject Property. Findings contained within this report are based on information collected from observations made on the day(s) of the site reconnaissance and from reasonably ascertainable information obtained from certain public agencies and other referenced sources.

The ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21 recognizes inherent limitations for Phase I ESAs, including, but not limited to:
• Uncertainty Not Eliminated – A Phase I ESA cannot completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with any property.
• Not Exhaustive – A Phase I ESA is not an exhaustive investigation of the Subject Property and environmental conditions on such property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 7
• Past Uses of the Property – Phase I requirements only require review of standard historical sources at five year intervals ; therefore, past uses of the S ubject Property at less than five year intervals may not be discovered.

Users of this report may refer to ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21 for further information regarding these and other limitations. This report is not definitive and should not be assumed to be a complete and/or specific definition of all conditions above or below grade. Current subsurface conditions may differ from the conditions determined by surface observations, interviews, and reviews of historical sources. The most reliable method of evaluating subsurface conditions is through intrusive techniques, which are beyond the scope of this report. Information in this report is not intended to be used as a construction document and should not be used for demolition, renovation, or other property construction purposes. Any use of this report by any party, beyond the scope and intent of the original parties, shall be at the sole risk and expense of such user.

Cardno makes no representation or warranty that the past or current operations at the Subject Property are, or have been, in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and codes. This report does not warrant against future operations or conditions, nor does it warrant against operations or conditions present of a type or at a location not investigated. Regardless of the findings stated in this report, Cardno is not responsible for consequences or conditions arising from facts not fully disclosed to Cardno during the assessment.

An independent data research company provided the government agency database referenced in this report.

Information on surrounding area properties was requested for approximate minimum search distances and is assumed to be correct and complete unless obviously contradicted by Cardno’s observations or other credible referenced sources reviewed during the assessment. Cardno shall not be liable for any such database firm’s failure to make relevant files or documents properly available, to properly index files, or otherwise to fail to maintain or produce accurate or complete records.

Cardno used reasonable efforts to identify evidence of aboveground and underground storage tanks (USTs) and ancillary equipment on the Subject Property during the assessment. “Reasonable efforts” were limited to observation of accessible areas, review of referenced public records and interviews. These reasonable efforts may not identify subsurface equipment or evidence hidden from view by things including, but not limited to, snow cover, paving, construction activities, stored materials and landscaping.

Any estimates of costs or quantities in this report are approximations for commercial real estate transaction due diligence purposes and are based on the findings, opinions, and conclusions of this assessment, which are limited by the scope of the assessment, schedule demands, cost constraints, accessibility limitations, and other factors associated with performing the Phase I ESA. Subsequent determinations of costs or quantities may vary from the estimates in this report. The estimated costs or quantities in this report are not intended to be used for financial disclosure related to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement No. 143, FASB Interpretation No. 47, Sarbanes/Oxley Act or any United States Securities and Exchange Commission reporting obligations, and may not be used for such purposes in any form without the express written permission of Cardno.

Cardno is not a professional title insurance or land surveyor firm and makes no guarantee, express or implied, that any land title records acquired or reviewed in this report, or any physical descriptions or depictions of the Subject Property in this report, represent a comprehensive definition or precise delineation of property ownership or boundaries.

The Environmental Professional Statement in Section 1.1 of this report does not “certify” the findings contained in this report and is not a legal opinion of the Environmental Professional. The Environmental Professional Statement is intended to document Cardno’s opinion that an individual meeting the qualifications of an Environmental Professional was involved in the performance of the assessment and that the activities performed by, or under the supervision of, the Environmental Professional were performed in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312 per the methodology in ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21 and the scope of work for this assessment.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 8
Per ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21, Section 6, User Responsibilities, the user of this assessment has specific obligations for performing tasks during this assessment that will help identify the possibility of RECs in connection with the Subject Property. Failure by the user to fully comply with the requirements may impact their ability to use this report to help qualify for Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Cardno makes no representations or warranties regarding a user’s qualification for protection under any federal, state, or local laws, rules, or regulations.

In accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21, this report is presumed to be valid for a six -month period. If the report is older than six months, the following information must be updated for the report to be valid:
(1) regulatory review, (2) site visit, (3) interviews, (4) specialized knowledge, and (5) environmental liens search.

Reports older than one year may not meet the ASTM Standard Practice 1527-21 and, therefore, the entire report must be updated to reflect current conditions and property-specific information.

Other limitations and exceptions that are specific to the scope of this report may be found in corresponding sections.

2.5 Special Terms and Conditions (User Reliance)
This report is for the use and benefit of, and may be relied upon by the Maverik, Inc., its affiliates, and third parties authorized in writing by the client and Cardno, including the lender(s) in connection with a secured financing of the Subject Property, and their respective successors and assigns. Any third party agrees by accepting this report that any use or reliance on this report shall be limited by the exceptions and limitations in this report, and with the acknowledgment that actual Subject Property conditions may change with time, and that hidden conditions may exist at the Subject Property that were not discovered within the authorized scope of the assessment. Any use by or distribution of this report to third parties, without the express written consent of Cardno, is at the sole risk and expense of such third party.

Cardno makes no other representation to any third party except that it has used the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by environmental consultants in the preparation of the report and in the assembling of data and information related thereto. No other warranties are made to any third party, either expressed or implied.

Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by Cardno and a third party, Cardno’s liability to any third party authorized to use or rely on this report with respect to any acts or omissions shall be limited to a total maximum amount of $50,000.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 9
3 Site Description

3.1 Local and Legal Description
The Subject Property at Hwy 14 & Ave S in Palmdale, California is located on the north side of W Avenue S and northeast of Guyon Avenue. According to the county assessor, the Subject Property is legally described as FOR DESC SEE ASSESSOR'S MAPS POR OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 34 T 6N R 12W , and owned by ANAVERDE HOLDINGS LLC.

A Site Vicinity Map is located in Appendix A, a Site Plan is included in Appendix B, and Subject Property photographs are provided in Appendix C.

3.2 Surrounding Area General Characteristics
The surrounding area is primarily characterized by residential properties. The Subject Property can be accessed from W Avenue S. Elevation at the Subject Property is at 2,866 feet above mean sea level (msl). The topography of the Subject Property is generally flat. The Subject Property topography is discussed in detail in Section 5.2.1 of this report.

Specific adjoining property information is further discussed in Section 3.5.

3.3 Current Use of the Property
The Subject Property is currently unoccupied, vacant land. The Subject Property was mostly generally flat, and covered with a sandy topsoil. The entire area was littered with illegally dumped refuse, garbage and wind-blown trash.

Vehicular access to the Subject Property is provided from E Avenue South along the southern perimeter of the Subject Property.

The Subject Property is designated for residential development by the City of Palmdale and is considered a legal use in its current configuration.

The Subject Property was not identified in the regulatory database report of Section 5.1.

Subject Property photographs are provided in Appendix C.

3.4 Description of Property Improvements
The following table provides general descriptions of the Subject Property improvements.

Property Improvements
Size of Property (approximate) Approximate 6.08-acre parcel General Topography of Property Generally flat
Adjoining and/or Access/Egress Roads South: W Avenue South Approximate % Paved or Concrete Areas ☐ Asphalt 0%
☐ Concrete 0%
Approximate % Unimproved Areas 100%
Approximate % Landscaped Areas 0%
Approximate % Surface Water 0%
Potable Water Source NA
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 10
Sanitary Sewer Utility NA
Storm Sewer Utility NA
Electrical Utility NA
Natural Gas Utility NA
Current Occupancy Status Unoccupied
Unoccupied Buildings/Spaces/Structures NA
Number of Occupied Buildings NA

3.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
The Subject Property is located within a mixed commercial area of Lost Angeles County . During the vicinity reconnaissance, Cardno observed land use in the immediate vicinity o f the Subject Property as detailed in the following table.

Adjacent Properties
Direction Street or Address Across street (address if applicable) North Vacant
South W Avenue S Ana Verde Market (332 W Avenue S)
East Vacant
West Vacant
The adjacent property to the south was identified as a CERS TANK, CUPA LA COUNTY, HMS LA, and RCRA NON GEN site in the regulatory database report of Section 5.1.2.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 11
4 User-Provided Information
The following section summarizes information (if any) provided by Maverik, Inc. (User) with regard to the Phase I ESA. Documentation may be found where referenced in this report.

4.1 Title Records
User did not provide title record information for the Subject Property.

4.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations User did not provide information regarding property environmental liens or activity and use limitations (AULs).

Cardno attempted to identify environmental liens and AULs through client-supplied data. No liens or AULs were identified on the Subject Property.

4.3 Specialized Knowledge
User did not provide specialized knowledge regarding RECs associated with the Subject Property.

4.4 Significant Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues User did not provide information regarding a significant valuation reduction for environmental issues associated with the Subject Property.

4.5 Owner, Property Manager and Occupant Information
User provided Cardno with a site access contact indicating the Subject Property was currently unoccupied and an escort would not be needed.

4.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA
User indicated that the Phase I ESA was being completed prior to a financial transaction regarding the Subject Property.

4.7 Other User Provided Documents
The User was provided an environmental questionnaire concerning the Subject Property. Cardno had not received the completed document by August 18, 2022. A site map was provided by the User.

This information can be reviewed in Appendix D. No other documents were supplied to Cardno as described in the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 12
5 Records Review

5.1 Standard Environmental Records
The regulatory agency database report discussed in this sect ion, provided by Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) , was reviewed for information regarding reported releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products on or near the Subject Property. Cardno also reviewed the “unmappable” (also referred to as “orphan”) listings within the database report, cross-referencing available address information and facility names.

Unmappable sites are listings that could not be plotted with confidence, but are potentially in the general area of the Subject Property based on the partial street address, city, or zip code. Any unmappable site that was identified by Cardno as a being within the approximate minimum search distance from the Subject Property based on the site reconnaissance and/or cross-referencing to mapped listings, is included in the discussion within this section.

The complete regulatory agency database report may be found in Appendix E. The following table is a summary of the findings of the database review.

Summary of Federal, State, and Tribal Database Findings Regulatory Database Approx. Minimum
Search Distance Property Listed? Additional Sites Listed Federal

DOE FUSRAP
NPL

PROPOSED NPL

DELETED NPL
SEMS
ODI

SEMS ARCHIVE

CERCLIS
IODI

CERCLIS NFRAP

CERCLIS LIENS

RCRA CORRACTS

RCRA TSD

RCRA LQG

RCRA SQG

RCRA VSQG

RCRA NON GEN

RCRA CONTROLS

FED ENG

FED INST
LUCIS
NPL IC
ERNS 1982 to 1986
ERNS 1987 to 1989
ERNS

FED BROWNFIELDS

FEMA UST
FRP

DELISTED FRP

HIST GAS STATION

1 mile
1 mile
1 mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
Property
1 mile
½ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
Property
Property
Property
½ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes (1)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 13
Regulatory Database Approx. Minimum
Search Distance Property Listed? Additional Sites Listed REFN

BULK TERMINAL

SEMS LIEN

SUPERFUND ROD
¼ mile
¼ mile
Property
1 mile
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
State

RESPONSE

ENVIROSTOR

DELISTED ENVS
SWF/LF

SWRCB SWF
WMUD
HWP
SWAT

C&D DEBRIS RECY

RECYCLING

PROCESSORS

CONTAINER RECY
LDS
LUST

DELISTED LST
UST

UST CLOSURE
HHSS

UST SWEEPS
AST

AST SWRCB

TANK OIL GAS

DELISTED TNK

CERS TANK

DELISTED CTNK

HIST TANK
LUR

CALSITES
HLUR
DEED
VCP

CLEANUP SITES

DELISTED CLEANUP

DELISTED COUNTY

1 mile
1 mile
1 mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
1 mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
¼ mile
½ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
¼ mile

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
Yes (1)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes (1)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Tribal

INDIAN LUST

INDIAN UST

DELISTED ILST

DELISTED IUST

½ mile
¼ mile
½ mile
¼ mile

No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 14
Regulatory Database Approx. Minimum
Search Distance Property Listed? Additional Sites Listed County
SML LA

SWF LA COUNTY

CUPA LA COUNTY
HMS LA

UST SANTAFESP

UST LONGB

CUPA BURBANK

UST ELSEGUNDO

UST SANTA MONICA

AST SANTAMON

CUPA SANTAMON

UST TORRANCE

UST VERNON

CUPA VERNON

UST LA CITY

AST LA CITY

HAZMAT LA CITY

½ mile
½ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
1/8 mile

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

Additional Environmental Records
Federal

FINDS/FRS
TRIS

PFAS TRI

PFAS NPL

PFAS WATER

PFAS SSEHRI

ERNS PFAS
HMIRS
NCDL
TSCA

HIST TSCA

FTTS ADMIN

FTTS INSP
PRP

SCRD DRYCLEANER
ICIS

FED DRYCLEANER

DELISTED FED DRY
FUDS

FORMER NIKE

PIPELINE INCIDENT
MLTS

HIST MLTS
MINES
SMCRA
MRDS

URANIUM

Property
Property
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
1/8 mile
1/8 mile
1/8 mile
1/8 mile
Property
Property
Property
½ mile
Property
¼ mile
¼ mile
1 mile
1 mile
Property
Property
Property
¼ mile
1 mile
1 mile
1 mile

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes (4)
No

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 15
Regulatory Database Approx. Minimum
Search Distance Property Listed? Additional Sites Listed

ALT FUELS

CONSENT DECREES
AFS
SSTS
PCBT
PCB
¼ mile
¼ mile
Property
¼ mile
½ mile
½ mile
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
State

DRYCLEANERS

DELISTED DRYCLEANERS

DRYC GRANT
PFAS

PFAS GW

HWSS CLEANUP

TOXIC PITS

DTSC HWF

INSP COMP ENF
SCH
CHMIRS

HIST CHMIRS
HAZNET

HIST MANIFEST

HW TRANSPORT

WASTE TIRE

MEDICAL WASTE

HIST CORTESE

CDO/CAO

CERS HAZ

DELISTED HAZ

GEOTRACKER
MINE
LIEN

WASTE DISCHG

EMMISSIONS
CDL

¼ mile
¼ mile
¼ mile
½ mile
½ mile
½ mile
1 mile
½ mile
1 mile
1 mile
Property
Property
Property
Property
1/8 mile
Property
¼ mile
½ mile
½ mile
1/8 mile
½ mile
1/8 mile
1 mile
Property
¼ mile
¼ mile
1/8 mile

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes (1)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

County

HAZMAT SANTAMON

HAZ WST SANTAMON

1/8 mile
1/8 mile

No
No

No
No

5.1.1 Subject Property Listings
The Subject Property is not identified in the regulatory database report.

5.1.2 Adjacent Property Listings
The adjacent properties are identified in the regulatory database report:
• The adjacent property, identified as Antelope Valley Airport at 332 W Avenue S, Palmdale, CA , is located adjacent to the south of the Subject Property. This site reported as a HMS LA, RCRA NON GEN, CERS Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 16
TANK, and CUPA LA COUNTY. Multiple violations were reported regarding an AST containing petroleum.

These violations did not result in a release of hazardous substance and were brought back into compliance withing a timely matter. Based on the type of listings and lack of a release, these listing are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern to the Subject Property.

5.1.3 Sites of Concern Listings
No sites of concern are identified in the regulatory database report.

Based on the findings, vapor migration is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern at this time.

5.1.4 Orphan Listings
One unplottable listing was identified. This listing was identified as a HAZMAT. No releases were reported. Based on the lack of release and type of listing, this listing is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern for the Subject Property.

5.1.5 Local Environmental Records Search
Name of Agency: California Environmental Protection Agency Point of Contact: ERIS Xplorer
Agency Address: 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Agency Phone Number: (916) 323-2514
Date of Contact: August 18, 2022
Method of Communication: Online
Communication Summary: No records regarding hazardous substance use, storage or releases, or the presence of USTs and AULs on the S ubject Property were on file with the agency.

A copy of pertinent documents is included in Appendix E of this report.

5.1.6 Health Department
Name of Agency: County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health Environmental Health Point of Contact: Website
Agency Address: 5050 Commerce Dr, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 Agency Phone Number: (626) 430-5560
Date of Contact: August 18, 2022
Method of Communication: Email
Communication Summary: As of the date of this report, Cardno has not received a response from this agency for inclusion in this report.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 17

5.1.7 Fire Department
Name of Agency: County of Los Angeles Fire Department
Point of Contact: Website
Agency Address: 1320 N Eastern Avenue, Lost Angeles, CA 90063 Agency Phone Number: (323) 881-2411
Date of Contact: August 18, 2022
Method of Communication: Online
Communication Summary: As of the date of this report, Cardno has not received a response from this agency for inclusion in this report.

5.1.8 Planning Department
Name of Agency: Palmdale Planning Department
Point of Contact: Website
Agency Address: 38250 Sierra Hwy, Palmdale, CA 93550
Agency Phone Number: (661) 267-5200
Date of Contact: August 18, 2022
Method of Communication: Online
Communication Summary: According to records reviewed, the Subject Property is zoned for residential development by the City of Palmdale.

A copy of pertinent documents is included in Appendix G of this report.

5.1.9 Oil & Gas Exploration
Name of Agency: California Department of Conservation Gas and Oil Point of Contact: ERIS Xplorer
Agency Address: 715 P Street, MS 1900, Sacramento, CA 95814 Agency Phone Number: (916) 322-1080
Date of Contact: August 18, 2022
Method of Communication: Online
Communication Summary: According to the agency, no oil or gas wells are located on or adjacent to the Subject Property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 18

5.1.10 Assessor’s Office
Name of Agency: Los Angeles County Assessor
Point of Contact: Website
Agency Address: 500 W. Temple Street, Room 225, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Agency Phone Number: (213) 874-3211
Date of Contact: August 18, 2022
Method of Communication: Online
Communication Summary: According to records reviewed, the Subject property is identified by Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 3004-016-032 and is currently owned by Anaverde Holdings LLC since 2018.

5.1.11 Utilities
Utility providers for the Subject Property are detailed in the following table.

Utility Providers
Utility Provider
Electrical Utility Company NA
Water Utility NA
Sewer Utility NA
Natural Gas Utility NA

5.1.12 Other Local Environmental Records Sources
No additional local environmental records sources were reviewed for this assessment.

5.2 Physical Setting Sources

5.2.1 Topography
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ritter Ridge & Palmdale, California Quadrangle 7.5-minute series topographic map was reviewed for this ESA. According to the contour lines on the topographic map, the Subject Property is located at approximately 2,866 feet above msl. The contour lines in the area of the Subject Property indicate the area is sloping gently toward the southeast. The Subject Property is depicted on the 2022 map as undeveloped.

5.2.2 Geology/Soils
The Subject Property is situated within an area characterized by quaternary alluvium and marine deposits.

Based on information obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey online database, the Subject Property is mapped as Vernalis loam. The Vernalis series consists of Class B soils that have a moderately low runoff potential when thoroughly west. Water transition through the soil is unimpeded.

Slopes range from 2 to 5 percent.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 19

5.2.3 Hydrology
According to topographic map interpretation, the direction of groundwater in the vicinity of the Subject Property is inferred to flow toward the southeast. The nearest surface water in the vicinity of the Subject Property is the Lake Palmdale, located approximately 0.4 miles southeast of the Subject Property. No settling ponds, lagoons, surface impoundments, wetlands, or natural catch basins were observed at the Subject Property during this assessment.

According to available information, a public water system operated by the Palmdale Water District serves the Subject Property vicinity. The sources of public water for the City of Palmdale are surface water from the State Water Project, surface water from Littlerock Reservoir, and groundwat er from the Antelope Valley groundwater basin.

Information specific to the Subject Property regarding the depth to groundwater and direction of groundwater flow was not available for the subject area.

5.2.4 Other Physical Setting Sources

5.2.4.1 Flood Plain Map
Cardno performed a review of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). According to Community Panel Number 06037C0670F , the Subject Property appears to be located in Zone X, an area located within an area of minimal flood hazard.

A copy of the FEMA Map is included in Appendix G.

5.2.4.2 Wetlands Map
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, wetlands are not located on the Subject Property. A copy of the Wetland Map is included in Appendix G. It is noted that this investigation did not include a formal determination relating to the presence of possible wetlands areas on the Subject Property.

5.3 Historical Records Sources
The following table summarizes the findings of the research presented in the following subsections pertaining to historical property and surrounding area uses.

Historical Use Information
Period / Date Source Description / Use
1928 - present Aerial Photographs, Interviews, Topographic Maps, On-site Observations
Undeveloped, vacant land
Potential environmental concerns were not identified in association with the current or former use of the Subject Property.

Data gaps were encountered; however, based on the historical research conducted, significant data gaps were not identified during this Phase I ESA. As such, the requirements of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21 §8.3.2.1 and §8.3.2.2 have been satisfied and the historical research is considered complete.

5.3.1 Aerial Photographs
Cardno obtained available aerial photographs of the Subject Property and surrounding area from ERIS on August 4, 2022. The observations in the following tables were noted to be visible on the Subject Property and adjacent properties during the aerial photograph review.

Aerial Photographs (1928, 1948, 1959, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1989, 1995) Description Scale: 1”=500’
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 20
Subject Property Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
North Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
South Appears to be undeveloped vacant land across a road East Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
West Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
Aerial Photographs (2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020) Description Scale: 1”=500’
Subject Property Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
North Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
South Appears to be developed with multiple commercial structures across a road East Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
West Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
Copies of select aerial photographs are included in Appendix F of this report.

5.3.2 Fire Insurance Maps
Cardno reviewed the collection of Sanborn Fire insurance maps from ERIS on August 4, 2022. Sanborn map coverage was not available for the Subject Property.

Copies of reviewed Sanborn Maps are included in Appendix G of this report.

5.3.3 Property Tax Files
According to information obtained from the Los Angeles County Assessor’s office, the Subject Property is made up of 1 parcel of land. This is parcel 3004-016-032. According to the Lost Angeles County Assessor’s online data, the parcel is owned by Anaverde Holdings LLC.

Additional historical ownership information was not available. The review of tax files did not identify past uses indicating RECs at the Subject Property.

5.3.4 Recorded Land Title Records and AULs
The acquisition of recorded land title records was not required by the scope of work for this ESA; however, Cardno did conduct a search for environmental liens and/or AULs using client -supplied information. No e nvironmental liens or AULs were identified from the client-supplied information.

5.3.5 Historical USGS Topographic Quadrangles
Cardno reviewed historical topographic maps obtained from ERIS on August 4, 2022. The observations of the Subject Property and adjacent properties made during the topographic map review are as follows.

Historic USGS Topographic Quadrangles (1932, 1937, 1958, 1974, 2015, 2018, 2022) Description
Subject Property Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
North Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
South Appears to be undeveloped vacant land across a road East Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
West Appears to be undeveloped vacant land
Copies of reviewed topographic maps are included in Appendix G of this report.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 21

5.3.6 City Directories
Cardno reviewed historical city directories obtained from ERIS on August 8, 2022 for past names and businesses that were listed for the Subject Property and adjacent properties.

City directory findings are presented in the following tables.

City Directory Search (Adjacent Properties)
Year(s) Occupant Address Environmentally
Sensitive
1991, 1992, 1995 Brodt B D Crane Service 322 W Avenue S No 2007, 2012, 2016, 2020 Antelope Express 332 W Avenue S Yes 2007, 2012, 2016, 2020 Penske Truck Rental 332 W Avenue S Yes 2007, 2012, 2016, 2020 One Stop Muffler & Auto Repair 343 W Avenue S Yes 2016, 2020 Aha Verde Market 332 W Avenue S No
2020 Thompson Harvey Bay Area 332 W Avenue S No
2020 Village Barber Shop 332 W Avenue S No
Environmentally system was previously discussed in Section 5.1.2.

Copies of reviewed city directories are included in Appendix G of this report.

5.3.7 Building Department Records
Building Department records were previously discussed in Section 5.1.8.

5.3.8 Zoning/Land Use Records
Zoning/land use records were previously discussed in Section 5.1.9.

5.3.9 Prior Reports
No prior reports were reviewed for this assessment.

5.3.10 Other Historical Sources
No other historical sources were reviewed for this assessment.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 22
6 Site Reconnaissance
The initial unaccompanied site reconnaissance was conducted by Thomas Gordon of Cardno on August 9, 2022.

This visit was focused on the publicly accessible areas of the Subject Property and noted only exterior features.

The Subject Property is generally flat and covered with sandy topsoil. The Subject Property was littered with illegally dumped refuse, garbage, and wind-blown trash. Abandoned old furniture like chairs, sofas, an old mattress or two , and a few old tires were observed on the Subject Proper ty. It appeared as though homeless people had stayed on the Subject Property.

Photographs of the Subject Property are included in Appendix C.

6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
The site reconnaissance consisted of visual and/or physical observations of t he Subject Property and improvements, adjoining sites as viewed from the Subject Property, and the surrounding area based on visual observations made during the trip to and from the Subject Property. At the time of the Subject Property inspection, the weather conditions were sunny and approximately 87 degrees Fahrenheit. The ground was covered in natural vegetation, allowing for an obstructed visual inspection.

6.2 Hazardous Substance Use, Storage, and Disposal
No hazardous substances or petroleum products were observed on the Subject Property during the site reconnaissance.

6.3 Aboveground and Underground Hazardous Substance or Petroleum Product Storage Tanks
No evidence of current or former aboveground storage tank s (ASTs) or USTs was observed during the site reconnaissance.

6.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls
No potential polychlorinated biphenyl ( PCB)-containing equipment (transformers, oil-filled switches, hoists, lifts, dock levelers, hydraulic elevators, etc.) was observed on the Subject Property.

A transformer was observed on the Subject Property but appears to be in good condition with no leakage. There is no indication that the transformer contains PCBs.

Additionally, no other potential PCB -containing equipment (interior transformers, oil-filled switches, hoists, lifts, dock levelers, hydraulic elevators, balers, etc.) was observed on the Subject Property.

6.5 Unidentified Substance Containers
Cardno did not observe any unidentified substance containers on the Subject Property.

6.6 Non-hazardous Solid Waste
Cardno observed non-hazardous or solid waste on the Subject Property. The Subject Property was littered with illegally dumped refuse, garbage, and wind-blown trash. Abandoned old furniture like chairs, sofas, an old mattress or two , and a few old tires were observed on the Subject Property . It appeared as though homeless people had stayed on the Subject Property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 23

6.7 Wastewater
Cardno did not observe evidence of wastewater generated, treated or discharged (including sanitary sewage and storm water) on the Subject Property or to adjoining properties.

6.8 Waste Pits, Ponds and Lagoons
Cardno did not observe evidence of waste pits, ponds, or lagoons on the Subject Property.

6.9 Sumps
Cardno did not observe evidence of sumps or oil/water separators on the Subject Property.

6.10 Septic Systems
Cardno did not observe evidence of a septic system on the Subject Property.

6.11 Storm water Management System
Cardno did not observe evidence of surface water, surface impoundments, retention ponds, dry wells, or other storm water management systems at the Subject Property.

Storm water from the Subject Property either percolates into the ground or runs off the Subject Property to adjacent sites.

6.12 Wells
Cardno did not observe evidence of wells on the Subject Property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 24
7 Interviews
Persons were interviewed to obtain information regarding RECs in connection with the Subject Property. Pertinent information (if any) identified during those interviews are discussed in the respective sections of this report.

Record of Communication
Communication with Date Summary of Communication
Paul Heywood, Maverik August 2, 2022 Cardno contacted Maverik to obtain site access and contact information.

Casey McKeon, Owner
Representative
August 18, 2022 Cardno contacted Casey Mckeon regarding the past use of the Subject Property. No response has been received.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 25
8 Other Environmental Conditions

8.1 Asbestos-Containing Material
Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring, fibrous silicate minerals mined for their useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 29 CFR 1926.1101 requires certain construction materials to be presumed to contain asbestos, for purposes of this regulation. All thermal system insulation (TSI), surfacing material, and asphalt/vinyl flooring that are present in a building constructed prior to 1981 and have not been appropriately tested are presumed asbestos-containing material (PACM).

Due to the undeveloped nature of the Subject Property, ACMs were not considered within the scope of this assessment.

8.2 Radon
Radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring, radioactive, inert, gaseous element formed by radioactive decay of radium (Ra) atoms. The U.S. EPA has prepared a map to assist national, state, and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes. The map divides the country into three Radon Zones, as detailed in the following table.

U.S. EPA Radon Zones
Zones Average Predicted Radon Levels Potential
Zone 1 Exceed 4.0 pCi/L Highest
Zone 2 Between 2.0 and 4.0 pCi/L Moderate
Zone 3 Less than 2.0 pCi/L Low
It is important to note that the U.S. EPA has found homes with elevated levels of radon in all three zones, and the U.S. EPA recommends site-specific testing to determine radon levels at a specific location; h owever, the map does give a valuable indication of the propensity of radon gas accumulation in structures.

Radon sampling was not conducted as part of this assessment. Review of the U. S. EPA Map of Radon Zones places the Subject Property in Zone 2. Based upon the radon zone classification, radon is not considered to be a significant environmental concern.

Due to the undeveloped nature of the Subject Property, radon is not considered to be a significant environmental concern.

A copy of the County Radon Map is included in Appendix G of this report.

8.3 Lead in Drinking Water
According to available information, a public water system operated by the Palmdale Water District serves the Subject Property vicinity. The sources of public water for the City of Palmdale are surface water from the State Water Project, surface water from Littlerock Reservoir, and groundwater from the Antelope Valley groundwater basin. According to the City of Palmdale and the 2021 Annual Water Quality Report, water supplied to the Subject Property is in compliance with all s tate and federal regulations pertaining to drinking water standards, including lead and copper.

Water sampling was not conducted to verify water quality.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 26

8.4 Lead-Based Paint
Lead is a highly toxic metal that affects virtually every system of the body. Lead-based paint (LBP) is defined as any paint, varnish, stain, or other applied coating that has 1 mg/cm2 (or 5,000 µg/g or 0.5% by weight) or more of lead. Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, also known as “Title X,” to protect families from exposure to lead from paint, dust, and soil. Under Section 1017 of Title X, intact LBP on most walls and ceilings is not considered a “hazard,” although the condition of the paint should be monitored and maintained to ensure that it does not become deteriorated. Further, Section 1018 of this law directed the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U. S. EPA to require the disclosure of known information on LBP and LBP hazards before the sale or lease of most housing built before 1978.

Due to the undeveloped nature of the Subject Property, LBP was not considered within the scope of this assessment.

8.5 Mold Screening
Molds are microscopic organisms found virtually everywhere, indoors and outdoors. Mold will grow and multiply under the right conditions, needing only sufficient moisture (e.g., in the form of very high humidity, condensation, or water from a leaking pipe), and organic material (e.g., ceiling tile, drywall, paper, or natural fiber carpet padding).

Due to the undeveloped nature of the Subject Property, Mold Screening was not considered within the scope of this assessment.

8.6 Vapor Encroachment
Cardno, Inc. conducted a limited screening for potential vapor encroachment conditions (VECs) that may affect the Subject Property. The VEC screening focused on the current and historical usage of the Subject Property and also used the aforementioned regulatory database report provided by ERIS to evaluate identified chemicals of concern, including petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the limited screening did not indicate the presence of potential VECs for the Subject Property. This would not be considered a REC related to the Subject Property. A VEC report is located in Appendix K.

If the client should choose to further evaluate the potential VECs, Cardno, Inc. can provide those services accordingly.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA August 22, 2022 Cardno Now Stantec 27
9 References
ASTM International (ASTM). Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, ASTM Designation E 1527-21, dated November 2021.

ASTM International (ASTM). Standard Guide for Readily Observable Mold and Conditions Conducive to Mold in Commercial Buildings: Baseline Survey Process, ASTM Designation E 2418-06, dated March 2006.

Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS). ERIS Vapor Screening; Inquiry Number 22080300932, dated August 16, 2022.

Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS). ERIS Fire Insurance Maps, Inquiry Number 22080300932, dated August 4, 2022.

Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS). The ERIS Historical Aerials; Inquiry Number 22080300932, dated August 4, 2022.

Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS). The ERIS-City Directory Report; Inquiry Number 22080300932, dated August 8, 2022.

Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS). The ERIS Historical Topographic Map Report; Inquiry Number 22080300932, dated August 4, 2022.

Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS). The ERIS Database Report ; Inquiry Number 22080300932, dated August 4, 2022.

Environmental Risk Inform ation Services (ERIS). The ERIS Physical Settings Report; Inquiry Number 22080300932, dated August 4, 2022.

Federal Emergency Management Act, Map Service Center website, https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/ , accessed August 18, 2022.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper, accessed August 18, 2022.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey website, http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/, accessed August 18, 2022.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) Interactive Geologic Map of California, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/, accessed August 18, 2022.

Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA

Appendix
A
Site Vicinity Map
Data Sources: ERIS Historical Topo #22061300189Date Created: 8/16/2022Date Revised: 8/16/2022File Path: C:\Users\alisha.strong\OneDrive - Cardno\Desktop\Projects\Maverik\1856 Maverik Palmdale, CA\1856 Figures\1856 Figures.dwgCAD Analyst: Alisha.Strong This map and all data contained within aresupplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc.expressly disclaims responsibility for damages orliability from any claims that may arise out of theuse or misuse of this map. It is the soleresponsibility of the user to determine if the data onthis map meets the user’s needs. This map wasnot created as survey data, nor should it be usedas such. It is the user’s responsibility to obtainproper survey data, prepared by a licensedsurveyor, where required by law.

Figure 1: Site Vicinity MapMaverik - Palmdale, CAPotential Maverik LocationHighway 14 & Avenue SPalmdale, Los Angeles County, California1142 WEST 2320 SOUTH, SUITE AWEST VALLEY, UTAH 84119P: 801-256-3800 F: 801-973-1095Latitude: 34° 33' 32" NLongitude: -118° 8' 7" WRitter Ridge, CA, 2022Palmdale, CA, 2022Project No. 238001856 Property Location
0 105021004200 ft

Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA

Appendix
B
Site Plan
Data Sources: GOOGLE MAPDate Created: 8/16/2022Date Revised: 8/16/2022File Path: C:\Users\alisha.strong\OneDrive - Cardno\Desktop\Projects\Maverik\1856 Maverik Palmdale, CA\1856 Figures\1856 Figures.dwgCAD Analyst: Alisha.Strong This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. This map was not created as survey data, nor should it be used as such. It is the user’s responsibility to obtainproper survey data, prepared by a licensedsurveyor, where required by law.

Figure 2: SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONSMaverik - Palmdale, CAPotential Maverik LocationHighway 14 & Avenue SPalmdale, Los Angeles County, California1142 WEST 2320 SOUTH, SUITE AWEST VALLEY, UTAH 84119P: 801-256-3800 F: 801-973-1095Latitude: 34° 33' 32" NLongitude: -118° 8' 7" WProject No. 238001856 ANA VERDEMARKET(332 W AVENUE S)
0250500 ft

WEST AVENUE SPARK & RIDE(GEIGER ST)

WEST AVENUE SOUTH

GUYON AVE
HIGHWAY 14

VACANTLAND

VACANTLAND

VACANTLAND

VACANTLAND
SUBJECTPROPERTY(APPROX 6.08 ACRES)

Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA

Appendix
C
Subject Property Photographs
Photo 1
Comments: View to the north showing the SP f rom the south central boundary.

Photo 2
Comments: View to the north f rom the SWC of the SP.

Photo 3
Comments: View to the western portion of the SP f rom the SEC of the SP.

Photo 4
Comments: Northern view of the SP f rom the SWC of the SP.

Photo 5
Comments: View to the east f rom the SEC of the SP.

Photo 6
Comments: View to the west of the SP f rom the NWC.

Project Name: Maverik Palmdale, CA
A ddress: Hig hway 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA
Project No: 238001856
Photographic Log

Photo 7
Comments: View to the southern portion of the SP f rom the NWC of the SP.

Photo 8
Comments: View to the west f rom the SWC of the SP.

Photo 9
Comments: View to the south f rom the NWC of the SP.

Photo 10
Comments: Illegal dumping located on the SP in the southern portion of the SP.

Photo 11
Comments: View to the north f rom the central portion of the SP.

Photo 12
Comments: Southern view f rom the center of the SP.

Project Name: Maverik Palmdale, CA
A ddress: Hig hway 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA
Project No: 238001856
Photographic Log

Photo 13
Comments: Eastern view f rom the center of the SP.

Photo 14
Comments: Western view f rom the center of the SP.

Photo 15
Comments: Pole mounted transf ormer near the SWC of the SP.

Project Name: Maverik Palmdale, CA
A ddress: Hig hway 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA
Project No: 238001856
Photographic Log

Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA

Appendix
D
User Provided Documentation
VAN

DRIVETHRU
DRIVE
THRU
DRIVE
THRU
POS
C-STORE + QSR
60_L_RR_QSR_2102
REAR
8,852 SQ. FT. TOTAL

HOUSEKEEPING PAD
CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ
EJ
EJ
CJ CJ
EJ
EJ
WB-67 - Interstate Semi-Trailer

NO PARKING

NO PARKING
600'
400'
600'
400'
42'
42'
90'153.8'
MAX. 30
MIN.

PARKING
ONLY
MAX. 30
MIN.

PARKING
ONLY

79.4'
WB-67 - Interstate Semi-Trailer
WB-67 - Interstate Semi-Trailer

SITE DATA
PARKING: APPROX. 47 STALLS PROVIDED
PARCEL AREA: 239,971 SQ. FT. 5.51 ACRES
BUILDING AREA: 8,852 SQ. FT. 0.21 ACRES
N

QUICK FIT STUDY
Scale: 1" = 80'
80 0 80
Scale:
185 S. State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Date: 2022/03/16 BY: WO
HIGHWAY 14 & AVENUE S

PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA
Project number: 22-033

AVENUE S
HIGHWAY 14

Potential Maverik Acquisition – Hwy 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA

Appendix
E
Regulatory Database Report
Project Property: Maverik Palmdale, CA
Highway 14 & Ave S
Palmdale CA
Project No: 2380018XX
Report Type: Database Report
Order No: 22080300932
Requested by: Cardno Inc.

Date Completed: August 4, 2022
2 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 h-Table of Contents
Notice: IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS and YOUR LIABILITY
Reliance on information in Report: This report DOES NOT replace a full Phase I Environmental Site Assessment but is solely intended to be used as database review of environmental records.

License for use of information in Report: No page of this report can be used without this cover page, this notice and the project property identifier.

The information in Report(s) may not be modified or re-sold.

Your Liability for misuse: Using this Service and/or its reports in a manner contrary to this Notice or your agreement will be in breach of copyright and contract and ERIS may obtain damages for such mis-use, including damages caused to third parties, and gives ERIS the right to terminate your account, rescind your license to any previous reports and to bar you from future use of the Service.

No warranty of Accuracy or Liability for ERIS: The information contained in this report has been produced by ERIS Information Inc. ("ERIS") using various sources of information, including information provided by Federal and State government departments. The report applies only to the address and up to the date specified on the cover of this report, and any alterations or deviation from this description will require a new report. This report and the data contained herein does not purport to be and does not constitute a guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained herein and does not constitute a legal opinion nor medical advice. Although ERIS has endeavored to present you with information that is accurate, ERIS disclaims, any and all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in such information and data, whether attributable to inadvertence, negligence or otherwise, and for any consequences arising therefrom. Liability on the part of ERIS is limited to the monetary value paid for this report.

Trademark and Copyright: You may not use the ERIS trademarks or attribute any work to ERIS other than as outlined above. This Service and Report (s) are protected by copyright owned by ERIS Information Inc. Copyright in data used in the Service or Report(s) (the "Data") is owned by ERIS or its licensors. The Service, Report(s) and Data may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in any substantial part without prior written consent of ERIS.

Table of Contents
Table of Contents...........................................................................................2 Executive Summary........................................................................................3 Executive Summary: Report Summary.......................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Project Property...................................................................................9 Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Surrounding Properties......................................................................10 Executive Summary: Summary by Data Source.......................................................................................................11 Map...............................................................................................................14 Aerial.............................................................................................................17 Topographic Map..........................................................................................18 Detail Report.................................................................................................19 Unplottable Summary...................................................................................30 Unplottable Report........................................................................................31 Appendix: Database Descriptions.................................................................33 Definitions.....................................................................................................50 3 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 h-Executive Summary
Property Information:

Project Property: Maverik Palmdale, CA
Highway 14 & Ave S Palmdale CA
Project No: 2380018XX
Coordinates:

Latitude: 34.55892571
Longitude: -118.13530699
UTM Northing: 3,824,716.77
UTM Easting: 395,846.07
UTM Zone: UTM Zone 11S
Elevation: 2,866 FT
Order Information:

Order No: 22080300932
Date Requested: August 3, 2022
Requested by: Cardno Inc.

Report Type: Database Report
Historicals/Products:

Aerial Photographs Historical Aerials (with Project Boundaries) City Directory Search CD - 2 Street Search
ERIS Xplorer ERIS Xplorer
Excel Add-On Excel Add-On
Fire Insurance Maps US Fire Insurance Maps
Physical Setting Report (PSR) Physical Setting Report (PSR) Topographic Map Topographic Maps
Vapor Screening Tool Vapor Screening Tool
Executive Summary
4 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 h-Executive Summary: Report Summary
Database Searched Search
Radius
Project
Property
Within

0.12mi

0.125mi
to 0.25mi

0.25mi to

0.50mi

0.50mi to

1.00mi
Total
Standard Environmental Records
Federal
rr-DOE FUSRAP-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-NPL-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-PROPOSED NPL-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-DELETED NPL-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-SEMS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-ODI-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-SEMS ARCHIVE-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-CERCLIS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-IODI-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-CERCLIS NFRAP-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-CERCLIS LIENS-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-RCRA CORRACTS-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-RCRA TSD-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-RCRA LQG-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-RCRA SQG-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-RCRA VSQG-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-RCRA NON GEN-aa Y 0.25 0 1 0 - - 1

rr-RCRA CONTROLS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-FED ENG-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-FED INST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-LUCIS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-NPL IC-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-ERNS 1982 TO 1986-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-ERNS 1987 TO 1989-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-ERNS-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-FED BROWNFIELDS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-FEMA UST-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

DOE FUSRAP
NPL

PROPOSED NPL

DELETED NPL
SEMS
ODI

SEMS ARCHIVE

CERCLIS
IODI

CERCLIS NFRAP

CERCLIS LIENS

RCRA CORRACTS

RCRA TSD

RCRA LQG

RCRA SQG

RCRA VSQG

RCRA NON GEN

RCRA CONTROLS

FED ENG

FED INST
LUCIS
NPL IC
ERNS 1982 TO 1986
ERNS 1987 TO 1989
ERNS

FED BROWNFIELDS

FEMA UST
Executive Summary: Report Summary
5 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Database Searched Search
Radius
Project
Property
Within

0.12mi

0.125mi
to 0.25mi

0.25mi to

0.50mi

0.50mi to

1.00mi
Total

rr-FRP-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-DELISTED FRP-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-HIST GAS STATIONS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-REFN-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-BULK TERMINAL-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-SEMS LIEN-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-SUPERFUND ROD-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

State
rr-RESPONSE-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-ENVIROSTOR-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

rr-DELISTED ENVS-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-SWF/LF-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-SWRCB SWF-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-WMUD-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-HWP-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-SWAT-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-C&D DEBRIS RECY-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-RECYCLING-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-PROCESSORS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-CONTAINER RECY-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-LDS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-LUST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-DELISTED LST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-UST-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-UST CLOSURE-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-HHSS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-UST SWEEPS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-AST-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-AST SWRCB-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-TANK OIL GAS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-DELISTED TNK-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-CERS TANK-aa Y 0.25 0 1 0 - - 1

rr-DELISTED CTNK-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-HIST TANK-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

FRP

DELISTED FRP

HIST GAS STATIONS
REFN

BULK TERMINAL

SEMS LIEN

SUPERFUND ROD

RESPONSE

ENVIROSTOR

DELISTED ENVS
SWF/LF

SWRCB SWF
WMUD
HWP
SWAT

C&D DEBRIS RECY

RECYCLING

PROCESSORS

CONTAINER RECY
LDS
LUST

DELISTED LST
UST

UST CLOSURE
HHSS

UST SWEEPS
AST

AST SWRCB

TANK OIL GAS

DELISTED TNK

CERS TANK

DELISTED CTNK

HIST TANK
6 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Database Searched Search
Radius
Project
Property
Within

0.12mi

0.125mi
to 0.25mi

0.25mi to

0.50mi

0.50mi to

1.00mi
Total

rr-LUR-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-CALSITES-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-HLUR-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-DEED-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-VCP-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-CLEANUP SITES-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-DELISTED CLEANUP-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-DELISTED COUNTY-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

Tribal
rr-INDIAN LUST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-INDIAN UST-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-DELISTED ILST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-DELISTED IUST-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

County
rr-SML LA-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-SWF LA COUNTY-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-CUPA LA COUNTY-aa Y 0.25 0 1 0 - - 1

rr-HMS LA-aa Y 0.25 0 1 1 - - 2

rr-UST SANTAFESP-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-UST LONGB-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-CUPA BURBANK-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-UST ELSEGUNDO-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-UST SANTA MONICA-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-AST SANTAMON-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-CUPA SANTAMON-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-UST TORRANCE-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-UST VERNON-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-CUPA VERNON-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-UST LA CITY-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-AST LA CITY-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-HAZMAT LA CITY-aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

Additional Environmental Records
Federal
rr-FINDS/FRS-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

LUR

CALSITES
HLUR
DEED
VCP

CLEANUP SITES

DELISTED CLEANUP

DELISTED COUNTY

INDIAN LUST

INDIAN UST

DELISTED ILST

DELISTED IUST
SML LA

SWF LA COUNTY

CUPA LA COUNTY
HMS LA

UST SANTAFESP

UST LONGB

CUPA BURBANK

UST ELSEGUNDO

UST SANTA MONICA

AST SANTAMON

CUPA SANTAMON

UST TORRANCE

UST VERNON

CUPA VERNON

UST LA CITY

AST LA CITY

HAZMAT LA CITY

FINDS/FRS
7 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Database Searched Search
Radius
Project
Property
Within

0.12mi

0.125mi
to 0.25mi

0.25mi to

0.50mi

0.50mi to

1.00mi
Total

rr-TRIS-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-PFAS TRI-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-PFAS NPL-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-PFAS WATER-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-PFAS SSEHRI-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-ERNS PFAS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-HMIRS-aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

rr-NCDL-aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

rr-TSCA-aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

rr-HIST TSCA-aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

rr-FTTS ADMIN-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-FTTS INSP-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-PRP-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-SCRD DRYCLEANER-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-ICIS-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-FED DRYCLEANERS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-DELISTED FED DRY-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-FUDS-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-FORMER NIKE-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-PIPELINE INCIDENT-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-MLTS-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-HIST MLTS-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-MINES-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-SMCRA-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-MRDS-aa Y 1 0 0 0 1 3 4

rr-URANIUM-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-ALT FUELS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-CONSENT DECREES-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-AFS-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-SSTS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-PCBT-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-PCB-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

State
rr-DRYCLEANERS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-DELISTED DRYCLEANERS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

TRIS

PFAS TRI

PFAS NPL

PFAS WATER

PFAS SSEHRI

ERNS PFAS
HMIRS
NCDL
TSCA

HIST TSCA

FTTS ADMIN

FTTS INSP
PRP

SCRD DRYCLEANER
ICIS

FED DRYCLEANERS

DELISTED FED DRY
FUDS

FORMER NIKE

PIPELINE INCIDENT
MLTS

HIST MLTS
MINES
SMCRA
MRDS

URANIUM

ALT FUELS

CONSENT DECREES
AFS
SSTS
PCBT
PCB

DRYCLEANERS

DELISTED DRYCLEANERS
8 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Database Searched Search
Radius
Project
Property
Within

0.12mi

0.125mi
to 0.25mi

0.25mi to

0.50mi

0.50mi to

1.00mi
Total

rr-DRYC GRANT-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-PFAS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-PFAS GW-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-HWSS CLEANUP-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-TOXIC PITS-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-DTSC HWF-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-INSP COMP ENF-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-SCH-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

rr-CHMIRS-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-HIST CHMIRS-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-HAZNET-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-HIST MANIFEST-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-HW TRANSPORT-aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

rr-WASTE TIRE-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-MEDICAL WASTE-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-HIST CORTESE-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-CDO/CAO-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-CERS HAZ-aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

rr-DELISTED HAZ-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0

rr-GEOTRACKER-aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

rr-MINE-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

rr-LIEN-aa Y PO 0 - - - - 0

rr-WASTE DISCHG-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-EMISSIONS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 - - 0

rr-CDL-aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

Tribal No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State.

County
rr-HAZMAT SANTAMON-aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

rr-HAZ WST SANTAMON -aa Y 0.125 0 0 - - - 0

Total: 0 4 1 1 5 11
* PO – Property Only
* 'Property and adjoining properties' database search radii are set at 0.25 miles.

DRYC GRANT
PFAS

PFAS GW

HWSS CLEANUP

TOXIC PITS

DTSC HWF

INSP COMP ENF
SCH
CHMIRS

HIST CHMIRS
HAZNET

HIST MANIFEST

HW TRANSPORT

WASTE TIRE

MEDICAL WASTE

HIST CORTESE

CDO/CAO

CERS HAZ

DELISTED HAZ

GEOTRACKER
MINE
LIEN

WASTE DISCHG

EMISSIONS
CDL

HAZMAT SANTAMON

HAZ WST SANTAMON
9 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 h-Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Project Property Map
Key
DB Company/Site Name Address Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev Diff
(ft)
Page
Number
No records found in the selected databases for the project property.

Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Project Property 10 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 h-Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Surrounding Properties Map
Key
DB Company/Site Name Address Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev Diff
(ft)
Page
Number
m
1d
dd-HMS LA-820329646-aa
332 W AVENUE S
PALMDALE CA 935517804
S 0.11 /
605.93
-8
p1p-19-820329646-x1x
m1d
dd-RCRA NON GEN-873939802-aa

ANTELOPE VALLEY

AIRPORT EXPRESS INC

DBA ANTELOP EXPRESS
332 W AVENUE S
PALMDALE CA 93551-7804
S 0.11 /
605.93
-8
p1p-19-873939802-x1x
EPA Handler ID: CAL000330596
m1d
dd-CERS TANK-876246443-aa

ANTELOPE VALLEY

AIRPORT EXPRESS
332 W AVENUE S # A
PALMDALE CA 93551
S 0.11 /
605.93
-8
p1p-20-876246443-x1x
Site ID: 371964
m1d
dd-CUPA LA COUNTY-877480034-aa

ANTELOPE VALLEY

AIRPORT EXPRESS
332 W AVENUE S A
PALMDALE CA 93551
S 0.11 /
605.93
-8
p1p-24-877480034-x1x
m2d
dd-HMS LA-820338046-aa
145 W AVENUE S
PALMDALE CA 93551
E 0.20 /
1,059.03
14 p1p-24-820338046-x1x
m3d
dd-MRDS-888527200-aa
FIRE PULP PLASTER CO. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PALMDALE CA 93550
NNE 0.43 /
2,256.72
-33
p1p-24-888527200-x1x
Dep ID: 10284878
m4d
dd-MRDS-888451322-aa

ALPINE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PALMDALE CA 93550
NNE 0.58 /
3,071.28
-104
p1p-25-888451322-x1x
Dep ID: 10110785
m4d
dd-MRDS-888528849-aa

ALPINE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PALMDALE CA 93550
NNE 0.58 /
3,071.28
-104
p1p-25-888528849-x1x
Dep ID: 10187960
m5d
dd-SCH-820263718-aa

ANA VERDE

ELEMENTARY

DIVISION STREET/RAYBURN
ROAD
PALMDALE CA 93551
NNE 0.95 /
5,005.54
-149
p1p-26-820263718-x1x
Estor/EPA ID | Cleanup Status: 19990025 | NO FURTHER ACTION AS OF 1/11/2001 m5d
dd-ENVIROSTOR-820299040-aa

ANA VERDE

ELEMENTARY

DIVISION STREET/RAYBURN
ROAD
PALMDALE CA 93551
NNE 0.95 /
5,005.54
-149
p1p-27-820299040-x1x
Estor/EPA ID | Cleanup Status: 19990025 | NO FURTHER ACTION AS OF 1/11/2001 m6d
dd-MRDS-888637419-aa

EVERT DEPOSIT LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PALMDALE CA 93551
SSE 1.00 /
5,263.98
135
p1p-29-888637419-x1x
Dep ID: 10212321
19 19
20 24
24 24
25 25
26 27
29 1
1 1
1 2
3 4
4 5
5 6
HMS
LA
RCRA

NON GEN
CERS
TANK
CUPA

LA COUNTY
HMS
LA
MRDS
MRDS
MRDS
SCH

ENVIROSTOR
MRDS
Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Surrounding Properties 11 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 h-Executive Summary: Summary by Data Source
Standard
Federal
RCRA NON GEN - RCRA Non-Generators

A search of the RCRA NON GEN database, dated Apr 11, 2022 has found that there are 1 RCRA NON GEN site(s) within approximately 0.25 miles of the project property.

Lower Elevation Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Map Key

ANTELOPE VALLEY AIRPORT

EXPRESS INC DBA ANTELOP

EXPRESS
332 W AVENUE S
PALMDALE CA 93551-7804
S 0.11 / 605.93 m-1-873939802-a
EPA Handler ID: CAL000330596

State
ENVIROSTOR - EnviroStor Database

A search of the ENVIROSTOR database, dated May 30, 2022 has found that there are 1 ENVIROSTOR site(s) within approximately

1.00 miles of the project property.

Lower Elevation Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Map Key

ANA VERDE ELEMENTARY DIVISION STREET/RAYBURN ROAD
PALMDALE CA 93551
NNE 0.95 / 5,005.54 m-5-820299040-a
Estor/EPA ID | Cleanup Status: 19990025 | NO FURTHER ACTION AS OF 1/11/2001

CERS TANK - California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Tanks

A search of the CERS TANK database, dated Apr 5, 2022 has found that there are 1 CERS TANK site(s) within approximately 0.25 miles of the project property.

Lower Elevation Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Map Key

ANTELOPE VALLEY AIRPORT

EXPRESS
332 W AVENUE S # A
PALMDALE CA 93551
S 0.11 / 605.93 m-1-876246443-a
Site ID: 371964

County
CUPA LA COUNTY - Los Angeles County - CUPA Program Records

A search of the CUPA LA COUNTY database, dated Mar 25, 2020 has found that there are 1 CUPA LA COUNTY site(s) within approximately 0.25 miles of the project property.

Lower Elevation Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Map Key

ANTELOPE VALLEY AIRPORT

EXPRESS
332 W AVENUE S A
PALMDALE CA 93551
S 0.11 / 605.93 m-1-877480034-a

HMS LA - Los Angeles County - HMS List
1 5
1 1
Executive Summary: Summary by Data Source
12 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932

A search of the HMS LA database, dated Nov 5, 2020 has found that there are 2 HMS LA site(s) within approximately 0.25 miles of the project property.

Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Map Key

145 W AVENUE S
PALMDALE CA 93551
E 0.20 / 1,059.03 m-2-820338046-a

Lower Elevation Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Map Key

332 W AVENUE S
PALMDALE CA 935517804
S 0.11 / 605.93 m-1-820329646-a

Non Standard
Federal
MRDS - Mineral Resource Data System

A search of the MRDS database, dated Mar 15, 2016 has found that there are 4 MRDS site(s) within approximately 1.00 miles of the project property.

Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Map Key

EVERT DEPOSIT LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PALMDALE CA 93551
SSE 1.00 / 5,263.98 m-6-888637419-a
Dep ID: 10212321

Lower Elevation Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Map Key

FIRE PULP PLASTER CO. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PALMDALE CA 93550
NNE 0.43 / 2,256.72 m-3-888527200-a
Dep ID: 10284878

ALPINE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PALMDALE CA 93550
NNE 0.58 / 3,071.28 m-4-888451322-a
Dep ID: 10110785

ALPINE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PALMDALE CA 93550
NNE 0.58 / 3,071.28 m-4-888528849-a
Dep ID: 10187960

State
SCH - School Property Evaluation Program Sites

A search of the SCH database, dated May 30, 2022 has found that there are 1 SCH site(s) within approximately 1.00 miles of the project property.

2 1
6 3
4 4
13 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Lower Elevation Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Map Key

ANA VERDE ELEMENTARY DIVISION STREET/RAYBURN ROAD
PALMDALE CA 93551
NNE 0.95 / 5,005.54 m-5-820263718-a
Estor/EPA ID | Cleanup Status: 19990025 | NO FURTHER ACTION AS OF 1/11/2001

5 #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
m2c
m6c
m3c
m4c(2)
m1c(4)
m5c(2)
PalmdalePalmdale
Aerospace Hwy
Aerospace Hwy
Aerospace Hwy
Aerospace Hwy
Aerospace Hwy
E Avenue R
Rayburn Rd
Tierra Subida Ave
Sierra Hwy
W Barrel Springs Rd
E Avenue SW Avenue S
E Barrel Springs Rd
TierraSubidaAve
E Avenue S
Pelona Vista ParkPelona Vista Park
UV14
UV14
UV14
UV14
UV14
5th St E
Division St
W City Ranch R d
Camares Dr
E Avenue R8
Westlake Dr
7th St W
Dixie Dr
5th
StW
W Avenue S
Kimberly Ln
E Avenue R5
Lisa St
Guyon Ave
Lakeview Dr
3rd St W
Tovey Ave
E Avenue R9
Oliver Ln
Ivy Dr
Sugar Loaf Dr
Bayberry St
Calle
Grillo
El Camino Dr
Hacienda D r
Sandra Ln
W Avenue R-8
6th St E
E Avenue R2
Denise Ave
Alamosa Ave
W Avenue S-4
Lago Lindo
E Avenue R6
E Avenue R7
Valleyview Ave
Geiger StTierra
Subida
Ave
W Avenue R-12
Harvest Ln
E Avenue R12
Shasta Pl
Patty Ln
E Avenue R3
E Avenue Q12
Cierro Crest Pl
Horizon Rd
Sunrise Ter
Anza Pl
W Avenue S-14
Telega Pl
E Avenue R4E Avenue R4
Tovey Ave
Oliver Ln
W Avenue S
6th St E
El Camino Dr
Westlake Dr
Hacienda Dr
Sunrise Ter
Lakeview Dr

METROLINK
Lake Palmdale
CA-14N
118°7'W118°7'30"W118°8'W118°8'30"W118°9'W
34°34'30"N
34°34'30"N
34°34'N
34°34'N
34°33'30"N
34°33'30"N
34°33'N
34°33'N
34°32'30"N

0.3 0 0.30.15
Miles
Order Number: 22080300932
Map: 1.0 Mile Radius
1:19300
Address: Highway 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium © ERIS Information Inc.

Project Property Buffer Outline
#* Eris Sites with Higher Elevation
") Eris Sites with Same Elevation
#*
Eris Sites with Lower Elevation
( Eris Sites with Unknown Elevation
Eris Areas with Higher Elevation
Eris Areas with Same Elevation
Eris Areas with Lower Elevation
Eris Areas with Unknown Elevation
National Wetland
Indian Reserve Land
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
FWS Special Designation AreasFreeways; Highways
Traffic Circle; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle; Ramp
Local Road
Rail
Country
State
Plume
2 6
3 4 (2)
1 (4)
5 (2)
#*
#*
#*
#*
m2c
m3c
m1c(4)
PalmdalePalmdale Aerospace Hwy
Tierra Subida Ave
E Avenue SW Avenue S W Avenue S
Aerospace Hwy
W Avenue S
Aerospace Hwy
W Avenue S
Aerospace Hwy
Tierra Subida Ave
Aerospace Hwy
Pelona Vista ParkPelona Vista Park
UV14
UV14
UV14
UV14
UV14
7th St W
Kimberly Ln
Dixie Dr
Guyon Ave
Division St
Lisa St
W Avenue R-8
Calle
G
rillo
Sandra Ln
Geiger St
Denise Ave
El Camino Dr
W Avenue S
Mountainside Dr Patty Ln
W Avenue R-12
Horizon Rd
Taos Pl
Telega Pl
Deblynn Ct
N Camares Dr
W Avenue S-4
Calle Grillo
Lake Palmdale
CA-14 N
33 118°7'30"W118°8'W118°8'30"W
34°34'N
34°34'N
34°33'30"N
34°33'30"N
34°33'N
34°33'N

0.15 0 0.150.075
Miles
Order Number: 22080300932
Map: 0.5 Mile Radius
1:10100
Address: Highway 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium © ERIS Information Inc.

Project Property Buffer Outline
#* Eris Sites with Higher Elevation
") Eris Sites with Same Elevation
#*
Eris Sites with Lower Elevation
( Eris Sites with Unknown Elevation
Eris Areas with Higher Elevation
Eris Areas with Same Elevation
Eris Areas with Lower Elevation
Eris Areas with Unknown Elevation
National Wetland
Indian Reserve Land
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
FWS Special Designation AreasFreeways; Highways
Traffic Circle; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle; Ramp
Local Road
Rail
Country
State
Plume
2 3
1 (4)
#*
#*
m2c
m1c(4)
PalmdalePalmdale
Aerospace Hwy
E Avenue S
Tierra Subida Ave
W Avenue S
Aerospace Hwy
W Avenue S W Avenue SW Avenue S
Aerospace Hwy
W Avenue S
Aerospace Hwy
W Avenue S Aerospace Hwy
Aerospace Hwy
UV14
UV14
UV14
UV14
UV14
UV14
Calle Grillo
Guyon Ave
Geiger St
CA-14 S
CA-14 N
CA-14 S
CA-14 N
33 33
118°8'W
34°33'30"N
34°33'30"N

0.09 0 0.090.045
Miles
Order Number: 22080300932
Map: 0.25 Mile Radius
1:5600
Address: Highway 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium © ERIS Information Inc.

Project Property Buffer Outline
#* Eris Sites with Higher Elevation
") Eris Sites with Same Elevation
#*
Eris Sites with Lower Elevation
( Eris Sites with Unknown Elevation
Eris Areas with Higher Elevation
Eris Areas with Same Elevation
Eris Areas with Lower Elevation
Eris Areas with Unknown Elevation
National Wetland
Indian Reserve Land
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
FWS Special Designation AreasFreeways; Highways
Traffic Circle; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle; Ramp
Local Road
Rail
Country
State
Plume
2 1 (4)
118°7'30"W118°8'W118°8'30"W
34°34'N
34°34'N
34°33'30"N
34°33'30"N
34°33'N
34°33'NService Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,
Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User
Community

0.1 0 0.10.05
Miles
Order Number: 22080300932
Aerial
1:10000
Address: Highway 14 & Ave S, Palmdale, CA
© ERIS Information Inc.

Source: ESRI World Imagery
Year: 2021
118°7'W118°7'30"W118°8'W118°8'30"W118°9'W118°9'30"W
34°35'N
34°35'N
34°34'30"N
34°34'30"N
34°34'N
34°34'N
34°33'30"N
34°33'30"N
34°33'N
34°33'N
34°32'30"N
34°32'30"N
34°32'N

0.35 0 0.350.175
Miles
Order Number: 22080300932Topographic Map
1:24000
Address: Highway 14 & Ave S, CA
© ERIS Information Inc.

Source: USGS Topographic Map
Quadrangle(s): Ritter Ridge, CA; Palmdale, CA
Year: 2018
19 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 h-Detail Report
Map Key Number of
Records
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev/Diff
(ft)
Site DB
m-1-820329646-b
1 of 4 S 0.11 /
605.93
2,857.99 /
-8

332 W AVENUE S
PALMDALE CA 935517804
dd-HMS LA-820329646-bb
p1p-820329646-y1y

Site No: 028679
Area: 4

Detail Info

Permit No: 000408312 Permit Status Code: PERM
Permit Cat Desc: Industrial Waste Permit Permit Category: I Status Code: PERM File No: 040599
Status Desc: Equipment Permitted File Name: A V AIRPORT EXPRESS Permit Status Desc: Equipment Permitted
Permit Type: 05
Permit Type Desc: Operating Industrial Waste Permit - Onsite m-1-873939802-b
2 of 4 S 0.11 /
605.93
2,857.99 /
-8

ANTELOPE VALLEY AIRPORT

EXPRESS INC DBA ANTELOP

EXPRESS
332 W AVENUE S
PALMDALE CA 93551-7804
dd-RCRA NON GEN-873939802-bb
p1p-873939802-y1y

EPA Handler ID: CAL000330596
Gen Status Universe: No Report
Contact Name: THOMAS MILLER
Contact Address: 332 WEST AVE S , STE A , PALMDALE , CA, 93551 , Contact Phone No and Ext: 661-947-2529
Contact Email: [email protected]
Contact Country:

County Name: LOS ANGELES
EPA Region: 09
Land Type:

Receive Date: 20080313
Location Latitude: 34.557282
Location Longitude: -118.135409

Violation/Evaluation Summary

Note: NO RECORDS: As of Apr 2022, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID).

Handler Summary

Importer Activity: No
Mixed Waste Generator: No
Transporter Activity: No
Transfer Facility: No
Onsite Burner Exemption: No
Furnace Exemption: No
Underground Injection Activity: No
Commercial TSD: No
Used Oil Transporter: No
Used Oil Transfer Facility: No
Used Oil Processor: No
1 1
HMS LA
RCRA

NON GEN
Detail Report
20 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Map Key Number of
Records
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev/Diff
(ft)
Site DB
Used Oil Refiner: No
Used Oil Burner: No
Used Oil Market Burner: No
Used Oil Spec Marketer: No

Hazardous Waste Handler Details

Sequence No: 1
Receive Date: 20080313
Handler Name: ANTELOPE VALLEY AIRPORT EXPRESS INC DBA ANTELOP EXPRESS Source Type: Implementer
Federal Waste Generator Code: N
Generator Code Description: Not a Generator, Verified

Owner/Operator Details

Owner/Operator Ind: Current Owner Street No:

Type: Other Street 1: 332 W AVE S
Name: ANTELOPE VALLEY AIRPORT EXPRESS
INC
Street 2: SUITE A
Date Became Current: City: PALMDALE
Date Ended Current: State: CA
Phone: 661-947-2529 Country:

Source Type: Implementer Zip Code: 93551-7804

Owner/Operator Ind: Current Operator Street No:

Type: Other Street 1: 332 WEST AVE S
Name: THOMAS MILLER Street 2: STE A
Date Became Current: City: PALMDALE
Date Ended Current: State: CA
Phone: 661-947-2529 Country:

Source Type: Implementer Zip Code: 93551
m-1-876246443-b
3 of 4 S 0.11 /
605.93
2,857.99 /
-8

ANTELOPE VALLEY AIRPORT

EXPRESS
332 W AVENUE S # A
PALMDALE CA 93551
dd-CERS TANK-876246443-bb
p1p-876246443-y1y

Site ID: 371964 Latitude: 34.55668
Longitude: -118.13527

Regulated Programs

EI ID: 10288855
EI Description: Chemical Storage Facilities

EI ID: 10288855
EI Description: Aboveground Petroleum Storage

EI ID: 10288855
EI Description: Hazardous Waste Generator

Violations

Violation Date: 04/01/2016 Violation Source: CERS
Violation Program: HW Violation Division: Los Angeles County Fire Department Citation: 22 CCR 12 66262.34(f) - California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 12, Section(s) 66262.34(f) Violation Notes:

Returned to compliance on 04/18/2017. OBSERVATION: Observed unlabeled containers of used motor oil, waste antifreeze, and used oil filters. All hazardous waste containers shall be marked with the following information: 1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; 2) name and address of generator; 3) hazardous properties; 4) physical state; 5) composition (contents); 6) accumulation start date. CORRECTIVE ACTION: Immediately label these containers and ensure that all hazardous waste containers are marked with all the required information. 1 CERS TANK
21 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Map Key Number of
Records
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev/Diff
(ft)
Site DB
Violation Description:

Failure to properly label hazardous waste accumulation containers with the following requirements: "Hazardous Waste", name and address of the generator, physical and chemical characteristics of the Hazardous Waste, and starting accumulation date.

Violations

Violation Date: 04/01/2016 Violation Source: CERS
Violation Program: HW Violation Division: Los Angeles County Fire Department Citation: 40 CFR 1 265.31 - U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Section(s) 265.31 Violation Notes:

Returned to compliance on 04/18/2017. OBSERVATION: Generator failed to maintain and operate the facility to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to the air, soil, or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment. Observed accumulated oil and debris inside the secondary containment pallet for the used oil and waste coolant. Secondary containment areas must be kept dry. CORRECTIVE ACTION: Owner/Operator shall maintain the facility to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to the air, soil, or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment. The Owner/Operator shall develop procedures to operate the facility in such a manner to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste [Truncated]
Violation Description:

Failure to maintain and operate the facility to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to the air, soil, or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment..

Violations

Violation Date: 04/01/2016 Violation Source: CERS
Violation Program: HMRRP Violation Division: Los Angeles County Fire Department Citation: HSC 6.95 25508(d) - California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Section(s) 25508(d) Violation Notes:

Returned to compliance on 04/18/2017. OBSERVATION: A business plan has not been received by the CUPA. CORRECTIVE ACTION: Submit the business plan electronically in the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) and implement immediately.

Violation Description:

Failure to complete and/or electronically submit a business plan when storing/handling a hazardous material at or above reportable quantities.

Evaluations

Eval Date: 07/31/2019
Violations Found: No
Eval General Type: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Eval Type: Routine done by local agency
Eval Division: Los Angeles County Fire Department
Eval Program: HMRRP
Eval Source: CERS
Eval Notes:

Eval Date: 04/18/2017
Violations Found: No
Eval General Type: Other/Unknown
Eval Type: Other, not routine, done by local agency
Eval Division: Los Angeles County Fire Department
Eval Program: HMRRP
Eval Source: CERS
Eval Notes:

Eval Date: 04/01/2016
Violations Found: Yes
22 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Map Key Number of
Records
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev/Diff
(ft)
Site DB
Eval General Type: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Eval Type: Routine done by local agency
Eval Division: Los Angeles County Fire Department
Eval Program: HMRRP
Eval Source: CERS
Eval Notes:

Tom Miller; Note: data in [EVAL Notes] field for some records is truncated from the source.

Eval Date: 04/01/2016
Violations Found: Yes
Eval General Type: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Eval Type: Routine done by local agency
Eval Division: Los Angeles County Fire Department
Eval Program: HW
Eval Source: CERS
Eval Notes:

Tom Miller; Note: data in [EVAL Notes] field for some records is truncated from the source.

Eval Date: 04/18/2017
Violations Found: No
Eval General Type: Other/Unknown
Eval Type: Other, not routine, done by local agency
Eval Division: Los Angeles County Fire Department
Eval Program: HW
Eval Source: CERS
Eval Notes:

Eval Date: 07/31/2019
Violations Found: No
Eval General Type: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Eval Type: Routine done by local agency
Eval Division: Los Angeles County Fire Department
Eval Program: APSA
Eval Source: CERS
Eval Notes:

Eval Date: 07/31/2019
Violations Found: No
Eval General Type: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Eval Type: Routine done by local agency
Eval Division: Los Angeles County Fire Department
Eval Program: HW
Eval Source: CERS
Eval Notes:

Jennifer Blair; Note: data in [EVAL Notes] field for some records is truncated from the source.

Affiliations

Affil Type Desc: Identification Signer
Entity Name: THOMAS MILLER
Entity Title: PRESIDENT
Address:

City:

State:

Country:

Zip Code:

Phone:

Affil Type Desc: Operator
Entity Name: Tom Miller
Entity Title:
23 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Map Key Number of
Records
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev/Diff
(ft)
Site DB
Address:

City:

State:

Country:

Zip Code:

Phone: (661) 947-2529

Affil Type Desc: Parent Corporation
Entity Name: ANTELOPE VALLEY AIRPORT EXPRESS
Entity Title:

Address:

City:

State:

Country:

Zip Code:

Phone:

Affil Type Desc: Facility Mailing Address
Entity Name: Mailing Address
Entity Title:

Address: 332 W AVENUE S #A
City: PALMDALE
State: CA
Country:

Zip Code: 93551
Phone:

Affil Type Desc: Legal Owner
Entity Name: Tom Miller
Entity Title:

Address: 332 WEST AVENUE S #A
City: PALMDALE
State: CA
Country: United States
Zip Code: 93551
Phone: (661) 947-2529

Affil Type Desc: Document Preparer
Entity Name: Jennifer Blair
Entity Title:

Address:

City:

State:

Country:

Zip Code:

Phone:

Affil Type Desc: CUPA District
Entity Name: Los Angeles County Fire
Entity Title:

Address: 5825 Rickenbacker Road
City: Commerce
State: CA
Country:

Zip Code: 90040-3027
Phone: (323) 890-4000

Affil Type Desc: Environmental Contact
Entity Name: Thomas Miller
Entity Title:

Address: 332 West Ave S S#A
City: Palmdale
State: CA
Country:

Zip Code: 93551
Phone:

Affil Type Desc: Property Owner
Entity Name: Thomas Miller
24 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Map Key Number of
Records
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev/Diff
(ft)
Site DB
Entity Title:

Address: 332 West Ave S
City: Palmale
State: CA
Country: United States
Zip Code: 93551
Phone: (661) 947-2529
m-1-877480034-b
4 of 4 S 0.11 /
605.93
2,857.99 /
-8

ANTELOPE VALLEY AIRPORT

EXPRESS
332 W AVENUE S A
PALMDALE CA 93551
dd-CUPA LA COUNTY-877480034-bb
p1p-877480034-y1y

Facility ID: FA0039312
CERS ID: 10288855

Active Facility Details

PE: 1000

PE: 3701

PE: 3001
m-2-820338046-b
1 of 1 E 0.20 /
1,059.03
2,879.71 /
14 145 W AVENUE S
PALMDALE CA 93551
dd-HMS LA-820338046-bb
p1p-820338046-y1y

Site No: 017181
Area: 4

Detail Info

Permit No: Permit Status Code:

Permit Cat Desc: Permit Category:

Status Code: OPEN File No: 023133
Status Desc: File Opened, no permit exists File Name: SHELL OIL #204-0030-0003 Permit Status Desc:

Permit Type:

Permit Type Desc:
m-3-888527200-b
1 of 1 NNE 0.43 /
2,256.72
2,833.08 /
-33
FIRE PULP PLASTER CO.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PALMDALE CA 93550
dd-MRDS-888527200-bb
p1p-888527200-y1y

Dep ID: 10284878 I1: 10
Dev Status: PAST PRODUCER Latitude: 34.565674
Code List: GYP Longitude: -118.132324
Url: http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/show-mrds.php?dep_id=10284878

Commodity

I1: 34 Line: 1
Code: GYP Inserted By: MAS migration
Commodity: Gypsum-Anhydrite Insert Date: 29-OCT-2002 09:00:24 Commodity Type: Non-metallic Updated By: USGS
Commodity Group: Gypsum-Anhydrite Update Date: 29-OCT-2002 09:02:28 Importance: Primary

Names

I1: 14 Inserted By: MAS migration
1 2
3 CUPA

LA COUNTY
HMS LA
MRDS
25 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22080300932 Map Key Number of
Records
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev/Diff
(ft)
Site DB
Status: Current Insert Date: 29-OCT-02
Site Name: Fire Pulp Plaster Co. Updated By: USGS
Line: 2 Update Date: 29-OCT-02

Names

I1: 33 Inserted By: MAS migration
Status: Previous Insert Date: 29-OCT-02
Site Name: Fire Pulp Plaster Updated By: USGS
Line: 1 Update Date: 29-OCT-02

Names

I1: 14 Inserted By: MAS migration
Status: Previous Insert Date: 29-OCT-02
Site Name: Alpine Plaster Co. Updated By: USGS
Line: 3 Update Date: 29-OCT-02
m-4-888451322-b
1 of 2 NNE 0.58 /
3,071.28
2,762.40 /
-104
ALPINE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PALMDALE CA 93550
dd-MRDS-888451322-bb
p1p-888451322-y1y
Dep ID: 10110785 I1: 22
Dev Status: PRODUCER Latitude: 34.568115
Code List: GYP Longitude: -118.133118
Url: http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/show-mrds.php?dep_id=10110785