Attachment 9p - Draft EIR Appendix G - Geotechnical Evaluation, Deep Percolation, and Paleo Analysis

Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)

Appendix G – Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Report of Preliminary Deep Percolation Testing, Paleontological Resource Assessment

9980 Indiana Avenue ● Suite 14 ● Riverside ● California ● 92503 ● Phone (951) 688-5400 ● Fax (951) 688-5200 www.geomatlabs.com, contact: e-mail: [email protected] GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology

July 29, 2019

Project No. 16175-02
TO: Mr. Darrel Butler
c/o SDH and Associates, Inc.
5225 Canyon Crest Drive
Suite 71-439
Riverside, California 92507

SUBJECT: Report of Preliminary Deep Percolation Testing, Proposed Commercial Building, APN 263- 060-022, Riverside, California

In accordance with your authorization, GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. (GeoMat) has performed preliminary deep percolation testing for the subject site. The purpose of our work is to establish an average flow rate for the proposed onsite septic system.

The accompanying report presents a summary of our findings, with conclusions and recommendations for the proposed septic system. Location of field testing and system location have been plotted on Plate 1.

The site is proposed for a warehouse building with an office. Based on the provided 98 fixture units, we recommend utilizing a 3500-gallon septic tank.

Based on our drilling at existing grades, groundwater was encountered in the deep exploratory boring at 10 feet below ground surface. Percolation tests are approximately six feet above the exploratory borehole.

It should be noted that this work was for percolation testing purposes. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The percolation testing and related laboratory test data are believed representative of the project site in its current condition; however, soil conditions can vary significantly. As in most projects, conditions revealed during construction may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this condition occurs, the possible variations must be evaluated by this firm. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditio ns of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they may be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.

If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.

Submitted for GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Haytham Nabilsi, GE 2375 (exp 12/31/20)
Project Engineer

Distribution: (3) Addressee

APN: 263-060-022 Project No. 16175-02
Riverside, California July 29, 2019

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Assessor’s Parcel Number .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Property Representative ................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Land Location and Description ....................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Proposed Development ................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 2

2.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.2 Subsurface Soil Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................... 2

2.4 Laboratory Testing........................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 PERCOLATION TESTING .................................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Test Procedures .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Test Results ..................................................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Discussion and Design .................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 4

5.0 LIMITATION ......................................................................................................................................... 5

ATTACHMENTS:

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Plate 1 Exploratory Boring/Percolation Test Location Map

APPENDIX:

Appendix A References
Appendix B Geotechnical Boring Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D Percolation Test Data

APN: 263-060-022 Project No. 16175-02
Riverside, California July 29, 2019

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Assessor’s Parcel Number

APN 263-060-022

1.2 Property Representative

SDH and Associates, Inc.
5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Suite 71-439
Riverside, California 92507
Phone (951)-683-3691

1.3 Land Location and Description

The subject site is located where Barton Street dead-ends, approximately 670 feet north of the Alessandro Boulevard and the Barton Street intersection, in the city of Riversi de, California. Access on site is from a locked gate at the end of Barton Street (southwest corner of the site). The geographical relationship of the site and surrounding vicinity is shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1.

The lot is generally rectangular in shape with a recorded lot size of 13.59 acres. The site is undeveloped and of natural slightly hilly terrain. The lot is lightly covered with seasonal grasses and a few trees and bushes.

Rock outcroppings were noted throughout the site, predominantly in the northeast quadrangle.

The area proposed for the septic system is located on the southern section of the site.

1.4 Proposed Development

According to the Preliminary Grading Plan by SDH & Associates (Sheet 2 of 5, plan dated November 2018), the site is planned for a 203,100 square foot commercial building.

We understand that the proposed new building will utilize onsite sewage disposal following the seepage pit septic system.

APN: 263-060-022 Project No. 16175-02
Riverside, California July 29, 2019

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 2

2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

2.1 Regional Geology

Based on the USGS Geologic map of the Riverside East/South 1/2 of the San Bernardino South Quadrangles, the regional area prior to development was mapped as quartz diorite (tonalite). This material is generally gray-weathering, relativel y homogenous, massive to well -foliated, medium to coarse grained biotite - hornblende tonalite.

2.2 Subsurface Soil Characteristics

One exploratory boring was drilled for the deep percolation observation hole on July 18, 2019 utilizing a Diedrich D-50 mobile drill rig to a maximum depth of 30 feet below ground surface. The borehole location is depicted as borehole B-1 on Plate 1, Exploratory Borehole Location Map.

Based on our exploratory boring, the site generally consists of five feet of soil classified as silty sand (USCS “SM”) underlain by granitic bedrock that drills like silty sand.

2.3 Groundwater

Groundwater study is not within the scope of this work. Groundwater was encountered in our exploratory boring at 10 feet below ground surface. The exploratory boring was conducted at an approximate elevation of 1602 feet above mean sea level (amsl). This would make the groundwater elevation, at this location, at approximately 1592 feet amsl.

Highest historical groundwater records for the site were researched utilizing the following resources:

• State of California, Department of Water Resources (CDWR) • USGS National Water Information System (USGS NWIS)
• USGS Groundwater Watch (USGS GWW)
• Steve Mains’ Well Monitoring Program

Highest historical groundwater documented by Steven Mains’ Program in a well located approximately 1.09 miles northwest of the site (State Well No. 3S4W9A, elevation 1497 feet) was 20 feet below ground surface (water surface elevation 1477 feet) o n June 20, 19 97. Depth of the proposed bottom of leach field is approximately 1602 feet.

Please note that the potential for rain or irrigation water locally seeping through from elevated areas and showing up near grades cannot be precluded. Our experience indicates that surface or near -surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where groundwater conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. Fluctuations in perched water elevations are likely to occur in the future due to variations in precipitation, temperature, consumptive uses, and other factors including mounding of perched water over bedrock. Mitigation for nuisance shallow seeps moving from elevated lower areas will be needed if encountered. These mitigations may include subdrains, horizontal drains, toe drains, french drains, heel drains or other devices.

2.4 Laboratory Testing

A s ieve analysis tests were performed on bulk soil samples obtained from the exploratory boring and percolation test holes for the purpose of classification. Test results are shown in Appendix C.

APN: 263-060-022 Project No. 16175-02
Riverside, California July 29, 2019

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 3

3.0 PERCOLATION TESTING

GeoMat Testing Laboratories performed deep percolation testing for the proposed septic system in general accordance with the procedures of the County of Riv erside, Department of Environmental Health, Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems, Technical Guidance Manual.

3.1 Test Procedures

▪ Two deep percolation tests were conducted for the proposed septic system. The boreholes were tested at 20 feet and 15 feet below existing ground surface for test holes P -1 and P-2, respectively. A PVC perforated pipe covered with filter fabric was placed in the holes. A few inches of gravel was placed in the bottom of the boreholes.

▪ The test holes were initially tested for the sandy soil criteria. The test holes did not meet the sandy soil criteria and were presoaked and tested the next day.

▪ Testing began by filling the test hole to approximately four feet below ground surface. From a fixed referenced point, measurements of the drop in water level were taken every 30-minutes for a minimum of 6 hours, refilling after each measurement.

3.2 Test Results

The following table presents the actual and recommended percolation rates in gallons per square feet per day for the test hole. The recommended percolation rate was utilized in the system design.

Test No. Q (gal/sf/day) Recommended Rate*
Q (gal/sf/day
P-1 4.4 2.2
P-2 2.2 2.2

3.3 Discussion and Design

Based on our visual observation of drilling resistance, the onsite soil is relatively homogeneous when considering a seepage pit septic system.

Based on percolation test results, the onsite soils have favorable percolation rates. Test results are appropriate to soil classification.

No restrictive layer was encountered in our exploratory boring drilled to 30 feet below ground surface.

No caving of test holes took place during testing.

The following table presents a summary of the septic system design recommendations for a 3500-gallon septic tank. Sufficient area should be set aside for 100 percent expansion.

Septic System Recommendations
Septic Tank Size Pit Diameter Total Pit Depth Pit Inlet depth No. of Pits Required 3500 gallons 6’ 11’ 1’ 9

Total Depth of Pit(s) Needed = Tank Size/[(Q)*(Pit Diameter)*(3.14)] = 3500/(2.2X6X3.14) = 84.4 feet.

APN: 263-060-022 Project No. 16175-02
Riverside, California July 29, 2019

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 4

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Based on the data presented in this report and using the recommendations set forth, it is the judgment of GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. that there is sufficient area on this site to support a primary and expansion of the onsite wastewater system that will meet the current standards of the Department of Environmental Health, County of Riverside and Regional Quality Control Board.

• The seepage pit should be constructed near the percolation test location at the depth of the tests performed and in natural soil to details per County of Riverside Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. All systems must meet the CRWQCB requirements.

• The natural occurring body of minerals and organic matter at the proposed wastewater disposal area contains earthen materials having more than 50% of its volume composed of particles smaller than 2mm (No. 10 sieve) in size.

• According to our test elevations (1608) and minimum ten feet seepage pits (bottom of pit at 1597), the inlet should be no deeper than one foot below grade to maintain 5 feet separation between groundwater (elevation 1592) and bottom of seepage pit.

• Based on the data presented in this report and the testing information accumulated, it is the judgment of GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. that the groundwater table will not encro ach within the current allowable limit of 5 feet set forth by County requirements.

• All seepage pit excavations should be in natural ground and should be observed by GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. during the time of excavation. A copy of the DEHS septic system handout “Taking Care of Your Septic System” and “Got Septic FAQ” should be obtained by the developer to provide it to owner.

APN: 263-060-022 Project No. 16175-02
Riverside, California July 29, 2019

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 5

5.0 LIMITATION

This report is prepared with the understanding that it is the owner’s responsibility to ensure that proper construction methods are employed for the disposal system. Improper placement/construction of the system can cause premature failure regardless of soil conditions. It is also the owner’s responsibility to adequately maintain the disposal system to extend its longevity. Our work was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soil engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for laboratory testing and the observations made are believed representative of the tested areas, however, soil conditions can vary significantly between test l ocations. As in most projects conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the Project Soil Engineer and design adjusted, as required, or alternate designs rec ommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur whether they result from legisl ation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified.

Topo USA® 6.0
Data use subject to license.
© 2006 DeLorme. Topo USA® 6.0.
www.delorme.com
TN
MN (11.8°E)
0 ¼ ½ ¾ 1
0 ½ 1 1½ 2
mi
km
Scale 1 : 50,000
1" = 4,166.7 ft Data Zoom 12-0
B-01 EXPLORATORY BORING
P-04 PERCOLATION TEST
B-0
B-01
P-04
P-04
B-01
P-01
P-02
3500-GALLON SEPTIC
TANK

DISTRIBUTION BOX
SEEPAGE PIT (6' DIA.)

12.0'

20.9'

6.0'
100% EXPANSION

12.0'

12.4'

EXPLORATORY BOREHOLE AND

PERCOLATION TEST LOCATION MAP
APN: 263-060-022

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
PLATE
1 PROJECT NO.: 16175-01SCALE: 1" = 40'
DRAWN BY: AM DATE: JULY 2019
LEGEND:

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
BASEMAP BY: SDH & ASSOCIATES "PRELIMINARY GRDING PLAN, SYCAMORE HILLS BUSINESS CENTER," SHEET 2 OF 5, PLAN NOT DATED

Appendix A

APN: 263-060-022 Project No. 16175-02
Riverside, California July 29, 2019

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A

REFERENCES

SDH & Associates, Inc. “Preliminary Grading Plan, Sycamore Hills Business Center,” Sheet 2 of 5, Plan Dated November 2018.

Norcal Engineering “Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Industrial Warehouse Development, NEC Barton Street and Aless andro Boulevard, Riverside, California,” Project No. 21022-19, Report Dated March 29, 2019.

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. “Report of Preliminary Shallow Percolation Testing, Proposed Commercial Building, APN 263-060-022, Riverside, California,” Project No. 16175-01, Report Dated February 14, 2017.

Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2003, Geologic map of the Riverside East/south 1/2 of San Bernardino South quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California: Dibblee Geologica l Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-109, scale 1:24,000

State of California, Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library.

USGS, National Water Information System

USGS, Groundwater Watch, California Active Water Level Network.

Steven Mains, Cooperative Well Measuring Program

County of Riverside Property Viewer.

County of Riverside, Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health, Version “A”, Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems, Technical Guidance Manual.

Appendix B

UNCONFINED Sampler and Symbol Descriptions

COMPRESSIVE
SANDS AND GRAVELS SILTS AND CLAYS SPT, N STRENGTH, tsf B

VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT

LOOSE SOFT

MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM FIRM S

DENSE FIRM

VERY DENSE VERY FIRM
HARD R
D
DRY
MOIST
WET

TRACE SOME

FEW MOSTLY
LITTLE

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
COARSE

GRAINED SOILS
MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

GRAVEL AND

GRAVELLY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO. 4
SIEVE
CLEAN

GRAVELS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GP

SANDS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)

SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES
SC

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

GRAVELS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)

GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES

GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

FINE GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

SILTS AND
CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT LESS
THAN 50
ML

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY

FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
CL

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS,

SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

SAND AND

SANDY SOILS
MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION
PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE

CLEAN SANDS
(LITTLE OR NO
FINES)

SW WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINESSP

SILTS AND
CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
MH

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY

SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS

CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY

OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Dual symbols are used to indicate gravels or sand with 5-12% fines and soils with fines classifying as CL-ML. Symbols separated by a slash

RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY
10 - 30 4 - 8 0.50 - 1.00
SPT, N
0 - 4 0 - 2 0 - 0.25
Bulk "grab" sample taken from the auger
cuttings or excavated soil

1.4" I.D./2" O.D. Standard Penetration
Test (ASTM D1586) sampler (SPT)
DESCRIPTION 2.5" I.D./3" O.D. Dames and Moore
Manual Ring Sampler
30 - 50 8 - 15 1.00 - 2.00
50+ 15 - 30 2.00 - 4.00
4 -10 2 - 4 0.25 - 0.50

2.5" I.D./3" O.D. Modified California Ring
Sampler (Ring)

DESCRIPTION CRITERIA DESCRIPTION CRITERIA

CONSTITUENT DESCRIPTIONS
30+ >4.00

MOISTURE CONDITION

CRITERIA
Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Damp but no visible water
Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

KEY TO BORING LOGS

APPENDIX B
30% to 45%
50% to 100%
Less than 5%
5% to 10%
15% to 25%

PAGE 1 of 1
Boring Location: Logged by:

Drill Company/Rig Date Started: Notes:

Date Finished:

Hammer Type:

SPT
"N"
Value
very moist to saturated
26 B SM
35 40
45 50
B
30 25

APPENDIX B
16175-02PROJECT NO.This log is part of the report prepared by GeoMat for this project and should be read together with the report.

This summary applies only at the location of the exploration and at the time of drilling or excavation. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with tiume. Data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

Fines (%)
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plast. Index

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
20 Blows / 6"

SM SILTY SAND
gray silt with sand

GRANITIC BEDROCK
drills like silty sand
static groundwater measured at 10 feet bgs
B-1
Drilling Method:

See Plate 1
7/18/2019
10 15
Sampler(s):

Automatic
7/18/2019
APN: 263-060-022
Riverside, CaliforniaPROJECT: Log of Boring
5 AMProject No. 16175-02
Advanced/Diedrich D-50
Hollow Stem Auger

SAMPLES
Graphic Log
140 lbs./30-inchesHammer Weight/Drop:

LABORATORY TEST DATAMoisture
Content (%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Classification
(USCS)
DEPTH
(FT)
Type
Sample
California Ring (R), Standard Penetration Test (S), Bulk "Grab" Sample (B) Static Groundwater @ 10'
below ground surface

Appendix C

APN 263-060-022
Riverside, California

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No. 16175-02
July 23, 2019
Date : 07/18/19 D10 = 0.03 Classification % Gravel
Sample #: D30 = 0.10 SM, Silty Sand 0.00%
Sample ID: B1 @ 30' D60 = 0.44 % Sand
Source: Bulk CC = 0.87 Specifications 73.99%
Project: APN 263-060-022 CU = 15.16 custom specs 1 % Silt & Clay Location: Riverside, California Liquid Limit= n/a 26.01% Boring #: B1 Plastic Limit= n/a Fineness Modulus Sample Moisture Depth: 30' Plasticity Index= n/a 1.55 #DIV/0!
Coarse Actual Interpolated Fines Actual Interpolated
Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs US Metric Passing Passing Max Min US Metric Passing Passing Max Min

6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 100.0% 100.0%

4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 99.7% 99.7%

3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 95.9%

2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 87.2% 87.2%

2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 77.4%

1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 70.1% 70.1%

1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 59.2%

1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 51.5% 51.5%

1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 46.4%
7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 39.2%
3/4" 19.00 100.0% 100.0% #100 0.150 36.1% 36.1%
5/8" 16.00 100.0% #140 0.106 30.2%
1/2" 12.50 100.0% 100.0% #170 0.090 28.0%
3/8" 9.50 100.0% 100.0% #200 0.075 26.0% 26.0%
1/4" 6.30 100.0% #270 0.053
#4 4.75 100.0% 100.0%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-2004 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

0.0010.010.11101001000
% Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results Cobbles Gravels Sands Silts
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Clays
0%#41½ 10 16620 ¾ ⅜ 30 50 100 20034 4020½
20%
50%
60%
70%
10%
80%
30%
40%
90%
100%
% Retained by Weight
GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C
APN 263-060-022
Riverside, California

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No. 16175-02
July 23, 2019
Date : 07/18/19 D10 = 0.04 Classification % Gravel
Sample #: D30 = 0.14 SM, Silty Sand 0.76%
Sample ID: P1 D60 = 0.56 % Sand
Source: Bulk CC = 0.93 Specifications 78.18%
Project: APN 263-060-022 CU = 15.75 custom specs 1 % Silt & Clay Location: Riverside, California Liquid Limit= n/a 21.06% Boring #: P1 Plastic Limit= n/a Fineness Modulus Sample Moisture Depth: 20' Plasticity Index= n/a 1.92 3.8%
Coarse Actual Interpolated Fines Actual Interpolated
Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs US Metric Passing Passing Max Min US Metric Passing Passing Max Min

6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 99.2% 99.2%

4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 91.6% 91.6%

3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 86.9%

2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 76.1% 76.1%

2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 68.0%

1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 61.9% 61.9%

1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 53.5%

1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 47.4% 47.4%

1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 42.3%
7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 35.1%
3/4" 19.00 100.0% 100.0% #100 0.150 32.0% 32.0%
5/8" 16.00 100.0% #140 0.106 25.6%
1/2" 12.50 100.0% 100.0% #170 0.090 23.2%
3/8" 9.50 100.0% 100.0% #200 0.075 21.1% 21.1%
1/4" 6.30 99.5% #270 0.053
#4 4.75 99.2% 99.2%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-2004 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No. 16175-02
July 23, 2019
Date : 07/18/19 D10 = 0.04 Classification % Gravel
Sample #: D30 = 0.15 SM, Silty Sand 3.63%
Sample ID: P2 D60 = 0.62 % Sand
Source: Bulk CC = 0.96 Specifications 77.46%
Project: APN 263-060-022 CU = 15.60 custom specs 1 % Silt & Clay Location: Riverside, California Liquid Limit= n/a 18.91% Boring #: P2 Plastic Limit= n/a Fineness Modulus Sample Moisture Depth: 15' Plasticity Index= n/a 2.11 2.4%
Coarse Actual Interpolated Fines Actual Interpolated
Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs US Metric Passing Passing Max Min US Metric Passing Passing Max Min

6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 96.4% 96.4%

4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 85.8% 85.8%

3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 81.6%

2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 72.1% 72.1%

2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 65.0%

1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 59.6% 59.6%

1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 51.2%

1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 45.2% 45.2%

1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 40.0%
7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 32.8%
3/4" 19.00 100.0% 100.0% #100 0.150 29.6% 29.6%
5/8" 16.00 100.0% #140 0.106 23.3%
1/2" 12.50 100.0% 100.0% #170 0.090 21.1%
3/8" 9.50 100.0% 100.0% #200 0.075 18.9% 18.9%
1/4" 6.30 97.6% #270 0.053
#4 4.75 96.4% 96.4%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-2004 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Appendix D

APN: 263-060-022
Riverside, California
Project No. 16175-02
July 29, 2019
Time Time Init. Water Final Water Total Drop Average Q Pit MPI (min) (hr) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) (ft) Depth (ft) (gal/ft²/day) 180/Q Time Time Init. Water Final Water Total Drop Average Q Pit MPI (min) (hr) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) (ft) Depth (ft) (gal/ft²/day) 180/Q 0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
Tank (gal) Pit Dia. (ft) Pit Inlet (ft) Pit Depth (ft) No. of Pits Tot Pit Depth

32.5 Septic System Based on This Field Test Only*
3500

9.0 13.5
20 20

4.9 6.0

5.5 5.4

5.4 40.5

40.5 40.5

40.5 40.5
6 4.4

4.4 5.5
20 8
AA

5.0 5.0

36.1 36.9

36.9 40.5

40.5 Percolation Testing
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Sandy soil criteria is met when 2 consecutive measurements show that more than half the wetted depth seeps away in less than 25 min.

If sandy soil criteria is met, presoak for 2 hours and begin test (10 minute readings for at least 1 hour). If sandy soil criteria is not met, presoak test hole and return the next day for testing (30 minute readings for at least 6 hours).

0.50 4.0 9.4

5.0 4.4

13.5 *This is not the final recommendations for the system. Refer to report for final septic system recommendations.

5.0 30 0.50 4.0 9.0
30 0.50 4.0 9.0

4.9 5.0
6 1 42 9

4.4 30 0.50 4.0 9.0
30 0.50 4.0

9.4 13.3

4.4 30 0.50 4.0 9.0 20
P-1
Presoak Date:
30 0.50 4.0 9.0 13.5 4.4

4.4 30 0.50 4.0 9.0 13.5 4.4
30 0.50 4.0 9.0 13.5
20 20

40.5 Seepage Pit Percolation Data Sheet
Date Excavated:

Test Date:

Trial No.
1 2

7/18/2019 Depth of Test Hole (ft):

Diameter of Test Hole (in):

Percolation Tested by:

30 0.50 4.0 9.5 13.320
Time
2030 0.50 4.0
7/24/2019
7/25/2019

30 0.50 4.0

13.3 20
20 20 13.5

13.5 10.0 13.0
20 30

13.5 20
GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix D
APN: 263-060-022
Riverside, California
Project No. 16175-02
July 29, 2019
Time Time Init. Water Final Water Total Drop Average Q Pit MPI (min) (hr) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) (ft) Depth (ft) (gal/ft²/day) 180/Q Time Time Init. Water Final Water Total Drop Average Q Pit MPI (min) (hr) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) (ft) Depth (ft) (gal/ft²/day) 180/Q 0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
0:00
0:30
Tank (gal) Pit Dia. (ft) Pit Inlet (ft) Pit Depth (ft) No. of Pits Tot Pit Depth 7/25/2019
7/26/2019

30 0.50 4.0

9.8 14.8

14.8 14.6 9.7

9.7 6.0 9.8

14.6 30

9.7 14.6
30 0.50 4.0 5.9 9.914.8
Time

14.830 0.50 4.0
Date Excavated:

Test Date:

Trial No.
1 2

7/18/2019 Depth of Test Hole (ft):

Diameter of Test Hole (in):

Percolation Tested by:

P-2
Presoak Date:
30 0.50 4.0 5.8 9.7 2.2

2.2 30 0.50 4.0 5.8 9.9 2.2
30 0.50 4.0 5.8 9.9

14.8 14.8

80.8 Seepage Pit Percolation Data Sheet
30 0.50 4.0

6.0 9.8

2.2 30 0.50 4.0 5.8 14.6
*This is not the final recommendations for the system. Refer to report for final septic system recommendations.

1.8 30 0.50 4.0 5.8
30 0.50 4.0 5.8

2.4 2.3
6 1 86 9

2.2 30 0.50 4.0 5.8
15 8
AA

1.8 1.8

77.8 73.5

73.5 82.5

82.5 Percolation Testing
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Sandy soil criteria is met when 2 consecutive measurements show that more than half the wetted depth seeps away in less than 25 min.

0.50 4.0 6.0

1.8 2.2

9.9 73.5
Septic System Based on This Field Test Only*
3500

5.8 9.9

14.8 14.8

2.4 2.0

1.9 2.0

2.0 82.5

82.5 80.8

80.8 80.8
11 2.2

2.2 2.4
GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix D
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the
Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project,
City of Riverside, Riverside County, California

Prepared By

Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
133 North San Gabriel Boulevard, Suite 201
Pasadena, CA 91107
Prepared For
Ruth Villalobos, President
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C310
Ontario, CA 91764

September 2020

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project ii Paleontological Resource Assessment for the
Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project,
City of Riverside, Riverside County, California

Prepared By: ___________________________________________________ Christopher Shi, M.S., Project Paleontologist

Approved By: ___________________________________________________ Amy Ollendorf, Ph.D., M.S., RPA (#12588),
Paleontology Program Manager

September 2020

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project iii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The applicant, Darrell Butler for KB Development, is proposing to develop three currently vacant parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 263 -060-022, -024, and -026) immediately south of the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park in the City of Riverside (City), Riverside County (County), California for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Proje ct (Project). The Project will include the construction of two warehouses and associated site improvements, and the establishment of a trailhead parking lot for access to the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park and access to Alessandro Boulevard to the south through Restricted Property of natural land.

March Joint Powers Authority (MJPA) currently owns the land and is currently under contract with the applicant for the purchase and development of the land . As subcontracted by Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc., Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) completed a paleontological resource assessment for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , for which the City is the lead agency.

This report summarizes the methods and results of Æ’s paleontological resource assessment and provides Project-specific management recommendations. While the Historic Preservation Element of the City’s General Plan includes Policy HP-1.3 for the protection of paleontological resources, no specific guidelines for resource sensitivity and management are provided . As such, Æ’s recommendations are based on the guidelines specified in the County’s General Plan, which include a paleontological sensitivity map of Riverside County as well as management recommendations. Æ’s paleontology staff meet the qualifications standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP).

Æ’s paleontological resource assessment was completed through desktop and field efforts. First , Æ reviewed relevant literature and geologic maps as well as collections records maintained by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles Count y. The purposes of the desktop reviews were to identify known presence or suspected likelihood of fossiliferous geologic units mapped on the ground surface, if any, and those buried at unknown depths beneath the Project area, if any. As the region is well known for vertebrate fossils, the museum records search was conducted specifically for vertebrate fossil localities. Following these desktop studies, Æ conducted a field survey during which an Æ paleontologist visually inspected the ground surface of the Project area to record the presence of exposed fossils, if any, and to evaluate all nearby geologic exposures, if any, for their potential to contain significant fossils in the subsurface of the Project area. Using the results of the desktop studies and field survey, Æ determined the paleontological resource potential of the Project area in accordance with the County’s guidelines.

Published geologic maps indicate the ground surface of the Project area consists of plutonic and medium- to high -grade metamorphic bedrock , both of which do not normally yield fossils .

Museum records indicate no previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities within the Project area or from the types of rocks mapped within its boundaries. As a result, the County assigned a Low level of paleontological sensitivity to the entire Project area. Since Æ found no paleontological resources in or nearby the Project area during the field survey, Æ concurs with the County’s Low paleontological sensitivity ranking.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project iv During the field survey, Æ observed the majority of the Project area is obscured by vegetation.

Where the surface geology is visible, Æ’s paleontologist observed plutonic rocks characteristic of the Val Verde tonalite in addition to s parse outcrops of weathered schist . Consequently, Æ concludes geological conditions conducive to fossil preservation are absent within the Project area and there is a Low likelihood of impacting scientifically significant fossils as a result of ground- disturbing activities associated with Project construction.

Per County of Riverside guidelines for areas with Low paleontological p otential, Æ does not recommend mitigation unless a fossil is encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities. If an unanticipated on -site fossil is discovered, all ground -disturbing activities within the area of the find will be ceased and the applicant will retain a paleontologist who meets the SVP’s qualifications standards for Project Paleontologist to oversee the documentation of the extent and potential significance of the finds as well as recovery efforts. Ground -disturbing activities may resume in the area of the finds at the discretion of the Project Paleontologist. If the fossils are significant per the SVP’s criteria, then paleontological monitoring will be conducted on an as-needed basis for further ground -disturbing activities in the Project area. By implementing these measures, adverse impacts to paleontological resources can be reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project v

CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................... iii 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION ...............................................1

1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION ..........................................................................5

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION....................................................................................5 2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ..............................................................................................6

2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ...........................................6

2.2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ...........................................................................................6

2.3 CITY OF RIVERSIDE GENERAL PLAN .............................................................7 3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES .................................8

3.1 DEFINITION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ..................................................................................8

3.2 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE SENSITIVITY AND
GUIDELINES ..........................................................................................................8 4 METHODS ................................................................................................................................ 11

4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW AND RECORDS SEARCH ......................................... 11

4.2 FIELDWORK ........................................................................................................ 11 5 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY ....................................................................................13

5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .......................................................................................13

5.2 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA ......................13

5.2.1 Val Verde tonalite (Kvt) .............................................................................13

5.2.2 Intermixed Paleozoic(?) metamorphic and Paleozoic(?)-Cretaceous plutonic rocks (KgPz) .................................................................................13 6 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................16

6.1 MUSEUM RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ........................................................16

6.2 FIELD RESULTS ..................................................................................................16

6.3 DETERMINATION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE

POTENTIAL FOR GEOLOGIC UNITS WITHIN THE PROJECT
AREA .....................................................................................................................17 7 RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................20 8 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................21

FIGURES
1-1 Project vicinity map ............................................................................................................ 3 1-2 Project location map ........................................................................................................... 4 Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project vi 5-1 Geologic units in the Project area ..................................................................................... 15 6-1 Overview of Project area showing bike and hiking trails, facing east .............................. 16 6-2 Southeast portion of the Project area with tall vegetation, facing east ............................. 17 6-3 Tonalite outcrop, facing west ............................................................................................ 18 6-4 Schist outcrop, facing west ............................................................................................... 18 6-5 Paleontological sensitivity of the Project area .................................................................. 19 TABLES
Table 3-1 Paleontological Sensitivity Classifications ................................................................... 10

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 1 1 INTRODUCTION
Under contract to Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc. (RV A), Applied EarthWorks , Inc. ( Æ) completed a paleontological resource assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project (Project) in the City of Riverside (City), Riverside County (County), California (Figure 1- 1). This report summarizes the methods and results of Æ’s assessment and provides Project - specific management recommendations. The City is the lead agency for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Æ conducted this assessment in accordance with the professional standards and guidelines set forth by the County (2015a, 2015b). Æ’s paleontology staff meet the qualifications standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP, 2010).

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
The Project area currently consists of three contiguous vacant parcels: Assessor Parcel Numbers 263-060-022, -024, and -026, which encompass approximately 48.64 (gross) acres in the City .

Specifically, it is mapped within Sections 8 and 9 of Township 3 South, Range 4 West on the Riverside East (1967, photo revised 1980), California 7.5 ′ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle (Figure 1-2). The Project area is bordered to the south by East Alessandro Boulevard, to the west by Barton Street and the Metropolitan Water District Water Treatment Plant, and to the north by the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park, with unimproved privately owned land directly to the east. Currently, the Project area consists of hilly land that is vacant, covered mostly with non-native grassland and native riparian scrub.

The Project will subdivide the three parcels into two numbered parcels (Parcels 1 and 2) and three lettered parcels (Parcels A, B, and C). Building A, a 400,000 square foot warehouse, will be constructed on Parcel 1, while Building B, a 203,100 square foot warehouse, will be constructed on Parcel 2. Associated improvements include parking, fire lanes, fencing and walls (including retaining walls), landscaping, and water quality treatment areas.

Parcel A and Parcel B include existing Restricted Property of natural land with a supporting jurisdictional feature totaling approximately 11.6 acres. A 0.67-acre driveway will be constructed through the Restricted Property to provide s treet access from Alessandro Boulevard to Parcel 1, which would reduce the Restricted Property to 10.93 acres. However, 1.44 acres will be added to Parcel A to mitigate this loss, resulting in a total of 12.37 acres of Restricted Property – a net gain of 0.77 acres. A proposed Conservation Easement will be placed over the amended 12.37 acres of Restricted Property. A 1.18-acre trailhead parking lot is proposed on Parcel C for access to the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park. Improvements include a parking lot, sidewalk, shade structure, bike rack, drinking fountain, fencing, and a fire department and access gate. Parcel C will be dedicated to the City.

The design for Building A results in cut areas up to 15 feet in depth and fill areas as much as 12 feet thick; however, over-excavation is not expected to exceed 3 feet in depth. Excess excavated Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 2 material will be utilized for the construction of Building B. The design for Building B results in cut areas up to 16 feet deep and fill areas as much as 8 feet thick; ov er-excavation also is not expected to exceed 3 feet in depth.

Date: 10/2/2018 Document Path: H:\Ruth Villalobos - Sycamore Hills - 3931\Projects\Deliverables - one folder per document\Paleo Report - 2018-October\Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity.mxd 505
Miles
505
Kilometers
10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
Feet
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity map.

PROJECT VICINITY

PROJECT
AREA
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © 1:250,000SCALE
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 2 Date: 10/17/2018 Document Path: H:\Ruth Villalobos - Sycamore Hills - 3931\Projects\Deliverables - one folder per document\Paleo Report - 2018-October\Figure 1-2 Project Location.mxd 3Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project

0.500 .51
Miles

0.5 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
T ownship 3 S./Range 4 W., Sections 8 and 9; SBB&M
Riverside East (1967, photorevised 1980), CA 7.5' USGS Topographic Quadrangle Figure 1-2 Project location map.

PROJECT AREA
Legend
Project Area
1:24,000SCALE
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 5

1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION
The purpose of this paleontological resource assessment is to (1) identify the geologic units exposed within the Project area and those likely buried beneath the Project area at unknown depths, (2) assess the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units, (3) evaluate whether the Project has the potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources, and (4) provide Project-specific mitigation measures to be implemented during Project construction.

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report documents the results of Æ’s paleontological resource assessment efforts in the Project area. Chapter 1 has introduced the scope of work, identified the Project location, described the Project, and defined the purpose of the investigation. Chapter 2 outlines the regulatory framework governing the Project. Chapter 3 presents the paleontological sensitivity criteria and resource sensitivity guidelines used for this assessment. Chapter 4 describes the methods employed, and Chapter 5 provides details about the geology and paleontology of the Project area. The results of the museum records search, field survey, and paleontological sensitivity assessment are discussed in Chapter 6. Management recommendations are presented in Chapter 7 and refere nces cited are listed in Chapter 8.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 6 2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are nonrenewable scientific resources , because when destroyed they cannot be replaced. As such, paleontological resources are afforded pro tection under various federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The laws and regulations that pertain to the proposed Project are briefly discussed in this chapter.

2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Construction of the Project requires discretionary permits and authorization from the City; thus, the Project is subject to the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) Section 15002(a)(3), which states among the basic purposes of CEQA is the intention to “prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15366(3)(b) further states, “a city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project when the city or county having primary jurisdiction over the area involved is (1) the site of the project; (2) the area in which the major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such envir onmental effects.” Under this provision, the City is the lead agency for CEQA.

The CEQA requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project.

If a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered. Specifically, in Section VII(f) of Appendix G of the CEQA 2019 Guidelines, the Environmental Checklist Form, the question is posed, “Will the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” If paleontological resources are identified as being within the proposed project area, the sponsoring agency must take those resources into consideration when evaluating project effects. The level of consideration may vary with the importance of the resource.

2.2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Paleontological resources are also addressed at a county level. The Multipurpose Open Space (OS) Element of the County’s General Plan includes a paleontological sensitivity map of Riverside County (County of Riverside 2015b:Figure OS -8) as well as several policies covering paleontological resources (County of Riverside 2015b:OS-51):

OS 19.6: Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has high paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS-8, paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) shall be filed with the Riverside County Geologist prior to site grading. The PRIMP shall specify the steps to be taken to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 7 OS 19.7: Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has low paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS-8, no direct mitigation is required unless a fossil is encountered during site development. Should a fossil be encountered, the Riverside County Geologist shall be notified and a paleontologist shall be retained by the project proponent. The paleontologist shall document the extent and potential significance of the paleontological resources on the site and establish appropriate mitigation measures for further site development.

OS 19.8: Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has undetermined paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS-8, a report shall be filed with the Riverside County Geologist documenting the extent and potential significance of the paleontological resources on site and identifying mitigation measures for the fossil and for impacts to significant paleontological resources prior to approval of that department.

OS 19.9: Whenever paleontological resources are found, the County Geologist shall direct them to a facility within Riverside County for their curation, including the Western Science Center in the City of Hemet.

These policies discuss appropriate measures to be taken depending on sensitivity category, as well as the treatment of paleontological resources that are found during mitigation.

2.3 CITY OF RIVERSIDE GENERAL PLAN
The Historic Preservation Element of the Riverside General Plan 2025, Objective HP-1 (City of Riverside, 2012:HP-25-26) also aims to protect paleontological resources:
• Policy HP-1.3: The City shall protect sites of archaeological and paleontological significance and ensure compliance with all applicable State and federal cultural resources protect ion and management laws in its planning and project review process.

As this policy refers to other applicable protection and management laws for guidance, Æ adopts OS 19.6-19.9 of the County’s General Plan for this assessment.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 8 3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
Protection of paleontological resources requires assessment of the potential for rocks to contain significant paleontological resources that could be directly or indirectly impacted or destroyed during Project development, and the formulation and implementation of management measures to mitigate these impacts.

3.1 DEFINITION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND SIGNIFICANCE

CRITERIA
Paleontological resources are defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists (SVP) (2010) as fossils and fossiliferous deposits. Fossils are the evidence of once-living organisms as preserved in the rock record. They include both the lithified remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). In general, fossils are considered to be greater than 5,000 years old (older than m iddle Holocene) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although uncommon, certain volcanic rocks and low -grade metamorphic rocks may be fossiliferous if formed under certain conditions (SVP, 2010).

Well-preserved and identifiable individual fossils are considered significant paleontological resources if they are a type specimen, rare, a complete specimen, or part of an important diverse fossil assemblage. Of particular importance are fossils found in situ, or undisturbed from their primary geologic context. These fossils are important , because they are used to examine evolutionary relationships, provide insight on the development of and interaction between biological communities, establish time scales for geologic studies, and for many other scientific purposes, including investigation into paleoenvironments and paleoclimates (Scott and Springer, 2003; SVP, 2010). Among the various types of fossils, intact and in situ vertebrate fossils are usually assigned a greater significance than other types as they are comparatively rare .

Consequently, more attention tends to be placed on the recovery of vertebrate fossils than other types.

3.2 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE SENSITIVITY AND GUIDELINES Most professional paleontologists in California adhere to guidelines set forth by the SVP (2010), unless others are available (e.g., Riverside County, U.S. Bureau of Land Management). Riverside County has developed its own guidelines that establish detailed protocols for the assessment of the paleontological sensitivity of a project area and outline measures to follow in order to mitigate adverse impacts to known or unknown fossil resources during proj ect development (County of Riverside, 2015a, 2015b).

Following the County’s established process, baseline information gathered during a paleontological resource assessment is used to assign the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic unit(s) (or members thereof) exposed at or distributed across the ground surface of a project area in addition to those thought to be underlying a project area at depth. It should be noted Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 9 that surface geology is not always indicative of s ubsurface geology or the potential for paleontological resources. For instance, an area whose surface geology is mapped as non - fossiliferous sediments may cover fossil -rich Pleistocene sediments. Also, an area mapped as granite may be covered by fossil-rich Pleistocene sediments. Thus, actual paleontological sensitivity across a project area ultimately can be determined only through a combination of desktop and field efforts.

According to the County’s (2015a) classification system, paleontological sensitivity is assigned to one of four categories—Low, Undetermined, and High (A and B) Potential. The criteria for each sensitivity classification, and the corresponding mitigation recommendations, are summarized in Table 3-1.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 10 Table 3-1
Paleontological Sensitivity Classification
Resource Potential Criteria Mitigation Recommendations
Low Lands for which previous field surveys and
documentation demonstrate as having a low potential
for containing significant paleontological resources
subject to adverse impacts. The mapping of low
potential was determined based on actual
documentation and was not generalized to cover all
areas of a particular rock unit on a geologic map.

Mitigation is not typically required unless a
fossil is encountered during site development.

If a fossil is encountered, the County Geologist
shall be notified, and a paleontologist shall be
retained by the project proponent. In such
cases, the paleontologist shall document the
extent and potential significance of the
paleontological resources on the site and
establish appropriate mitigation measures for
further site development.

Undetermined

Areas underlain by sedimentary rocks for which
literature or unpublished studies are not available
have undetermined potential for containing
significant paleontological resources.

A field survey is required prior to the
commencement of construction activities by a
qualified vertebrate paleontologist to assess the
unit’s paleontological potential as either High
or Low.

High Sedimentary rock units with high potential for
containing significant non-renewable paleontological
resources include rock units in which vertebrate or
significant invertebrate fossils have been found or
determined likely to be present. These units include,
but are not limited to, sedimentary formations which
contain significant non-renewable paleontological
resources anywhere within their geographical extent
and sedimentary rock units temporally or
lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils.

High sensitivity includes not only the potential for
yielding abundant vertebrate fossils, but also for
production of a few significant fossils that may
provide new and significant data. High sensitivity
areas are mapped as either “High A” or “High B,”
according to the following criteria:

High Sensitivity A (Ha): Based on geologic
formations or mapped rock units that are known to
contain or have the correct age and depositional
conditions to contain significant paleontological
resources. These include rocks of Silurian or
Devonian age and younger that have potential to
contain remains of fossil fish, and Mesozoic and
Cenozoic rocks that contain fossilized body elements
and trace fossils such as tracks, nests and eggs.

High Sensitivity B (Hb): Equivalent to High A, but
is based on the occurrence of fossils at a specified
depth below the surface. This category indicates
fossils that are likely to be encountered at or below 4 feet of depth and may be impacted during
construction activities.

The qualified paleontologist approved by the
County (“Project Paleontologist”) will create
and implement a project-specific
paleontological resource impact mitigation
program (PRIMP) to be approved by the
County Geologist prior to the issuance of a
grading permit. Construction monitoring and
details covering the treatment of fossil
discoveries are included in the PRIMP. Any
significant specimens discovered will need to
be prepared, identified, and curated into a
museum. A final report documenting the
significance of the finds will also be required.

Source: County of Riverside (2015a).

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 11 4 METHODS
The following section summarizes the desktop and field methods that Æ used to assess paleontological sensitivity of the Project area.

4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW AND RECORDS SEARCH
Chemical and physical weathering processes often cause the breakdown of bedrock, which results in natural materials from which a soil can be created through the process of pedogenesis (Boggs, 2012). Although many factors govern the thickness of the soil, it typically obscures the underlying geologic deposits. Intact and in situ paleontological resources are not found in the soil layer.

Therefore, in order to ascertain whether a particular project area has the potential for significant paleontological resources in the subsurface, it is necessary to review relevant scientific literature and geologic maps to ascertain the underlying geology and stratigraphy of the area. Furthermore, in order to delineate the boundaries of paleontological sensitivity, it is necessary to determine the extent of the entire geologic unit because paleontological sensitivity is not limited to surface exposures of fossil material.

In order to determine whether fossil localities have been discovered previously within a project area or a particular rock unit, a desktop study is completed. Æ’s study involved examination of readily available geologic maps ( Morton et al., 2001) and professional publications (Norris and Webb, 1976; Boucot and Rumble, 1980) as well as a search of pertinent museum repositories for fossil localities within and near the Project area. As the region is known for its abundant vertebrate fossil discoveries, a muse um records search for vertebrate fossil localities was conducted at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC).

4.2 FIELDWORK
Æ’s Project Paleontologist Christopher Shi completed a pedestrian reconnaissance field survey of the Project area on September 20, 2018. He accomplished the field survey by visually inspecting the ground surface within the Project area while looking for exposed fossils. He also evaluated the potential for preserved fossil material in the subsurface by examining the lithology and distribution of geologic outcrops throughout the Project area.

Shi walked in a zigzag pattern from the southwest corner to the northeast corner of the Project area for comprehensive coverage. In all but the southeast portion of the Project area where dense vegetation hindered close-interval examination of the ground surface, the survey interval of each transect was generally 15–20 feet. Shi closely examined all locations in which the ground surface was not obscured and geologic outcrops were visible.

In addition to conducting the field survey, Christopher Shi wrote th is paleontological resource assessment report while Cari Inoway provided GIS mapping of the figures under his direction. Æ’s Paleontology Program Manager , Dr. Amy Ollendorf, oversaw th e paleontological resource assessment and completed quality assurance/quality control throughout.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 12 Shi meets the SVP’s (2010) standards for Qualified Professional Paleontologist. He has a graduate degree in geology and possesses familiarity and proficiency with paleontology, sedimentology, and stratigraphy, as well as over 2 years of paleontological monitoring experience in California.

Ollendorf has interdisciplinary graduate degrees involving geology and a bachelor’s degree in geology, all of which focused on paleontological subject matter. She is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA #12588) with 35 years of environmental compliance experience.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 13 5 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY

5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Project area is located within the northeastern part of the geologically complex Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges are a northwest-southeast oriented complex of blocks that extend 125 miles from the Trans verse Ranges and Los Angeles Basin to the tip of Baja California. The Peninsular Ranges are bounded to the east by the Colorado Desert and range in width from 30 to 100 miles (Norris and Webb, 1976). The Project area is approximately 3.5 miles northeast of Lake Mathews and 1.5 miles southwest of Box Springs Mountain , within the central part of the Perris Block, a relatively stable rectangular structural unit positioned between the Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones (Morton et al., 2001). The geology in the vicinity of the Project area consists largely of Cretaceous plutonic rocks that are part of the composite Peninsular Ranges batholith (Morton et al., 2001).

5.2 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA
The Project area is mapped at a scale of 1:24 ,000 by Morton et al. (20 01). According to this published map, surface exposures of Cretaceous plutonic rocks intermixed with older, possibly Paleozoic metamorphic and plutonic rocks are distributed across the Project area (Figure 5-1). The geologic units that occur in the Project area are described in the following sections.

5.2.1 Val Verde tonalite (Kvt)
Much of the Project area consists of biotite-hornblende tonalite, the principal plutonic rock type of the Val Verde pluton. The tonalite is a relatively weathered, homogeneous, gray granitic rock that is mostly massive and occasionally foliated . Fossils are not found in p lutonic rocks, which formed from cooled magma within Earth’s mantle.

5.2.2 Intermixed Paleozoic (?1) metamorphic and Paleozoic(?)-Cretaceous plutonic rocks (KgPz)
The Val Verde tonalite intrudes an elongate northwest-southeast oriented mass of older, possibly Paleozoic schist, gneiss, and granitic rocks (mostly tonalite and granodiorite). A portion of this intermixed mass occurs in the northeast region of the Project area. Although certain low -grade metamorphic rocks such as slate can occasionally preserve fossils, schist and gneiss are medium - to high-grade metamorphic rocks that have undergone extreme heat and pressure during formation.

As such, most fossils originally preserved in their precursor rocks would have been destroyed or rendered unrecognizable. Medium- to high-grade metamorphic rocks therefore do not typically

1 Morton et al. (2001) describes these units with question marks because their ages have not been studied and confirmed.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 14 yield fossils, although some rare discoveries have been reported (e.g., brachiopod fossils from schist and quartzite) (Boucot and Rumble, 1980).

Date: 10/17/2018
13Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project Kvt
zKgP

0.500 .51
Miles

0.500 .51
Kilometers
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
Geology: Morton et al. 2001
T ownship 3 S./Range 4 W., Sections 8 and 9; SBB&M
Riverside East (1967, photorevised 1980), CA 7.5' USGS Topographic Quadrangle Figure 5-1 Geologic units in the Project area.

PROJECT AREA
Legend
Project Area
1:24,000SCALE
Document Path: H:\Ruth Villalobos - Sycamore Hills - 3931\Projects\Deliverables - one folder per document\Paleo Report - 2018-October\Figure 5-1 Geologic Units.mxd Kvt - Val Verde tonalite
KgPz - Intermixed Paleozoic(?) metamorphic and
Paleozoic(?)-Cretaceous plutonic rocks
Refer to Morton et al. (2001) for geologic units outside the Project area Geologic Units
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 16 6 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The following section summarizes the results and analyses from Æ’s desktop and field efforts.

6.1 MUSEUM RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
The NHMLAC search yielded no records for previously identified vertebrate localities within the Project area or within similar geologic units elsewhere . Furthermore, McLeod (2018) states that the igneous and metamorphic rock types present in the Project area would not cont ain any recognizable fossils.

6.2 FIELD RESULTS
The ground surface of the Project area is largely undisturbed with the exception of on-site bike and hiking trails throughout (Figure 6 -1). As also can be seen in this photo, g round visibility is poor (less than 10 percent) with much of it obscured by vegetation consisting of non-native grasses and native riparian scrub, approximately 1–3 feet in height. The thickness of the soil layer is presently unknown, though inferred to be thin due to the abundance of flat-lying bedrock exposures that crop out throughout the relatively low-relief surface topography of the Project area. However, the soil layer does appear to thicken in the southeast portion of the Project area where bedrock exposures are slightly less abundant and taller vegetation includes trees over 10 feet in height (Figure 6-2).

Figure 6-1 Overview of Project area showing bike and hiking trails, facing east.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 17

Figure 6-2 Southeast portion of the Project area with tall vegetation, facing east.

Most of the outcrops consist of gray, homogeneous, massive g ranitic rocks characteristic of the Val Verde tonalite (Figure 6 -3). Small outcrops of weathered schist from the intermixed metamorphic and plutonic rocks also were observed near the northeast portion of the Project area (Figure 6-4). Æ did not encounter any paleontological resources or sedimentary deposits conducive to fossil preservation in any parts of the Project area.

6.3 DETERMINATION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL FOR

GEOLOGIC UNITS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Based on the published paleontological sensitivity map (County of Riverside, 2015b) and the other sources utilized in Æ’s desktop study , the Project area consists of geologic units with Low paleontological resource potential (Figure 6 -5). Both the Val Verde tonalite and the intermixed metamorphic and plutonic rocks mapped in the Project area (Morton et al., 2001) are very unlikely to preserve recognizable fossils. Furthermore, a robust depositional environment in which fossils could be preserved appears unlikely within the Project area.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 18

Figure 6-3 Tonalite outcrop, facing west.

Figure 6-4 Schist outcrop, facing west.

1 0 10.5
Miles
101 0.5
Kilometers
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Feet
Township 3 S./Range 4 W., Sections 8 and 9; SBB&M
Riverside East (1967, photorevised 1980), CA 7.5' USGS Topographic Quadrangle Figure 6-5 Paleontological sensitivity of the Project area.

Legend
Project Area
Paleontological Sensitivity
High B (Hb)
Low
1:24,000SCALE
Date: 10/17/2018 Document Path: H:\Ruth Villalobos - Sycamore Hills - 3931\Projects\Deliverables - one folder per document\Paleo Report - 2018-O ctober\Figure 6-5 Paleo Sensitivity.mxd 18Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project Adapted from: Paleontological Sensitivity from County of Riverside General Plan, Revised December 8, 2015.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 20 7 RECOMMENDATIONS
Low sensitivity geologic units are mapped from surface exposures in and near the Project area (County of Riverside, 2015b; Morton et al., 2001 ). The other sources in Æ’s desktop review and Æ’s field survey support this finding. The field survey, in fact , confirms the Project area and immediate vicinity are covered by extensive bedrock derived from the composite Peninsular Ranges batholith. Recognizable fossils are very unlikely in the plutonic and metamorphic bedrock.

Æ’s field survey also found it unlikely that a robust sedimentary depositional environment in which fossils could be preserved could be present above the bedrock in the Project area.

The present study indicates Project -related ground disturbance likely will not impact significant paleontological resources in the Project area. Consistent with County of Riverside (2015a, 2015b) guidelines for Low paleontological sensitivity, Æ does not recommend mitigation unless a fossil is encountered during Project construction. If an unanticipated on-site fossil is discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing activities within the area of the find will be ceased and the applicant will retain a paleontologist who meets the SVP’s qualifications standards for Project Paleontologist to oversee the documentation of the extent and potential significance of the finds as well as recovery efforts . Ground-disturbing activities may resume in the area o f the find s at the discretion of the Project Paleontologist. If the fossils are significant per the SVP’s (2010) criteria, then paleontological monitoring will be conducted on an as -needed basis for further ground - disturbing activities in the Project area . By implementing these measures, adverse impacts to paleontological resources can be reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.

Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Project 21 8 REFERENCES CITED
Boggs, Jr., S. 2012. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, 5th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 585 pp.

Boucot, A. J. and D. Rumble, III. 1980. Regionally metamorphosed (high sillimanite zone, granulite facies) Early Devonian brachiopods from the Littleton Formation of New Hampshire. Journal of Paleontology 54(1):188-195.

City of Riverside. 2012. Riverside General Plan 2035, Historic Preservation Element. Available at https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/25793580/historic-preservation-element-city- of-riverside. Accessed July 20, 2020.

County of Riverside. 2015a. Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Public Review Draft, February 2015. Riverside County Planning Department. Available at https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_plan_2015/DEIR%20521/04- 09_CulturalAndPaleoResrcs.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2020.

County of Riverside. 2015b. Multipurpose Open Space Element, General Plan Revised, December 8, 2015. Riverside County Planning Department. Available at https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_Plan_2017/elements/OCT17/Ch05_M OSE_120815.pdf?ver=2017-10-11-102103-833. Accessed July 20, 2020.

McLeod, S. A. 2018. Unpublished museum collections records. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

Morton, D. M., B. Cox, M. Dawson, and T. O’Brien. 2001. Geologic map of the Riverside East

7.5′ quadrangle, Riverside County, California, U.S. 1:24,000. U. S. Geological Survey, Open- File Report OF 01-452.

Norris, R. M., and R. W. Webb. 1976. Geology of California. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 378 pp.

Scott, E., and K. Springer. 2003. CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California. The Environmental Monitor, Fall 2003. Association of Environmental Professionals. Available at www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/34165/ScottandSpringer-2003_CEQA- and-Fossil-Preservation. Accessed July 20, 2020.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. Available at vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Ethics/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx.

Accessed July 20, 2020.

Riverside City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

Riverside City Council
January 25, 2022