Key to Soil and ·Bedrock Symbols and Terms
,
. Unified .Soil Cla~sitication Sy-stem
-S GRAVELS Clean Gravels GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines - ~ more than half of coarse f--l(.:::lle~ss~th:::an=5.!.:%:..:fi~m;:::es:::.,)4,.:G~P.!..--J-..;P,;;o,:::or:;.IY~--==::;'d,:;ed:..gr2:.:'a.:..;ve::ls::!,-'trr~a:v~e=-l-::san=;d-=IIll=·x:.::tur;,=..:;e:;:,s,~l.:.;itt=le::....::or:..:n:.:o=-fi:.::m::.;es:;:._ ___ --I _g ~ fraction is larger than #4 Gravels GM Siltv Gravels, ooorlv-=ded ~ravel-sand-silt mixtures '" ., sieve with fmes GC Clayey Gravels, poorly-graded gravel ~sand-clay mixtures -~ 11-----S-AND--S---+--C-l_e_an~San'--ds--+-"SW~-+--W,,,,...,el,,..l--=-gra__,d-ed.,...-san---;,ds-,-gra...._v.a.el'""ly-san-",d.~-,..,,li:-tt-,-le_o_r_n_o--;fi,-m_e_s _______ _ -~ -S more than half of coarse (less than 5% fines) SP Poorly-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines ~ B fraction is smaller than #41--'-'--'-'-''-'-s"'an"-ds;;...;..;;~~-S~M;;._-+-S~il,...ty-S;..an=..,ds,...,-p-oo_r...,ly---'gra-=-,d,...ed-,-san:........,d,...-gr-a-'v-e.,..l-...,si""lt-m...,i,...x-tur-e-s--------1 :;: ..!! sieve with fmes SC Clayey Sands, poorly-graded sand-gravel-clay mixtures -€1 P-1-------"=-'-------'--------+=.;;;._-+--~ ....... -....,.,....a.....-.J------,------,--'---=----,----------1 ~ -~ ML Inorganic silts & very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands, "-> ., SILTS & CLAYS clayey silts with slight plasticity ; i Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays oflow to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, 0 i:l Less Than 50 sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays ::::l t; OL Organic silts & clays of low plasticity - ..!ll----------------+..::=-+.,->'--...,,--,,-----:--''---½-,----'----::e----:----,.,..------1 z ] SILTS & CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fme sand or silt o .. Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays t; Greater Than 50 OH Organic silts and clays of medium-to-high plasticity Hi2hly 01"f!anic Soils PT Peat, humus swamp soils with high organic content Grain Size " > l , '
:;,.'I;,.; }
" ,·.· , "-·
Modifiers
.
Trace <1%
Description Sieve Size Grain Size Approximate Size Few 1 -5% Boulders >12" >12" Larger than basketball-sized
Some 5-12%
Numerous 12- 20 %
Cobbles 3 - 12" 3 - 12" Fist-sized to basketball-sized
coarse 3/4 - 3" 3/4 - 3" Thumb-sized to fist-sized Gravel fine #4 - 3/4" 0.19 - 0.75" Pea-sized to thumb-sized coarse #10 -#4 0.079 - 0.19" Rock salt-sized to oea-sized Sand medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079" Sugar-sized to rock salt-sized fine #200 - #40 0.0029 - 0.017" Flour-sized to sugar-sized to Fines Passmg#200 <0.0029" Flour-sized and smaller
Labor.at~ry Test Abbreviations ' ~ Bedrock Hardness
Can be crushed and granulated by
MAX Maximum Dry Density MA Mechanical (Particle Size) Analysis Soft hand ; •soil like• and struct ureless EXP Expansion Potential AT Atterberg Limits
SO4 Soluble Sulfate Content #200 #200 Screen Wash
RES Resistivity DSU Direct Shear (Undisturbed Sample)
Can be grooved with fingernails;
Moderately gouged easily with butter knffe;
Hard crumbles under light hammer blows
pH Acidity DSR Direct Shear (Remolded Sample)
CON Consolidation HYD Hydrometer Analysis
Cannot b<eak by hand; can be
Hard grooved with a sharp knffe; breaks
SW Swell SE Sand Equivalent with a moderate hammer blow CL Chloride Content oc Organic Content
RV R-Value COMP Mortar Cylinder Compression Very Hard Sharp knffe leaves scratch; chips with repeated hammer blows
'.¥ Approximate Depth of Groundwater Encountered
J Approximate Depth of Standing Groundwater
I
Modified California Split Spoon Sample ~ No Recovery in Mod. Calif. Split Spoon Sample Standard Penetration Test I Shelby Tube Sample I Bulk Sample No Recovery in SPT Sampler D No Recovery in Shelby Tube Notes:
Blows Per Foot: Number of blows required to advance sampler 1 foot (unless a lesser distance is specified). Samplers in general were driven into the soil or bedrock at the bottom of the bole with a standard (140 lb.) hammer dropping a standard 30 inches unless noted otherwise in Log Notes . Drive samples collected in bucket auger borings may be obtained by dropping non-standard weight from variable heights. When a SPT sampler is used the blow count conforms to ASTM D-1586
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, moist, loose, fine- to coarse-grained, some gravel.
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (SM-ML): Brown to pale red, moist, soft, fine- to coarse-grained, no gravel.
firm, fine- to medium-grained, trace course sand.
YOUNGER ALLUVIUM (Qya)
Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown to pale yellow, slightly moist to moist, stiff, fine- to medium-grained, trace course sand. dry to slightly moist.
slightly moist, firm.
OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)
Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown to brown, dry, hard, fine- to medium- grained, weakly cemented.
Total Depth - 21.5'
No groundwater encountered
Boring was backfilled with cuttings.
3 2
2 2
2 3
2 4
4 4
6 8
6 10
13 2
3 4
11 18
30 13.6
8.4 7.2
4.1 5.1
93.3 100.7
105.8
101.9
106.3
DS
Project: T.T. 38921 Boring No.: B-1
Location: La Sierra and Victoria, Riverside Elevation: 839± Job No.: 23-341 Client: Warmington Date: 2/29/24
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.
Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
PLATE A-1
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (SM-ML): Light brown to brown, moist, soft, fine- to coarse-grained, some gravel.
no gravel.
YOUNGER ALLUVIUM (Qya)
Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown to pale red, moist, soft, fine- to medium-grained.
firm, trace course sand.
stiff, fine- to coarse-grained.
Brown to pale red, fine-grained.OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)
Sandy Silt (ML): Brown to pale yellow, slightly moist, hard, fine- to medium-grained, weakly cemented.
Total Depth - 21.5'
No groundwater encountered
Boring was backfilled with cuttings.
2 3
3 2
3 3
3 3
4 3
4 6
6 10
8 5
7 8
13 22
37 11.1
8.6 10.2
9.7 6.1
100.9
104.4
109.6
105.2
105.8
EI, CHEM,
RS
Project: T.T. 38921 Boring No.: B-2
Location: La Sierra and Victoria, Riverside Elevation: 839± Job No.: 23-341 Client: Warmington Date: 2/29/24
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.
Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
PLATE A-2
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (SM-ML): Light brown to brown, moist, soft, fine- to coarse-grained, trace gravel.
stiff, fine- to medium-grained, trace course sand, no gravel. moist to very moist, firm.
YOUNGER ALLUVIUM (Qya)
Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown to pale red, moist, soft, fine- to medium-grained, trace course sand.
firm, fine- to coarse-grained.
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to pale red, moist, firm, fine- to coarse-grained.
Sandy Silt (ML): Brown to pale red, moist, very stiff, fine-grained.
OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)
Sandy Silt (ML): Brown to pale yellow, slightly moist, hard, fine- to medium-grained, weakly cemented.
Total Depth - 21.5'
No groundwater encountered
Boring was backfilled with cuttings.
4 6
7 2
3 4
3 3
3 2
4 4
4 5
6 6
10 18
50/2"
15.4 10.7
11.9 12.3
9.3 102.5
104.9
106.7
112.4
111.5
Project: T.T. 38921 Boring No.: B-3
Location: La Sierra and Victoria, Riverside Elevation: 839± Job No.: 23-341 Client: Warmington Date: 2/29/24
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.
Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
PLATE A-3
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (SM-ML): Light brown to brown, moist, soft, fine- to coarse-grained, trace gravel.
fine- to medium-grained, trace course sand, no gravel.
YOUNGER ALLUVIUM (Qya)
Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown to pale red, moist, soft, fine- to medium-grained, trace course sand.
firm.
slightly moist to moist.
Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to pale red, slightly moist to moist, medium dense, fine- to coarse-grained, some gravel, trace broken cobble.
Sandy Silt (ML): Brown to pale red, slightly moist, very stiff, fine- grained.
OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)
Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown to pale yellow, dry to slightly moist, hard, weakly cemented.
Total Depth - 21.5'
No groundwater encountered
Boring was backfilled with cuttings.
4 3
3 2
2 3
3 3
4 4
5 5
7 7
7 4
9 13
15 28
30 13.9
11.6 11.2
9.0 5.9
97.5 105.0
103.4
115.2
110.0
Project: T.T. 38921 Boring No.: B-4
Location: La Sierra and Victoria, Riverside Elevation: 840± Job No.: 23-341 Client: Warmington Date: 2/29/24
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140 lbs / 30" Logged By: SS Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Blows
per
6 in.
Samples
C
o
r
e
B
u
l
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Laboratory Tests
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
PLATE A-4
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Date: January 17, 2014
Drilling Company:. ___ W~D-'-1 ___ _
Hole Diameter- 8" Drive Weight· 140 lbs Drop: 30"
Drill Hole No .. _--=B'"""---1 _
Project No .. _ __,1.::.3..:..:16""'7-'-0=--1.___
Type of Rig:._---'B"""-'""'6..,_1 __ _
Elevation· 816±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPL BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OFTEST ETEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: GL 61NCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY:~ 1 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to coarse grained, dry, Alluvium medium dense
2 3
Dry, medium dense, micaceous
4 4/8/10 108.4 3.4 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 43
SE= 18
5 6
X
3/4/4 - - Slightly moist, loose
7 8
9 10
11 [X
3/6/4 - - Medium dense
12 13
14 15
16 [X
7/9/11 - - ML SANDY SILT: Light brown, slightly moist, stiff 17 18
19 20
21 [X
SM SILTY SAND: Light brown, fine to coarse grained, very Bedrock 15/37/50 - - dense 22 23
Very dense
24 TOT AL DEPTH = 25 FEET
[X
NO GROUNDWATER
19/39/50
NO CAVING 25
BORING BACKFILLED
Soil Exoloration Co .. Inc.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-2
Date: January 17, 2014
Drilling Company: __ --'W'--'-=D_,_I ___ _
Hole Diameter- 8" Drive WeiQht· 140 lbs Drop· 30" .
Project No .. _ __,1=3..:..:16"-'7-'-0""1'--_
Type of Rig:. _ __;B:::..-..:6...:..1 __ _
Elevation· 818 5±
DEPTH TYPE SAMP BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OF LE PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: _fil_ TEST TEST SINCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY: GL 1 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, Alluvium slightly moist, loose, micaceous
2 3
[X
2/2/2 - - Loose 4
SE =29
5 6 113.3 13.1 ML SANDY SILT: Light brown, moist, loose, micaceous 3/4/4 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 59
7 8
9 10
11 [><
2/3/3 - - Loose
12 13
14 CL-ML SILTY CLAY: Light brown, moist, stiff
[X
7/9/13 - -15
16 17 TOT AL DEPTH = 15 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER
18 NO CAVING
BORING BACKFILLED
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Soil Exoloration Co .. Inc.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. 8-3
Date: January 17. 2014
Drilling Company: ___ W:...:..::Dc.:..I ___ _
Hole Diameter- 8" Drive Weiaht· 140 lbs Droo· 30" .
Project No. _ __,_1 ::::.31.!.::6~7_,-0:c.!1'----
Type of Rig:, _ __,B=<---""6..,_1 __ _
Elevation· 822 5±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPL BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OFTEST ETEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: _§!,_ 61NCH 1%1 uses SAMPLED BY: GL 1 SM SILTY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, Alluvium dry, loose
2 3
4 5
6 [X
3/4/4 - -
7 8
9 10
11 [X
5/6/7 - - ML SANDY SILT: Light brown, moist, stiff
12 13
14 15
16 Bedrock
[X
7/9/13 - - SM SIL TY SAND: Light gray, weathered, medium dense 17 18
19 20 [X
9/17/22 - -
21 22 TOT AL DEPTH = 20 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER
23 NO CAVING
BORING BACKFILLED
24 25
Soil Exoloration Co .. Inc.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
Drill Hole No. B-4
Date: January 17, 2014
Drilling Company: ___ W:....:..::D..,_I ___ _
Hole Diameter· 8
11 Drive Weiqht· 140 lbs Drop· 30"
Project No .. _-"1=3...:.;16::..:7---'-0"-1.___
Type of Rig:._---'B"'--'""'6-'-1 __ _
Elevation- 824±
DEPTH TYPE SAMPL BLOWS DRY MOISTURE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION (feet) OFTEST ETEST PER DENSITY (%) CLASSIFICATION LOGGED BY: _@1__ 61NCH (%) uses SAMPLED BY: GL
1 SM SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to medium grained, Alluvium slightly moist, loose
2 3
4 5
6 [X
3/4/5 - - Loose
7 8
9 10
11 [X
5/5/5 - - Medium dense
12 13
14 15
16 [X
5/8/11 - - ML SANDY SILT: Light brown, slightly moist, stiff 17 18
19 [><
SIL TY SAND: Light brown, fine to coarse grained,
Bedrock 27/33/39 - - SM very dense 20
21 22 TOT AL DEPTH = 20 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER
23 NO CAVING
BORING BACKFILLED
24 25
Soil Exoloration Co .. Inc.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY
PETRA and 2014 SEC
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Laboratory Address: 1251 W. Pomona Road, Unit 103, Corona, CA, 92882 J.N. 23-341
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
Soil Classification
Soils encountered within the exploration borings were initially classified in the field in general accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488). The samples were re-examined in the laboratory and the classifications reviewed and then revised where appropriate.
In-Situ Moisture and Density
Moisture content and unit dry density of in -place soil were determined in representative strata and are depicted on the Exploration Logs, Appendix A.
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for a selected sample of soil and bedrock in accordance with Method A of ASTM D 1557 and the test data is presented on Plate B-1.
Expansion Index
An expansion index test was performed on a selected sample of soil in accordance with ASTM D 4829.
The expansion potential classification was determined from 2010 CBC Section 1802.3.2 on the basis of the expansion index value. The test result and expansion potentials are presented on Plate B-1.
Soil Corrosivity
Chemical analyses were performed on a selected sample of soil to determine concentrations of soluble sulfate and chloride, as well as pH and resistivity. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 417 (sulfate), 422 (chloride) and 643 (pH and resistivity) . Test results are included on Plate B-1.
Direct Shear
The Coulomb shear strength parameters, i.e., angle of internal friction and cohesion, were determined for a both a remolded sample of onsite soil and an undisturbed sample of onsite soil. The tests were performed in general accordance with the current version of Test Method ASTM D 3080. Three specimens were prepared for each test. The test specimens were inundated and then sheared under various normal loads at a constant strain rate of 0.005 inch per minute. The results of the direct shear test are graphically presented on Plates B-2 and B-3.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC Laboratory Address: 1251 W. Pomona Road, Unit 103, Corona, CA, 92882 J.N. 23-341 PLATE B-1
LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY*
Boring
Number
Sample
Depth
(ft)
Soil Description
Max. Dry
Density 1
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture1
(%)
Expansion
Index2
USCS Soil
Classification3
Atterberg
Limits4 Sulfate
Content5
(%)
Chloride
Content6
(mg/L)
pH7
Minimum
Resistivity7
(ohm-cm) LL PL PI
B-2 0-5 Silty Sand-Sandy Silt 130.5 8.0 0 SM-ML -- -- -- 0.010 247 8.2 14,000 (--) Tests Not Performed
Test Procedures:
1 Per ASTM Test Method D 1557
5 Per Caltrans Test Method 417
2 Per ASTM Test Method D 4829
6 Per Caltrans Test Method 422
3 Per ASTM Test Method D 2487
7 Per Caltrans Test Method 643
4 Per ASTM Test Method D 4318
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Tested By: DI
Client: Warmington
Project: La Sierra and Victoria
Source of Sample: 24L038 Depth: 5
Sample Number: B-1
Proj. No.: 23-341 Date Sampled:
Sample Type: Undisturbed
Description: Brown Silty Fine to Coarse Sand
Specific Gravity= 2.65
Remarks:
Figure B-2
Sample No.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Normal Stress, ksf
Fail. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Ult. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min.
InitialAt Test
Shear Stress, ksf
0 0.25
0.5 0.75
1 1.25
1.5 Strain, %
0 5 10 15 20
1 2
3 Vertical Deformation, in.
0.009
0.006
0.003
0 -0.003
-0.006
-0.009
Strain, %
0 3 6 9 12
Dilation
Consol.
1 2
3 Ult. Stress, ksf
Fail. Stress, ksf
0 1
2 3
Normal Stress, ksf
0 1 2 3
C, ksf
f, deg
Tan(f)
Fail. Ult.
0.096
27.8 0.53
0.024
28.9 0.55
1 7.2
106.2
34.4 0.5578
2.416
1.004
19.5 108.3
97.8 0.5274
2.416
0.984
0.500
0.336
3.8 0.300
10.4 0.040
2 7.2
112.3
40.6 0.4725
2.416
1.009
16.2 114.5
96.5 0.4449
2.416
0.990
1.000
0.660
2.3 0.576
10.4 0.040
3 7.2
106.9
35.1 0.5471
2.416
1.000
17.9 110.9
96.5 0.4913
2.416
0.964
2.000
1.140
10.0 1.128
10.4 0.040
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Tested By: DI
Client: Warmington
Project: La Sierra and Victoria
Source of Sample: 24L038 Depth: 0-5
Sample Number: B-2
Proj. No.: 23-341 Date Sampled:
Sample Type: Remold
Description: Brown Silty Fine to Coarse Sand
Specific Gravity= 2.65
Remarks: Brown Silty Fine to Coarse Sand
Figure B-3
Sample No.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Normal Stress, ksf
Fail. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Ult. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min.
InitialAt Test
Shear Stress, ksf
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 Strain, %
0 5 10 15 20
1 2
3 Vertical Deformation, in.
0.045
0.03 0.015
0 -0.015
-0.03
-0.045
Strain, %
0 3 6 9 12
Dilation
Consol.
1 2
3 Ult. Stress, ksf
Fail. Stress, ksf
0 2
4 6
Normal Stress, ksf
0 2 4 6
C, ksf
f, deg
Tan(f)
Fail. Ult.
0 29.6
0.57 0
29.5 0.57
1 8.0
117.5
52.0 0.4075
2.416
1.001
14.6 118.7
98.4 0.3933
2.416
0.991
1.000
0.588
10.0 0.588
10.4 0.040
2 8.0
117.7
52.1 0.4061
2.416
1.000
13.1 121.1
95.0 0.3662
2.416
0.972
2.000
1.008
6.5 1.008
6.5 0.040
3 8.0
117.5
52.0 0.4075
2.416
1.001
12.6 121.8
93.2 0.3584
2.416
0.966
4.000
2.328
10.0 2.316
10.4 0.040
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies SEC Victoria Ave. and La Sierra Ave.
Riverside, California
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SEC of Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue
City of Riverside , California
SIEVE B-1 @2.5' B-2@5'
SIZE % PASSING % PASSING
3/8" 100 -
No. 4 99.5 100
No. 8 98 98
No. 16 93 91
No. 30 86 83
No. 50 78 77
No. 100 65 69
No. 200 43 59
SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST DATA
B-1 (@ 2.5' B-2 (@. 2.5'
18 29
SAND EQUIVALENT TEST DATA
Soil Exploration Co., Inc.
Project No. 13167-01
January 24, 2014
Appendix C
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
APPENDIX C
SEISMIC AND LIQUEFACTION PARAMETERS
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies J.N: 23-341 Project: Date: 12/7/2023
Boring: B-1 25 feet 5 feet
Top Bottom
ft ft ft ft blows/ft blows/ft blows/ft
1 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 18 12 0.38
2 4.5 8 3.5 8.0 8 0.81
3 8 13 5 13.0 10 1.31
4 13 20 7 20.0 20 1.66
5 20 23.5 3.5 23.5 87 1.70
6 23.5 100 76.5 100.0 89 2.56
7 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.00
8 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.00
9 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00
10 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00
11 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00
12 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00
13 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00
14 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00
15 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00
1 2
3 SITE CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION BASED ON N-SPT FOR SEISMIC DESIGN Per Table 20.3-1 and Section 20.4.2 of ASCE 7-16
Site Classification
Per Table 20.3-1
= 39 D
Average Field Standard
Penetration Resistance
(blows/ft)
Layer
No.
(i)
Total Depth of Boring:
Warmington; Victoria & La Sierra
Mod. Cal.
Sampler Blow
Counts1
Equivalent N-
SPT2
(Ni)
Standard penetration resistance (ASTM D1586) not to exceed 100 blows /ft (305 blows /m) as directly measured in the field without corrections. When Refusal is met for a rock layer, this value shall be taken as 100 blows /ft (305 blows /m).
SPT Test Interval: every
Layer
Thickness
(di)
N-SPT3
(Ni)
Depth to Soil/Rock Layer
Modified California sampler blow counts as directly measured in the field without corrections.
Equivalent SPT blow counts are calculated from field measured Modified California sampler blow counts using the standard Burmister formula (Burmister, 1948).
Eq. N-SPT = 0.651 x (Mod. Cal. Sampler Blow Counts)
𝑖=1
𝑛
𝑑𝑖
𝑖=1
𝑛
𝑑𝑖
𝑁𝑖
ഥ𝑵 =
σ𝒊=𝟏
𝒏 𝒅𝒊
σ𝒊=𝟏
𝒏 𝒅𝒊
𝑵𝒊
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 12/7/23, 5:58 PM U.S . Seismic Design Maps
USGS web services were down for some period of time and as a result this tool wasn't operational, resulting in timeout error.
USGS web services are now operational so this tool should work as expected .
OSHPD
Warmington; Victoria & La Sierra
Latitude, Longitude: 33.8875, -117 .4618
othic H
emporaril
/".:
s' "o ,
~~'\'I
~1/'
t '"='' ... ,\~'\ ~~.,
✓ Board -And Care Homes
~
~~ ~
~
Date
Design Code Reference Document
Risk Category
Site Class
Type Value
Ss 1.5
S1 0.597
SMs 1.5
SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8
Sos
So1 null -See Section 11.4.8
Type Value
soc null -See Section 11.4.8
Fa
Fv null -See Section 11.4.8
PGA 0.571
FPGA 1.1
PGAM 0.628
TL 8
SsRT 1.669
SsUH 1.776
SsD 1.5
S1RT 0.597
S1UH 0.649
S1D 0.6
PGAd 0.571
https ://www.seismicmaps.org
or Seniors Riverside CA,-,
/✓
12/7/2023, 5:53:05 PM
ASCE7-16
Description
II
D - Stiff Soil
Description
MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)
MCER ground motion . (for 1.0s period)
Site-modified spectral acceleration value
Site-modified spectral acceleration value
Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA
Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA
Seismic design category
Site amplification factor at 0.2 second
Site amplification factor at 1.0 second
MCEG peak ground acceleration
Site amplification factor at PGA
Site modified peak ground acceleration
Long-period transition period in seconds
Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration Factored deterministic acceleration value . (0.2 second) Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion . (1.0 second) Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.
Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1 .0 second) Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) Map data ©2023
1/3
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 12/7/23, 5:58 PM
Type Value
PGAuH 0.682
CRs 0.94
CR1 0.92
Cv 1.4
https://www.seismicmaps.org
U.S. Seismic Design Maps
Description
Uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods
Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s Vertical coefficient
2/3
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 12/7/23, 5:58 PM U.S. Seismic Design Maps
DISCLAIMER
While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website. https://www.seismicmaps.org 3/3
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 12/7/23, 6:00 PM Unified Hazard Tool
U.S. Geological Survey- Earthquake Hazards Program
Unified Hazard Tool
Please do not use this tool to obtain ground motion parameter values for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design MaP-S web tools (e.g., the International Buildi .ng Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical.
Please also see the new USGS Earthguake Hazard Toolbox for access to the most recent NSHMs for the conterminous U.S. and Hawaii.
A Input
Edition Spectral Period
._I _o_y_n_a_m_i_c:_c_o_n_t_e_rm_i n_o_u_s_u_._s_. 2_0_1_4_(_u_ •• _. __ __,I I Peak Ground Acceleration Latitude Time Horizon
Decimal degrees Return period in years
~I _3_3._ss_1_s ____________ __,I I 2475
Longitude
Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes 1-117.4618
Site Class
259 m/s (Site class D)
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 1/5
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 12/7/23, 6:00 PM
A Hazard Curve
Hazard Curves
le+O
le-1
:'l l e-2
C
"' l e-3 -0
"' le-'! "' u
Jj le-5
0 le-6 >, - Time Horizon 2475 years
u ..... Peak Ground Acceleration C le-7
"' .....,. 0.10 Second Spectral Acceleration ::,
CT le-8 ....... 0.20 Second Spec tral Acceleration
l'! .....,. 0.30 Second Spectral Acceleration "- le-9 ,. .....,. 0.50 Second Spectral Acceleration ::, le-10 _.,_ 0.75 Second Spectral Acceleration
C .....,_ 1.00 Second Spectra! Acceleration C l e-11 < .....,. 2.00 Second Spectral Acceleration l e-12 ....... 3.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
le-13 ......, '4.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
....... 5.00 Second Spect ral Acceleration
le-2 l e-1 le+O
Ground Motion (g)
Component Curves for Peak Ground Acceleration
l e+O
l e-1
:'l le-2
C
"' -0 l e-3
"' "' u le-'! Jj
0 l e-5
>,
u
C l e-6
"' ::,
CT l e-7
t ,. le-8
::,
C le-9 - Time Horizon 2475 years C
< ....... system le-10 .....,. Grid
le-11 ....,_ Interface
.....,. Fault
le-2 le+O
Ground Motion (g)
View Raw Data
https ://earthquake .usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
Unified Hazard Tool
:§
C
.2
0 ::.
-0
C ::,
e
<.!)
2.5 2.0
1.5 1.0
0.5 0.0
0.0 Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum
Spectra l Period (s): PGA
Ground Motion (g): 0,7623
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3,0
Spectral Period (s)
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
2/5
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 12/7/23, 6:00 PM
A Deaggregation
Component
Total
0 M
https ://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
Unified Hazard Tool
• • • • •
■ £=(-co .. -2.5)
■ £= [-2.5 .. -2)
■ £= [-2 .. -1.5)
0 £= [-1.5 .. -1)
0 £= [-1 .. -0.5)
0 £= [-0.5 .. 0)
0 £= [0 .. 0.5)
0 £= [0.5 .. 1)
£ = [1 .. 1.5)
■ £=[LS .. 2)
■ £= [2 .. 2.5)
■ £=[2.5 .. +oo)
3/5
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 12/7/23, 6:00 PM Unified Hazard Tool
Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total
Deaggregation targets
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 y,1
PGA ground motion: 0.76227737 g
Totals
Binned: 100 %
Residual: o %
Trace: 0.09 %
Mode (largest m-r bin)
m: 6.47
r: 11.3 km
E:o: 1.96 CJ
Contribution: 22.37 %
Discretization
r: min= 0.0, max= 1000.0, t. = 20.0 km
m: min= 4.4, max= 9.4, t. = 0.2
e: min= -3.0, max= 3.0, t. = 0.5 a
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
Recovered targets
Return period: 2968.3067 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00033689241 y,1
Mean ( over all sources)
m: 6.68
r: 14.01 km
E:o! 1.86 CJ
Mode (largest m-r-Eo bin)
m: 6.46
r: 11.73 km
E:o: 2.17 CJ
Contribution: 10.83 %
Epsilon keys
£0: [-oo .. -2.5)
£1: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
£2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
E:3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
£4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
£5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
£6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
£7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
£8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
£9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
£10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
£11: [2.5 .. +oo]
4/5
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 12/7/23, 6:00 PM Unified Hazard Tool
Deaggregation Contributors
Source Set I+ Source Type r m Eo Ion lat az %
UC33brAvg_FM32 System 33.33
Elsinore {Glen Ivy) rev [OJ 11.58 6.82 1.83 117.545'W 33.811'N 222.12 20.06 San Jacinto {San Bernardino) [4) 25.11 8.06 1.88 117.257'W 34.036'N 48.85 5.07 San Andreas {San Bernardino N) [5) 36.17 7.99 2.24 117.269'W 34.171'N 29.36 2.00 Elsinore (Glen Ivy) rev [l) 11.78 6.60 1.96 117.53l'W 33.799'N 213.05 1.61 Elsinore (Glen Ivy) rev [2) 14.46 6.29 2.33 117.48l'W 33.759'N 186.91 1.30 UC33brAvg_FM31 System 33.18
Elsinore {Glen Ivy) rev [OJ 11.58 6.80 1.84 117.545'W 33.811°N 222.12 19.92 San Jacinto (San Bernardino) [4) 25.11 8.06 1.87 117.257'W 34.036°N 48.85 5.11 San Andreas (San Bernardino N) [5) 36.17 7.99 2.24 117.269°W 34.171°N 29.36 1.98 Elsinore (Glen Ivy) rev [l) 11.78 6.57 1.97 117.531°W 33.799°N 213.05 1.50 Elsinore (Glen Ivy) rev [2) 14.46 6.29 2.33 117.481°W 33.759'N 186.91 1.26 UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt) Grid 16.90
PointSourceFinite: -117.462, 33.919 6.11 5.68 1.47 117.462°W 33.919°N 0.00 3.22 PointSourceFinite: -117.462, 33.919 6.11 5.68 1.47 117.462°W 33.919°N 0.00 3.22 PointSourceFinite: -117.462, 33.937 7.06 5.85 1.57 117.462°W 33.937'N 0.00 2.59 PointSourceFinite: -117.462, 33.937 7.06 5.85 1.57 117.462°W 33.937'N 0.00 2.59 UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt) Grid 16.60
PointSourceFinite: -117.462, 33.919 6.11 5.69 1.47 117.462°W 33.919°N 0.00 3.16 PointSourceFinite: -117.462, 33.919 6.11 5.69 1.47 117.462°W 33.919°N 0.00 3.16 PointSourceFinite: -117.462, 33.937 7.06 5.85 1.57 117.462°W 33.937'N 0.00 2.58 PointSourceFinite: -117.462, 33.937 7.06 5.85 1.57 117.462'W 33.937'N 0.00 2.58 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 5/5
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies SPT Liquefaction Analysis
References:
T.L.Youd, I.M.ldriss - Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils D. Pradel - Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils K.Tokimatsu, H.B.Seed - Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, ASCE JGE Vol.113, No.a, August 1986 G.Zhang, P.K.Robertson, R.W.I.Brachman - Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Ground Settlements From CPT for Level Ground (CGJ39,2002) Boring B-1
Earthquake loading:
0 C.
.9 ~ E z ~~ .c Q) 0
a. a3 - >-;,, f-
Q) >, C."' 0 (L
0"' ~ ....I co en -'
feet feet
0 4.5 12
4.5 5 12
5 8 8
8 13 10
13 20 20
20 23.5 87
23.5 100 89
M
PGA
;f!.
"' Q)
C
U:::
43 43
20 20
30 20
20 Summary of analysis
Total liquefaction settlement
Total dry sand settlement
Total earthquake-induced settlement
Number of evaluated intervals
Number of potentially liquefiable intervals
Average Factor of Safety
Depth to first groundwater
Total thickness of evaluated profile
Profile thickness susceptible to liquefaction
6.8 0.628
0 '<'
~-
ti: w
en
LL
no liq
no liq
Interpreted Factor of Safety
against liquefaction
Not liquefiable - no groundwater
Not liquefiable - no groundwater
1.21 inches
0.02 inches
1.22 inches
7 2
0.89 5.00 feet
100.00 feet
8.00 feet
c
Q)
E
Q)
~ en
in
0.01 0 00
0.79 0.79 - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.53
0.99 0.99 - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.68
no liq Not liquefiable - too dense 0.00
no liq Not liquefiable - too dense 0 00
no liq Not liquefiable - too dense 0.00
g
.c
a.
Q)
0 '5.
OJ
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Boring B-1
0.0 B-1
0 First groundwater at 5 feet
Factor of Safety against Liquefaction
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
I T
FS = 1.3
• •
+- i--.
z
z 0
0 f'=
f'= u u c,:
'(f
LL
w
w a ::,
0 :J
:J 0 z
Settlement (in)
2 3 4 5
J.N. 23-341
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
APPENDIX D
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for projects on which Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is the geotechnical consultant. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preli minary geology and soils report, or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist of record (Geotechnical Consultant).
I. GENERAL
A. The Geotechnical Consultant is the Owner's or Builder's representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, participation by the Geotechnical Consultant includes that observation performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist signing the soils report.
B. The contractor should prepare and submit to the Owner and Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork to be performed prior to the commencement of grading.
This work plan should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to schedule personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing as necessary.
C. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor in accordance with the recommendations presented in the geotechnical report and under the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant.
D. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground su rface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Consultant and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Geotechnical Consultant.
E. It is the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed . If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction to project specifications . Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year.
F. After completion of grading a report will be submitted by the Geotechnical Consultant.
II. SITE PREPARATION
A. Clearing and Grubbing
1. All vegetation such as trees, brush, grass, roots, and deleterious material shall be disposed of offsite. This removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill.
2. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, etc., are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
III. FILL AREA PREPARATION
A. Remedial Removals/Overexcavations
1. Remedial removals, as well as overexcavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Remedial removal depths presented in the geotechnical report and shown on the geotechnical plans are estimates o nly. The actual extent of removal should be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the conditions exposed during grading. All soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic -rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as determined by the Geotechnical Consultant.
2. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3. Should potentially hazardous materials be encountered, the Contractor should stop work in the affected area. An environmental consultant specializing in hazardous materials should be notified immediately for evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing work in the affected area.
B. Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill . The contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide sufficient survey control for determining locations and elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
C. Processing
After the ground surface to receive fill has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant, it shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the ground surface is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction.
The scarified ground surface shall the n be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
D. Subdrains
Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, and/or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant . (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given on Plate SG-1).
E. Cut/Fill & Deep Fill/Shallow Fill Transitions
In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut/fill and deep fill/shallow fill transi tion lots, the cut and shallow fill portions of the lot should be overexcavated to the depths and the horizontal limits discussed in the approved geotechnical report and replaced with compacted fill. (Typical details are given on Plate SG-7.)
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
IV. COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL
A. General
Materials excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Consultant. Material to be used for fill shall be essentially free of organic material and other deleterious substances. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill.
Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
B. Oversize Materials
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches in diameter, shall be taken offsite or placed in accordance with the recommendations of th e Geotechnical Consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal (Typical details for Rock Disposal are given on Plate SG-4).
Rock fragments less than 12 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill provided, they are not nested or placed in concentrated pockets; they are surrounded by compacted fine grained soil material and the distribution of rocks is approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
C. Laboratory Testing
Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Geotechnical Consultant to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Consultant as soon as possible.
D. Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material should meet the requirements of the previous section . The import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 2 working days prior to importing so that appropriate tests can be performed and its suitability determined.
V. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
A. Fill Layers
Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer .
The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
B. Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly above optimum moisture content.
C. Compaction
Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general, ASTM D 1557- 02, will be used.)
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the control ling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition, the area to received fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report.
D. Failing Areas
If the moisture content or relative density varies from that r equired by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
E. Benching
All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of 5 horizontal to 1 vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant.
VI. SLOPES
A. Fill Slopes
The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum rela tive compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills . This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure that produces the required compaction.
B. Side Hill Fills
The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the soils report. (See detail on Plate SG-5.)
C. Fill-Over-Cut Slopes
Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soils prior to placing fill . (see detail on Plate SG-6).
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
D. Landscaping
All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in the soils report.
E. Cut Slopes
1. The Geotechnical Consultant should observe all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet.
2. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these condition s shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant, and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are given in Plates SG-2 and SG-3.).
3. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.
4. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies.
5. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant.
VII. GRADING OBSERVATION
A. General
All cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Consultant when such areas are ready.
B. Compaction Testing
Observation of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotechnical Consultant during the progress of grading. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultants discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations may be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be susceptible to inadequate compaction.
C. Frequency of Compaction Testing
In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height or every 1000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
VIII. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
A. Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls.
B. Upon completion of grading and termination of observations by the Geotechnical Consultant, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for foo tings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Consultant.
C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property.
S:\!BOILERS-WORK\REPORT INSERTS\STANDARD GRADING SPECS
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
DEPTH AND BEDDING MAY
VARY WITH PIPE AND LOAD
CHARACTERISTICS.
(3' TYPICAL)
PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
c;~;,~ENTNAT1~~so1L: •
•. ORBEDROCKMATERIALS
• AS DETERMINED BY THE •
• GEOTECHN/CAL •
• • • CONSUL TANT •
• ALTERNATE SUBDRAIN SYSTEM -
• · MINIMUM OF 9 CUBIC FEET PER
< LINEAL FOOT OF CLASS 2 FILTER
.. MATERIAL. SEE PLATE SG-3 FOR
. CLASS 2 FILTER MATERIAL
·SPECIFICATIONS. CLASS 2
MATERIAL OOES NOT NEED TO BE
ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC.
MINIMUM 6-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCHEDULE 40, OR ABS SDR-35 WITH A MINIMUM OF EIGHT 1/4-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATIONS PER LINEAL FOOT IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. PIPE TO BE LAID WITH PERFORATIONS FACING DOWN.
NQJES:
1. FOR CONTINUOUS RUNS IN EXCESS OF 500 FEET USE 8-INCH DIAMETER PIPE.
2. FINAL 20 FEET OF PIPE AT OUTLET SHALL BE NON-PERFORATED AND BACKFILLED WITH FINE-GRAINED MATERIAL.
·PETRA CANYON SUBDRA1N DETAtl PLATESG-1
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies EXTEND 12" BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF
ROUGH GRADING CONSTRUCTION. PROVIDE
GRATES TO PREVENT RODENT NESTING.
PROPOSED GRADE
OVEREXCAVATE PAD
AS RECOMMENDED BY
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANT
OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAX. INTERVALS.\
,__..._ _________________ .,__,.
",' , ,,·. - .. ,·,, •' "• ',·,,,•· ,' '
2' Mir{ t<EY bEPTH ir-fr6 d6~PETEN'r
BEDROCK OR COMPETENT SOIL
MATERIALS AS DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL TANT
N.QIES:
.,..,.,.........,.,..
1; 30' MAXIMUM VERTICAL SPACING BETWEEN SUBDRAIN SYSTEMS. i,. ,',.,'. ,·,, .,,• ·.·• ,
••••• •• .. TYPl~A~- ~~NCHl~(i ·- -•
2. t00' MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPES. (See Below)
3. MINIMUM GRADIENT OF 2% FOR ALL PERFORATED AND NON-PERFORATED PIPE.
SECTION A-A (PERFORATED PIPE PROFILE)
---------100' max.-------- 1--< ---50'-- -----I•-< ---50'------ \
OUTLET PIPE (TYPICAL)
PETRA
\I
-~
PERFORATED PIPE (lYPICAL)
BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION
FILL DETAIL
:::D g<
\
OUTLET PIPE (TYPICAL)
PLATESG.;2
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies . . ... • •.•.. • . • • APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL (OPEN- ', : . •. . ., •, , : GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER
, )_._· ._·_,_ ; ___ ·_._·_ -:_._:_;. /· ~ FABRIC OR CLASS 2 FILTER MATERIAL). ; !, ·• ' : f.'/,,, .:· -.:·.:·.:·.:·.:·.: 5 CUBIC FEET OF CLASS 2 FILTER • ~}'' .:· .. \··.::.:·.:·.:·. MATERIAL WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC
SLOPE FACE
f!:~========.::!i=:::::::=::::::===:;::::::::=:::::;;;;;;;;;~ 12" min.
1 , [& ......... • ............. , , ...... · ... • .. .. .. MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT, AND ' ··.:·.;-;·.:· .. '.:·.:· .... ,\ ... :-.:-.:· .. '.:·.:·, ··:·.:·;·.. SHOULD BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF ·. . ::··/·.:·-::<-::•·::-.::-·::-.::i:•\·\·•::·/•:::\ .. 12 INCHES ·: ;A-INbH NO~-PEJ·;6il+~·b::·~i;{:/::-:· •• '• 4-INCH PERFORATED PIPE WITH MINIMUM 2% GRADE TO OUTLET. PERFORATIONS DOWN. MINIMUM
2% GRADE TO OUTLET PIPE.
;~~~;*J•s~fil__APPROVED ON-SITE MATERIAL PER SOILS ENGINEER ~~{~fl COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 90% MAXIMUM DENSITY.
f"<,"""'"5j . 4-INCH NON-PERFORATED PIPE
. ,:
,::;
''1,.
SECTION B-B (OUTLET PIPE)
PIPE SPECIFICATIONS:
1. 4-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR ABS SDR-35.
2. FOR PERFORATED PIPE, MINIMUM 8 PERFORATIONS PER FOOT ON BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE.
FILTER MATERIAL/FABRIC SPECIFICATIONS:
OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC.
(MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT)
OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL
SIEVE SIZE
11/2-JNCH
1-INCH
3/4-INCH
3/8-INCH
No. 200
PERCENT PASSING
88-100
5-40
0-17
0-7
0-3
ALTERNATE:
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE FIL TEA MATERIAL PER CAL TRANS
STANDARD SPECIFICATION 68-1.025.
CLASS 2 FILTER MATERIAL
SIEY'.E SIZE PERCENT PASSING
1-INCH 100
3/4-INCH 90-100
3/8-INCH 40-100
No.4 25-40
No.8 18 - 33
No. -30 5- 15
No. -50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
PETRA BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION
FILL SUBDRAIN PLATESG-3
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 10'
l
FINISHED GRADE
CLEAR AREA FOR FOUNDATIONS,
UTILITIES AND SWIMMING POOLS
SLOPE FACE
STREET
WINDROW COMPACTED FILL .. --::~\\\),......-
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (END VIEW)
GRANULAR SOIL JETTED OR FLOODED
TO FILL VOIDS
. ,- '' '_,
5' OR MIN. OF 2' BELOW DEPTH
OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER
K----------15'MIN.----------+i
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (PROFILE VIEW)
N.QIE: OVERSIZE ROCK IS DEFINED AS CLASTS HAVING A MAXIMUM DIMENSION OF 12" OR LARGER PETRA TYPICAL ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL PLATESG-4
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
REMOVE
MATERIAL
i:'f[L
•
I<... · 15' MINIMUM_.i _____ .,..
.• • . KEYWIDTH
2' MIN. KEY DEPTH INTO COMP~EN·T.
• BEDROCK OR SOIL MATERIALS AS .
DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL .•
CONSULT ANT •
~:
Ai TYP;CAL ' ··••
-~~.<l-··
•.•••• .. ·c6tviPEreJT BEDROCK OR so1L ,,.{4.fERIALS •• • . AS DETERMINED BY THE ...
•.•••• .. GEOTECHNICALCONSULTANT ..
. . .
iri H◊~ifo~ALW1DtH •
ACE TO BENCH / BACKCUT
1. WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS, BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY; HOWEVER, FILL IS NOTTO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL.
2. SOILS ENGINEER TO DETERMINE IF SUBDRAIN IS REQUIRED.
PETRA FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE PLATE SG-5
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
PROPOSED GRADE --- ---
,, ·. ::.;,~:
CUT I FILL CONTACT
SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
SHOWN ON AS-BUILT
REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
NATURAL GROUND
SURFACE
PETRA
,·
:coMPETENT BEDROCKOR SOIL MATERiALB ..
AS DETERMINED BY THE
_·.·• GEOTECHN/CAL CONSUL TANT•-
. ' .·.,, '• , .· .. ,·
MAINTAIN 15' MIN. HORIZONTAL WIDTH
• •. FROM SLOPE FACE TO BENCH/ BACKCUT
TION OF SUBDRAIN TO BE DETERMINED
EOTECHNICAL CONSUL TANT.
ED, SEE PLATES SG-2 AND SG-3
ETAILS.
. ·"0THE cut PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED . • •.. • •• .. ••. . .AND EVALUATED BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST PRIOR· •• ··<TO CONSTRUCTING THE FILL PORTION OF THE SLOPE. •
FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE PLATE SG-6
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
ORIGINAL GROUND
SURFACE
C.UTLOT
UNSUITABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT PAD
--r
I
I
------ -- ----- --..
------- ----
. . .
ci:JMPETeiT BEDRdcK dR s6iL M;iE~1Ais • • •
-•• -· . · AS DETERMINED BY THE · •
• •• • •. ·. GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL TANT·· .. ••
CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT
----- ------ -----r
ORIGINAL GROUND
SURFACE
MAXIMUM FILL THICKNESS (F) DEPTH OF OVEREXCAVATJON (D)
FOOTING DEPTH TO 3 FEET . . . . . . . . . EQUAL DEPTH
3 TO 6 FEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEET GREATER THAN 6 FEET.. . . . . . . . . . . . 1/2 THE THICKNESS OF DEEPEST FILL PLACED WITHIN THE "FILL" PORTION (F) TO 15 FEET MAXIMUM
PETRA CUT LOTS AND CUT-FILL
TRANSITION LOTS PLATE SG-7
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies PROPOSED 2:1 FILL SLOPE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
~ ···~ .. ~·, ~--·,.••~·-~-~--··· ~,~~-~ .
. / • TYPICAL BENCHING INTO .
> -COMPETENT BEDROCK OR • .· . , . , , . , . , .
_SOIL MATERIALS AS ,. , .:15' MINIMUM KEY
,• • DETERMINED BY THE . - . EMBEDDED A MINIMUM OF 2'
• GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL TANT ·, ' . INTO COMPETENT BEDROCK . "-OR SOIL MATERIALS AS
DETERMINED BY THE
.. \GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
D = RECOMMENDED DEPTH OF REMOVAL
PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
PETRA TYPICAL REMOVALS BEYOND TOE
OF PROPOSED FILL SLOPE PLATE SG-8
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
PROPOSED CUT LOT
NOTE:
/ EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
/ PROPOSED DAYLIGHT CUT
RECONSTRUCT AT 2:1
OR FLATTER
1. "D" SHALL BE 10 FEET MINIMUM OR AS DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER. .PETRA SHEAR KEY ON DAYLIGHT CUT LOTS PLATE SG-9
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies 5261 West Imperial Highway
Los Angeles, California 90045
Telephone: 310-854-6300
Toll-free: 888-705-6300
Fax: 310-854-0199
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Soil
Investigation Report
EFI Global Project No.: 045.02270
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Southeast Corner of Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue Riverside, California 92503
Date of Issuance: December 19, 2019
Prepared For:
Murow Development Consultants
1151 Duryea Avenue
Irvine, California 92614
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.1 Significant Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2 Limitations and Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 Reliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 User Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1 Current and Historical Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 Legal Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Physical Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE/INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1 Site Reconnaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.1 Exterior Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.2 Interior Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.3 Reconnaissance Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 Adjoining and Immediately Surrounding Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3 Surrounding Area Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.1 Surrounding Property Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.2 Surrounding Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.1 Property Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.2 Key Site Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.3 Property Occupants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.4 Past Owners, Operators and Occupants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.5 Prospective Purchaser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.6 Neighboring Property Owners/Tenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5 User Provided Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5.1 Lien Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5.2 Specialized Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5.3 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5.4 Property Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5.5 Purpose of Performing Phase I ESA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 1 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
3.6 User Provided Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.0 HISTORICAL LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1 Aerial Photography Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2 Building Department Records Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3 City Directory Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4 Sanborn Map Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5 Historical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5.1 Subject Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.6 Historical Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.0 REGULATORY DATABASE REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1 Subject Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2 Adjoining and Immediately Surrounding Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3 Surrounding Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4 Orphan Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.0 AGENCY FILE REVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.1 State Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2 City/County Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.3 Agency File Review Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.0 LIMITED SOIL INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1 Field Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1.1 Soil Sampling Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1.2 Borehole Abandonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2 Laboratory Analytical Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2.1 Composite Soil Sample Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2.2 Chemical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2.3 Soil Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.3 Regulatory Screening Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.4 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.0 NON-SCOPE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.1 Asbestos Containing Building Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.2 Lead-Based Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.3 Radon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.4 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.5 Mold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 2 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
8.6 Methane Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.0 FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.1 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.0 SIGNATURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 3 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
TABLE OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: ILLUSTRATIONS
APPENDIX II: PHOTOS
APPENDIX III: RADIUS MAP REPORT
APPENDIX IV: LIMITED SOIL INVESTIGATION DOCUMENTATION
APPENDIX V: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 4 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EFI Global, Inc. has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) and Limited Soil Investigation for Murow Development Consultants (Client) for a agricultural property located at the southeast corner of Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue, in Riverside County, and the City of Riverside, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 136-220-016. The research conducted for this study and the report prepared are in conformance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) standard and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-13 scope of work.
SITE DESCRIPTION
According to our research and information provided by the Client, the subject property is located at the southeast corner of Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue, Riverside, California, and is described by the APN 136-220-016. According to the Riverside County Assessor’s Office, no physical address is currently associated with the subject property. The subject property is approximately 8.81 acres in size and is currently utilized as an orchard. According to the Client, the subject property is identified as by Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764, and the proposed future use will include a residential development. The surrounding area consists of residential structures and agricultural land.
Groundwater is estimated to be approximately 35 feet below ground surface in the area of the site and is assumed to flow towards the west.
• The subject property is mostly covered with orange trees and grasses; therefore, limiting the observation of all surface areas of the property. No other significant limitations were encountered during our reconnaissance of the subject property. • No significant hazardous material storage or recognized environmental conditions were observed at the site. Those interviewed, as persons familiar with the site were not aware of any negative environmental conditions associated with the property.
HISTORICAL LAND USE
According to EFI Global, Inc.’s interpretation of the historical research data, the subject property has been utilized for agricultural purposes since at least 1931. By at least 2009, a concrete-paved walk way was constructed and a trailer was stationed on the eastern portion. The subject property has remained in this configuration through the present. Additionally, since the subject property has never been developed with any structures, no physical address has been identified by EFI Global, Inc. during the course of this investigation. A physical address is often utilized in the historical research process in order to identify any address-specific information, such as regulatory and enforcement actions.
However, based on the reliability of other data sources, the lack of a physical address is not expected to significantly alter the findings of this investigation. • The subject property has been utilized for agricultural purposes since at least 1931 through the present. There is a potential that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, were and are continued to be used on site. Agricultural chemicals tend to accumulate in the near surface soils. The types of pesticides and herbicides used prior to the present time are not known. As the subject property has never been developed, the potential for residual agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers cannot be Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 5 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies ruled out. Based on the forgoing and the proposed future residential development of the subject property, the historic and current agricultural use is considered to be a potential environmental concern for the subject property. Therefore, a limited soil investigation was performed as part of this assessment. The results of the investigation are provided in the Limited Soil Investigation Section below. • The earliest historical resource obtained during this investigation was an aerial photograph from 1931, which indicated development of the subject property for agricultural use. The lack of historical data sources for the subject property dating back to first developed uses represents historical data source failure. However, it is assumed that prior to 1931, the subject property would have been developed for agricultural use, if not undeveloped. Based on this notion, this limitation is not expected to significantly alter the findings of this investigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SEARCH
•
TTM 36713 (Intersection of La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue)- The subject property is listed on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS), and California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) databases. According to the NPDES and CIWQS listings, the subject property was permitted for the collection of storm water on site in 2017. No other information was provided. According to the CERS listing, the subject property was listed as having a compliance evaluation inspection completed in 2018; however, no construction occurred on site at that time. No further information was provided. Local regulatory research was conducted with the appropriate regulatory agencies with regard to the aforementioned listings. The results of those inquiries are summarized below. • There are no properties within 100-feet of the subject property where a release is considered likely or a known release has occurred.
• In our opinion, none of the other sites listed on the regulatory database report pose a significant threat to the subject property as there is no indication of a release at the respective sites, a release has occurred but groundwater has not been impacted, a release has occurred but the case is closed, or the sites are located cross or down gradient of the subject property and in excess of 1/10 mile from the subject property.
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Riverside City Clerk's Office (RCCO), and Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) were contacted regarding permits, air emissions, site investigation files, hazardous materials, underground storage tank, and industrial waste discharge records for the subject property. Additionally, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker and California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Storm Water Multiple Applications and Report Tracking System (SMARTS), DTSC's Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) and EnviroStor, SCAQMD's Facility Information Detail (FIND), and Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT) online databases were reviewed for information pertaining to the subject property.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 6 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies • According to responses to our requests from the SARWQCB, DTSC, SCAQMD, RCCO, and RCDEH, there are no files for the subject property APN 136-220-016. Furthermore, a review of the GeoTracker, EnviroStor, HWTS, FIND, and RCIT online databases found no files for the subject property.
•
According to the review of the CIWQS SMARTS database, the current property owner, La Sierra Victoria Development LLC, was issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) by the CIWQS for the general permit to discharge storm water since October 2018, for the future residential construction of the subject property. The subject property was listed under TTM 36713. The permit remained active until October 2019. The CIWQS records included Annual Reports from 2016 to 2019. No violations were identified for the subject property. Based on the nature of the listing, lack of documented discharges, and good housekeeping practices observed during the site reconnaissance, this listing is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern for the subject property at this time. • The Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Online Mapping System was reviewed for information pertaining to oil and gas exploration on or nearby the subject property. No oil wells were identified within 500 feet of the subject property. • No significant data gaps were encountered during our agency file reviews. • The User was not aware of any environmental cleanup liens or activity and use limitations encumbering the subject property. The User provided EFI Global, Inc. with a Preliminary Report prepared by Pacific Coast Title Company, dated October 15, 2019, for the subject property which was reviewed by EFI Global, Inc. No environmental cleanup liens or activity and use limitations encumbering the subject property were identified in our review.
Furthermore, based on our review the DTSC EnviroStor Database, no environmental liens enforced by the DTSC were identified.
LIMITED SOIL INVESTIGATION
EFI Global conducted a Limited Soil Investigation to further evaluate site soils for the presence (or absence) of potential chemicals of concern associated with the onsite agricultural use. . The scope of work consisted of collecting soil samples at 18 locations throughout the subject property to evaluate near-surface soils for potential chemicals of concern that include organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and arsenic. All environmental sampling for this assessment was performed on December 5, 2019.
Analytical results from the shallow soil samples collected during this investigation detected low concentrations of OCPs (alpha-Chlordane, 4,4´-DDD, 4,4´-DDE, 4,4´-DDT, and Dieldrin) and arsenic in soil beneath the subject property. The detected concentrations were compared to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Modified Soil Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs) for a residential land use scenario. All detected concentrations of OCPs were below their respective residential screening levels, while the detected arsenic concentrations appear to represent background or a trace concentration inherent to soil in the site vicinity. Therefore, it is EFI Global’s opinion that the detected concentrations of OCPs and arsenic represent ade minimis conditionand no additional environmental assessment is warranted at this time.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 7 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
• As there are no structures on the subject property, the potential for asbestos-containing building materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint are considered to be low. • According to research the potential for radon at this property is low. • As there are no structures on the subject property, a mold inspection was not conducted as part of this assessment.
• Based on our research, the property is not known to be located in proximity (within 1,000 feet) to any active or abandoned oil wells or landfills. Therefore, the potential for methane risk at the subject property is considered low.
CONCLUSIONS
EFI Global, Inc. has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Soil Investigation in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice 1527-13, for a vacant property located at the southeast corner of Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue, Riverside, California, the subject property. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in the individual sections of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions or de minimis conditions in connection with the subject property, except for the following:
RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (REC)
In our opinion, no RECs were identified during the course of this assessment.
HISTORICAL RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (HREC)
In our opinion, no HRECs were identified during the course of this assessment.
CONTROLLED RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (CREC)
In our opinion, no CRECs were identified during the course of this assessment.
DE MINIMIS CONDITIONS
The low levels of OCPs and arsenic detected in near-surface soils as part of our Limited Soil Investigation are considered to be ade minimis condition for the subject property. However, EFI Global notes that based on the subject property's historical agricultural use, it is possible that buried/concealed/hidden agricultural by-products, both above and below ground may have existed or exists on the subject property. Any buried trash/debris or other waste encountered during future subject property development should be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal. If stained or suspicious soil is encountered during future grading operations, the material should be evaluated and if deemed necessary, characterized for property disposal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, no additional investigation is recommended at this time.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 8 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
1.0 INTRODUCTION
EFI Global, Inc. has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) and Limited Soil Investigation for the property located at the southeast corner of Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue, in Riverside County, and the City of Riverside, California (Subject Property). This report has been prepared for the sole use of Murow Development Consultants (Client).
The research conducted for this study and the report prepared are in general conformance with the EPA “All Appropriate Inquiries” standard and the ASTM 1527-13 “Standard Practices for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process”. The primary purpose for performing a Phase I ESA is to “…permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations (commonly known as landowner liability protections) on Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability.” (ASTM, 2013) An environmental site assessment meeting or exceeding this practice and completed less than 180 days prior to the date of acquisition is presumed to be valid under this standard. In order to maintain landowner liability protections, the User also has a “continuing obligation to not interfere with activity and use limitations associated with the property,” must take “reasonable steps to prevent releases” and must “comply with legal release reporting obligations.” (ASTM, 2013) Further, it is the goal of this study to identify business risks related to the property associated with environmental conditions. This investigation is not an environmental compliance audit and is not designed to determine if the operations of an existing facility are in compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
The goal of this process is to identify any (1) recognized environmental conditions (RECs), (2) historic recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), (3) controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs), and/or (4)de minimis conditions associated with the subject property. •
A recognized environmental conditionis defined as “…the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the
environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) underconditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.” This definition doesnot include de minimis conditions defined as “a condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies” (ASTM, 2013).
• A historical recognized environmental conditionis defined as “a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been
addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted usecriteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any requiredcontrols (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).” (ASTM, 2013). The HREC designation requires the comparison of residual contamination concentrations, if any, to current regulatory standards.
• A controlled recognized environmental condition is defined as “a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been
addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced bythe issuance of a no further action letter or Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 9 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in placesubject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls)” (ASTM, 2013). • A de minimis condition is defined as "a condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.
Conditions determined to bede minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions nor controlled recognized environmental conditions" (ASTM, 2013).
In order to identify environmental conditions at the site, the Phase I ESA includes a site inspection, interviews with parties familiar with the property, historical research into the past uses of the property, and an environmental records search with regard to the subject property, adjoining and immediately surrounding properties, and the surrounding area. In addition, EFI Global, Inc. provides an opinion regarding the potential for asbestos containing materials, lead-based paints, mold, radon, oil and gas exploration, and methane as they relate to the subject property. Reviewing those documents that are publicly available, reasonably ascertainable, and practically reviewable controls the completeness of this assessment. The inability to review documents which do not exist or are not publicly available, reasonably ascertainable, or practically reviewable may result in a data gap.
1.1 Significant Assumptions
While this report provides an overview of potential environmental concerns, both past and present, the environmental assessment is limited by the availability of information at the time of the assessment. It is possible that unreported disposal of waste or illegal activities impairing the environmental status of the property may have occurred which could not be identified. The conclusions and recommendations regarding environmental conditions that are presented in this report are based on a scope of work authorized by the Client. Note, however, that virtually no scope of work, no matter how exhaustive, can identify all contaminants or all conditions above and below ground.
1.2 Limitations and Exceptions
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted environmental methodologies referred to in ASTM 1527-2013, and contains all of the limitations inherent in these methodologies.
No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our contract and included in this report. The conclusions of this report are based in part, on the information provided by others. The possibility remains that unexpected environmental conditions may be encountered at the site in locations not specifically investigated. The services performed and outlined in this report were based, in part, upon visual observations of the site and attendant structures. Our opinion cannot be extended to portions of the site that were unavailable for direct observation, reasonably beyond the control of EFI Global, Inc. The objective of this report was to assess environmental conditions at the site, within the context of our contract and existing environmental regulations within the applicable jurisdiction. Evaluating compliance of past or future owners with applicable local, provincial, and federal government laws and regulations was not included in our contract for services. Our observations relating to the condition of environmental media at the site are described in this report. It should be noted that compounds or materials other than those described could be present in the site environment.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 10 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
1.3 Reliance
This report has been prepared for the sole use of Murow Development Consultants. The contents should not be relied upon by any other parties without the express written consent of Murow Development Consultants and EFI Global, Inc.
1.4 User Responsibilities
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) and ASTM E 1527-13 Phase I Standards require that the User conduct independent research and consider certain information before purchasing a property:
•
Obtain a recent (less than 180 days old) title report prepared for the subject property. The report should be reviewed to obtain information regarding environmental clean-up liens or activity and use
limitations (AULs) with regard to the subject property. If environmental cleanup liens or AULsencumbering the subject property or in connection with the subject property are identified, the Usershould provide that information to the Environmental Professional (EFI Global, Inc.). If theUser has actual knowledge of environmental cleanup liens or AULs encumbering the subject propertyor in connection with the subject property, the User should provide that information to the Environmental Professional (EFI Global, Inc.). • The User should provide the Environmental Professional (EFI Global, Inc.) with any specialized knowledge the User has with regard to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property.
• If the User is aware of any commonly known information in the community about the subject property with respect to recognized environmental conditions, the User should provide the information to the Environmental Professional (EFI Global, Inc.). • If this Phase I ESA was prepared as due diligence for a property transaction, it is the responsibility of the User to consider the relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the property. Ifthe purchase price is significantly lower than the fair market value, the User should identify thealternate reason for the low purchase price if the lower purchase price is not related to the propertybeing affected by hazardous substances or petroleum products.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 11 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
EFI Global, Inc. has performed a Phase I and Limited Soil Investigation for a agricultural property located at the southeast corner of Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue, in Riverside County, and the City of Riverside, California. The subject property is approximately 8.81 acres in size and is currently utilized as an orchard. According to the Client, the subject property is identified as by Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764, and the proposed future use will include a residential development.
The subject property is located within the jurisdiction of the Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, and the City of Riverside for natural gas, electrical, potable water, and sewer services, respectively. However, as of the date of completion of this report, no structures were located on the subject property.
2.1 Current and Historical Addresses
According to our research and information provided by the Client and the County of Riverside, no physical address has been assigned to the subject property.
2.2 Legal Description
According to the Riverside County Assessor’s Office, the subject property is located in the City of Riverside, and is described by the Assessor’s Parcel Number: 136-220-016.
2.3 Physical Setting
The elevation of the subject property is approximately 825 feet above sea level (United States Geological Survey Riverside West, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle). Based on our review of the GeoCheck Section of the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Radius report, the subject property is not situated within a 100-year Federal Environmental Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone. No wetlands were identified at the property or adjoining/immediately surrounding properties. Based on our review of groundwater data presented in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker website, ground
water was detected at a leaking underground storage
tank site (2292 La Sierra Avenue)approximately 1,650 feet southwestof the subject property at approximately 35 feet below ground surface. However, perched and semi-perched aquifers may be present beneath the site. Based on regional groundwater data, the regional groundwater flow direction is estimated to be towards the west; however, local groundwater flow direction may vary.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 12 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
3.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE/INTERVIEWS
3.1 Site Reconnaissance
On December 4, 2019, Mr. Raul Gaina of EFI Global, Inc. conducted a site reconnaissance of the subject property. The site inspection was conducted to attempt to identify current site use(s), current hazardous materials storage, and evidence of past site uses and hazardous material storage and to identify evidence of other recognized environmental conditions. The following table summarizes our Site Reconnaissance observations:
Yes No Observed Feature(s)
Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Containers Underground and/or Aboveground Storage Tanks
Drains/Sumps/Clarifiers/Sewer Interceptors/Septic Systems Stained or Corroded Surfaces/Stained Soil or Stressed Vegetation Pits/Ponds/Lagoons/Wetlands
Electrical Equipment with the Potential to contain Fluids Production or Monitoring Wells
Evidence of Solid Waste Disposal/Dumping/Fill Areas
3.1.1 Exterior Observations
Given the site is used as an orchard, the exterior portions of the site consist of dense vegetation. The land is mostly flat throughout the subject property. The southeastern portion of the subject property included remnants of a park and playground area. The eastern portion of the site included a storage trailer and a wooden fence. Orange trees were planted throughout the other portions of the subject property. Additionally, one windmill is located in the central portion of the orchard, which appeared to not be in operation during the time of our site reconnaissance. One pad-mounted electrical transformer was observed on the southern portion and three pole-mounted electrical transformers on a singular pole were observed on the central portion of the subject property. No stains or spills were observed on the surface area beneath the transformers. Based on the good condition of the equipment, the transformers are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern for the subject property.
No recognized environmental conditions were observed in the exterior portions of the subject property.
3.1.2 Interior Observations
As there are no structures on the subject property, no interior observations were made.
3.1.3 Reconnaissance Limitations
The subject property is mostly covered with orange trees and grasses; therefore, limiting the observation of all surface areas of the property. No other significant limitations were encountered during our reconnaissance of the subject property.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 13 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
3.2 Adjoining and Immediately Surrounding Properties
The adjoining and immediately surrounding properties (within 100-feet of the subject property boundary) were visually and physically observed from public right-of ways and the subject property in an attempt to identify recognized environmental conditions. Our observations are summarized in the following table:
Location Address(es) Uses/Observations
Northeast 2615-2689 (odd) Millsweet Place Residential
Southeast 11025-11095 (odd) Kayjay Street Residential
Southwest 2531, 2550, and 2551 Wildcat Lane Residential West 2765 and 2779 Wildcat Lane Residential
Northwest 10968-10998 (even) Stonehenge Place Residential • No recognized environmental conditions were readily observable at the adjoining/ immediately surrounding properties.
3.3 Surrounding Area Observations
3.3.1 Surrounding Property Uses
The surrounding area is developed with residential structures and agricultural land.
3.3.2 Surrounding Geography
The surrounding area is mostly flat with a slight topographic slope to the west. No nearby hills or bedrock outcroppings were observed in the area of the site. No lakes, ponds, rivers or streams were observed in the surrounding area.
3.4 Interviews
3.4.1 Property Owner
During the course of the site reconnaissance of the site conducted on December 5, 2019, the Property Owner was unavailable for an interview.
3.4.2 Key Site Manager
During the course of the site reconnaissance of the site conducted on December 5, 2019, the Key Site Manager was unavailable for an interview.
3.4.3 Property Occupants
No occupants were available for interview during the completion of this report.
3.4.4 Past Owners, Operators and Occupants
Past owners, operators and occupants were not able to be identified for an interview for this report.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 14 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
3.4.5 Prospective Purchaser
Mr. Bret Ilich of Murow Development Consultants, the representative of the prospective purchaser, was interviewed in preparation for the site reconnaissance conducted on December 5, 2019. Mr. Ilich was unaware of any environmental conditions associated with the property.
According to Mr. Ilich, the planned future use of the subject property will be for residential purposes.
3.4.6 Neighboring Property Owners/Tenants
Per ASTM, an attempt to interview neighboring property owners/tenants should be conducted when the subject property is vacant and unsecured land.
No owners/tenants of adjoining properties were available for interview during the site reconnaissance as the properties are residential.
3.5 User Provided Information
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) and ASTM 1527-13 Phase I Standards require that the Report User conduct independent research and consider certain information before purchasing a property. EFI Global, Inc. recommends that the User documents completion of the following items:
3.5.1 Lien Search
The User is required to obtain a recent (less than 180 days old) title report prepared for the subject property. The report should be reviewed to obtain information regarding environmental clean-up liens or activity and use limitations with regard to the subject property. If environmental cleanup liens or activity and use limitations encumbering the subject property or in connection with the subject property are identified, the User should provide that information to the Environmental Professional (EFI Global, Inc.). If the User has actual knowledge of environmental cleanup liens or activity and use limitations encumbering the subject property or in connection with the subject property, the User should provide that information to the Environmental Professional (EFI Global, Inc.).
• The User was not aware of any environmental cleanup liens or activity and use limitations encumbering the subject property. The User provided EFI Global, Inc. with a Preliminary Report prepared by Pacific Coast Title Company, dated October 15, 2019, for the subject property which was reviewed by EFI Global, Inc. No environmental cleanup liens or activity and use limitations encumbering the subject property were identified in our review. Furthermore, based on our review the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor Database, no environmental liens enforced by the DTSC were identified.
3.5.2 Specialized Knowledge
The User should provide the Environmental Professional (EFI Global, Inc.) with any specialized knowledge the User has with regard to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property.
• The User has no specialized knowledge with respect to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 15 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
3.5.3 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable
Information
If the User is aware of any commonly known information in the community about the subject property with respect to recognized environmental conditions, the User should provide the information to the Environmental Professional (EFI Global, Inc.). • The User is not aware of any commonly known information in the community about the subject property with respect to recognized environmental conditions.
3.5.4 Property Valuation
If this Phase I ESA was prepared as due diligence for a property transaction, it is the responsibility of the User to consider the relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the property. If the purchase price is significantly lower than the fair market value, the User should identify the alternate reason for the low purchase price if the lower purchase price is not related to the property being affected by hazardous substances or petroleum products. • At the issuance of this report, a completed environmental questionnaire has not been returned by the prospective purchaser to determine if the purchase price reflects the fair market value.
3.5.5 Purpose of Performing Phase I ESA
According to the User, the User is a prospective purchaser of the subject property and the Phase I is being performed to qualify for landowner liability protections under CERCLA as well as identify business risks related to the property associated with environmental conditions.
3.6 User Provided Documents
Preliminary Report - Vacant Land APN: 136-220-016, Riverside, California 92503 - performed by Pacific Coast Title Company (Order No. 10130083) - dated October 15, 2019- The User provided EFI Global, Inc. with this Preliminary Report for the subject property. Please refer to 3.5.1 for more information.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 16 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
4.0 HISTORICAL LAND USE
A review of historical data derived from standard historical resources is provided in this section.
The objective of consulting historical sources is to develop a history of the previous uses of the property and surrounding area, in order to help identify the likelihood of past uses having led to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. During our historical review, acute attention is paid to the subject property. Data relating to the adjoining and immediately surrounding properties (within 100-feet of the subject property boundary) and the surrounding area is reviewed to the extent that it is revealed in the course of researching the property itself.
4.1 Aerial Photography Review
Aerial Photography of many portions of the United States dates back to the 1920’s. Items searched for in each photograph included, but were not limited to: evidence of tanks, gas stations, industrial site usage, water drainage pathways, areas which show evidence of drums or excessive debris, discolored or stained soils, areas of distressed vegetation, et cetera.
Aerial Photograph Coverage was available from EDR for the years: 1931, 1938, 1948, 1953, 1961, 1967, 1975, 1985, 1990, 1994, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2016. A summary of our observations is presented in the following table.
Year Subject Property
Notable
Adjoining
Property
Observations
Notable
Observations
of the
Surrounding
Area
1931, 1938,
1948, 1953,
1961, 1967,
and 1975
The subject property appears to be
developed for agricultural purposes.
Northeast:
Agricultural land
Southeast:
Agricultural land
(across unpaved
road)
Southwest:
Agricultural land
(across La Sierra
Avenue)
West: Agricultural
land (across La
Sierra Avenue
and Victoria
Avenue)
Northwest:
Agricultural land
(across Victoria
Avenue)
The
surrounding
area appears to
be developed
with agricultural
land.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 17 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Year Subject Property
Notable
Adjoining
Property
Observations
Notable
Observations
of the
Surrounding
Area
1985, 1990,
and 1994
The subject property appears to be
developed for agricultural purposes.
Northeast:
Residential
(across Millsweet
Place)
Southeast:
Residential
(across unpaved
road)
Southwest:
Residential
(across La Sierra
Avenue)
West: Residential
(across La Sierra
Avenue and
Victoria Avenue)
Northwest:
Residential(across
Victoria Avenue)
The
surrounding
area appears to
be developed
with residential
structures and
agricultural
land.
2006, 2009,
2012, and
2016
The subject property appears to be
developed for agricultural purposes.
A portion of unpaved vacant land is
visible on the southeastern portion. By
2009, a concrete-paved walk way was
constructed and a trailer was stationed on
the eastern portion.
Northeast:
Residential
(across Millsweet
Place)
Southeast:
Residential
(across unpaved
road)
Southwest:
Residential
(across La Sierra
Avenue)
West: Residential
(across La Sierra
Avenue and
Victoria Avenue)
Northwest:
Residential(across
Victoria Avenue)
The
surrounding
area appears to
be developed
with residential
structures and
agricultural
land.
• Aerial photographs indicate that the subject property was utilized for agricultural land from at least 1931 to 2016. For further discussion on this former use, please refer to Section 4.5.1.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 18 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
4.2 Building Department Records Review
The subject property APN: 136-220-016 was researched at the City of Riverside Building and Safety Division (RBSD). EFI Global also reviewed the Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT) online database for information pertaining to the subject property. Items considered in the course of the building permit review are previous site usage, previous ownership, and the construction or demolition of any structures that may have had a negative environmental impact on the property. •
According to the RBSD there are no building permits available for the subject property.
A review of the RCIT online database indicated that there are no pertinent records available for the subject property. The remaining Historical Land Use data in our opinion is sufficient to accurately ascertain the historical site use.
4.3 City Directory Review
City directories have been published since the 1800’s and provide detailed occupant information for the property and its surrounding area at five-year intervals. The purpose of the City Directory research is to attempt to determine the businesses that historically occupied the subject property.
Historical City Directories provided by EDR and reviewed by EFI Global, Inc. are listed below. • As the subject property has not been assigned a physical address, City Directory information was not available for review. The remaining Historical Land Use data in our opinion is sufficient to accurately ascertain the historical site use. • Listings for adjoining and immediately surrounding properties reviewed during the course of researching the subject property did not reveal any uses of concern.
4.4 Sanborn Map Review
Originally compiled by the Sanborn Map Company of Pelham, New York for fire insurance companies to assess fire risks related to building materials and hazardous materials storage, today Sanborn Maps are an invaluable tool for Environmental Professionals in determining historical site use and the potential for environmental conditions. Sanborn Map Coverage is available from as early as 1867 in some cities. Although Sanborn maps were created for approximately twelve thousand cities and towns in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Sanborn Map Coverage is not available in newer and more rural communities.
• Sanborn Map Coverage was not available for the subject property. The remaining Historical Land Use data in our opinion is sufficient to accurately ascertain the historical site use.
4.5 Historical Summary
4.5.1 Subject Property
According to EFI Global, Inc.’s interpretation of the historical research data, the subject property has been utilized for agricultural purposes since at least 1931. By at least 2009, a concrete-paved walk way was constructed and a trailer was stationed on the eastern portion. The subject property has remained in this configuration through the present. Additionally, since the subject property has never been developed with any structures, no physical address has been identified by EFI Global, Inc. during the course of this investigation. A physical address is often utilized Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 19 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies in the historical research process in order to identify any address-specific information, such as regulatory and enforcement actions. However, based on the reliability of other data sources, the lack of a physical address is not expected to significantly alter the findings of this investigation. • The subject property has been utilized for agricultural purposes since at least 1931 through the present. There is a potential that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, were and are continued to be used on site. Agricultural chemicals tend to accumulate in the near surface soils. The types of pesticides and herbicides used prior to the present time are not known. As the subject property has never been developed, the potential for residual agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers cannot be ruled out. Based on the forgoing and the proposed future residential development of the subject property, the historic and current agricultural use is considered to be a potential environmental concern for the subject property. Therefore, a limited soil investigation was performed as part of this assessment. The results of the investigation are provided in Section 7.0.
4.6 Historical Data Gaps
The earliest historical resource obtained during this investigation was an aerial photograph from 1931 which indicated development of the subject property for agricultural use. The lack of historical data sources for the subject property dating back to first developed uses represents historical data source failure. However, it is assumed that prior to 1931, the subject property would have been developed for agricultural use, if not undeveloped. Based on this notion, this limitation is not expected to significantly alter the findings of this investigation.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 20 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
5.0 REGULATORY DATABASE REPORT
A radial database search was conducted in accordance with the specifications defined in ASTM E 1527-13 which sets the radial search distances for each regulatory database. The radial database search was conducted by EDR on December 2, 2019. A copy of the database report is presented in Appendix II of this report. The following table summarizes required databases reviewed, the approximate search distances, and indicates if the subject site, adjoining/immediately surrounding properties or surrounding sites are listed on the respective database.
Following the table are summaries of the information found in the relevant database listings and our opinion regarding the potential for the subject property to be impacted. Our opinion is based on the information found in the database listings, through other historical and regulatory resources, “Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions” (ASTM E2600-15), and assumed groundwater flow direction. As discussed in Section 2.3, groundwater is estimated to be approximately 35 feet below ground surface in the area of the site and is assumed to flow towards the west.
DATABASE
Search
Distance
(Miles)
Subject
Site
(Yes/No)
Adjacent
Site
(Yes/No)
Total
Listings
(#)
Federal National Priorities List (NPL) 1.0 No No 0
Federal De-listed NPL 1.0 No No 0
Federal CERCLIS 0.5 No No 0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP 0.5 No No 0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS 1.0 No No 0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD 0.5 No No 0
Federal RCRA Generators 0.25 No No 0
Federal Institutional/Engineering Controls 0.5 No No 0
Federal ERNS Property No No 0
State/Tribal Equivalent NPL 1.0 No No 0
State/Tribal Equivalent CERCLIS 1.0 No No 0
State/Tribal Landfill 0.5 No No 0
State/Tribal Underground Storage Tank (UST) 0.25 No No 1 State/Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST/
SLIC)
0.5 No No 3
State/Tribal Institutional/Engineering Controls 0.5 No No 0 State/Tribal Voluntary Clean-up Sites 0.5 No No 0
State/Tribal Brownfield Sites 0.5 No No 0
5.1 Subject Property
TTM 36713 (Intersection of La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue)- The subject property is listed
on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS), and California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) databases. According to the NPDES and CIWQS listings, the subject property was permitted for the collection of storm water on site in 2017. No other information was provided. According to the CERS listing, the subject property was listed as having a compliance evaluation inspection completed in 2018; however, no construction Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 21 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies occurred on site at that time. No further information was provided. Local regulatory research was conducted with the appropriate regulatory agencies with regard to the aforementioned listings. The results of those inquiries are summarized in Section 6.0.
5.2 Adjoining and Immediately Surrounding Properties
No adjoining/immediately surrounding properties (within 100-feet) were listed on any of the regulatory databases researched.
5.3 Surrounding Area
In our opinion, none of the other sites listed on the regulatory database report pose a significant threat to the subject property as there is no indication of a release at the respective sites, a release has occurred but groundwater has not been impacted, a release has occurred but the case is closed, or the sites are located cross or down gradient of the subject property and in excess of 1/10 mile from the subject property.
5.4 Orphan Sites
Orphan sites are unmappable sites which appear in a list form in the Radius Map Report rather than on the standard Radius Map. Four orphan sites were identified in the Radius Map Report prepared for this site. The sites were manually mapped to determine the location of the site relative to the subject property and groundwater gradient. The following conclusions were made:
In our opinion, none of the orphan sites listed pose a significant threat to the subject property as there is no indication of a release at the respective sites, a release has occurred but groundwater has not been impacted, a release has occurred but the case is closed, or the sites are located cross or down gradient of the subject property and in excess of 1/10 mile from the subject property.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 22 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
6.0 AGENCY FILE REVIEWS
6.1 State Agencies
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) were contacted regarding permits, air emissions, and site investigation files for the subject property. Additionally, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker and California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Storm Water Multiple Applications and Report Tracking System (SMARTS), DTSC's Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) and EnviroStor, and SCAQMD's Facility Information Detail (FIND) online databases were reviewed for information pertaining to the subject property. • According to responses to our requests from the SARWQCB, DTSC, and SCAQMD, there are no files for the subject property APN 136-220-016. Furthermore, a review of the GeoTracker, EnviroStor, HWTS, and FIND online databases found no files for the subject property. •
According to the review of the CIWQS SMARTS database, the current property owner, La Sierra Victoria Development LLC, was issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) by the CIWQS for the general permit to discharge storm water since October 2018, for the future residential construction of the subject property. The subject property was listed under TTM 36713. The permit remained active until October 2019. The CIWQS records included Annual Reports from 2016 to 2019. No violations were identified for the subject property. Based on the nature of the listing, lack of documented discharges, and good housekeeping practices observed during the site reconnaissance, this listing is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern for the subject property at this time.
The Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Online Mapping System was reviewed for information pertaining to oil and gas exploration on or nearby the subject property. •
No oil wells were identified within 500 feet of the subject property.
6.2 City/County Agencies
The Riverside City Clerk's Office (RCCO) and Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) were contacted regarding hazardous materials, underground storage tank, and industrial waste discharge records for the subject property. Furthermore, the Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT) online database was reviewed for information relating to potential environmental concerns associated with the subject property.
• According to responses to our requests from the RCCO and RCDEH, there are no files for the subject property APN 136-220-016. Furthermore, a review of the RCIT online database revealed no records for the subject property.
6.3 Agency File Review Limitations
No significant data gaps were encountered during our agency file reviews.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 23 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
7.0 LIMITED SOIL INVESTIGATION
EFI Global conducted a limited soil investigation at the subject property to assess near-surface soils for the presence (or absence) of residual agricultural chemicals associated with the agricultural use onsite. The field activities are summarized below.
7.1 Field Activities
Field activities pertaining to this investigation were completed on December 5, 2019. Details regarding the work performed are presented below.
7.1.1 Soil Sampling Locations
A total of 18 shallow soil borings (identified as B1 through B18) were advanced to a maximum depth of 2 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil borings were advanced to provide reasonable lateral coverage of the entire subject property footprint as depicted in Figure 3. Two discrete soil samples were collected from each location at depth intervals of 0 to 0.5 feet and 1.5 to 2 feet bgs.
7.1.1.1 Soil Sample Collection and Handling Procedures
An approximately 3.25-inch-diameter hand auger was used to advance the borings after a shovel was used to clear the surface of vegetation. Discrete soil samples were collected at designated sampling depths in each boring by retrieving a representative volume of soil from the auger bucket and transferring the soil into a leak-resistant, disposable plastic bag; the contents of the bag were then homogenized by hand. Each homogenized bag sample was then transferred into one 8-ounce pre-cleaned, laboratory-provided, glass jar equipped with Teflon® lids.
Each discrete sample was logged in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and observed for color, moisture content, texture, discoloration, odor and physical evidence of contaminant impact or fill material.
All soil samples were labeled, recorded in a chain-of-custody form, and chilled pending transportation and submittal to Positive Lab Service (Positive) of Los Angeles, California, a State-certified analytical laboratory. Chain-of-custody documentation and protocol were maintained during sample collection through submittal to the analytical laboratory.
7.1.1.2 Encountered Soil Types
Soil types encountered during this investigation were generally classified as silty sand (USCS soil type symbol “SM”); brown and reddish brown; fine- to medium-grained sand; loose; moist.
Groundwater was not encountered during sampling activities.
7.1.2 Borehole Abandonment
Following completion of soil sampling, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings. No investigative derived waste was generated during this investigation.
7.2 Laboratory Analytical Program
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 24 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
7.2.1 Composite Soil Sample Preparation
Following the submittal of all the discrete soil samples to the laboratory, a total of 10 composite samples were prepared by the laboratory using a portion of three discrete samples of like depths. The following bulleted items summarize the composite sample preparation:
• The 0.5-foot samples from borings B1, B2, and B3 were used to prepare composite soil sample B1-S-0.5, B2-S-0.5 and B3-S-0.5;
• The 0.5-foot samples from borings B4, B5, B6, and B7 were used to prepare composite soil sample B4-S-0.5, B5-S-0.5 B6-S-0.5, and B7-S-0.5;
• The 0.5-foot samples from borings B8, B9, B10, and B11 were used to prepare composite soil sample B8-S-0.5, B9-S-0.5, B10-S-0.5, and B11-S-0.5; • The 0.5-foot samples from borings B12, B13, and B14 were used to prepare composite soil sample B12-S-0.5, B13-S-0.5, and B14-S-0.5;
• The 0.5-foot samples from borings B15, B16, B17, and B18 were used to prepare composite soil sample B15-S-0.5, B16-S-0.5, B17-S-0.5, and B18-S-0.5;
7.2.2 Chemical Analysis
The following is a summary of the chemical analysis performed on the soil samples collected as part of this investigation. The laboratory reports are included in the Limited Soil Investigation Documentation appendix.
• A total of five discrete soil samples collected at 0.5-feet bgs were analyzed for arsenic by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 6010B. The following samples were analyzed: B1-S-0.5, B5-S-0.5, B10-S-0.5, B14-S-0.5, and B16-S-0.5. The remaining 0.5-foot and all 2-foot samples were archived by the laboratory pending future analysis.
• All five composite soil samples were analyzed for Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) by EPA Method 8081A.
7.2.3 Soil Analytical Results
Table 1 and 2, attached to this report, presents a summary of the soil analytical results. The following bulleted items summarize OCPs detections:
• alpha-Chlordane was detected in all the composite soil samples analyzed and at concentrations ranging from 18.8 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) (composite sample B15-S-0.5, B16-S-0.5, B17-S-0.5, B18-S-0.5) to 331 µg/kg (composite sample B1-S-0.5, B2-S-0.5, B3-S-0.5).
• 4,4´-DDD was detected in all the composite soil samples analyzed and at concentrations ranging from 6.2 µg/kg (composite sample B4-S-0.5, B5-S-0.5, B6-S-0.5, B7-S-0.5) to 11.4 µg/kg (composite sample B12-S-0.5, B13-S-0.5, B14-S-0.5).
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 25 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies • 4,4´-DDE was detected in all the composite soil samples and at concentrations ranging from 222 µg/kg (composite sample B15-S-0.5, B16-S-0.5, B17-S-0.5, B18-S-0.5) to 578 µg/kg (composite sample B1-S-0.5, B2-S-0.5, B3-S-0.5).
• 4,4´-DDT was detected in all the composite soil samples analyzed and at concentrations ranging from 88.1 µg/kg (composite sample B15-S-0.5, B16-S-0.5, B17-S-0.5, B18-S-0.5) to 396 µg/kg (composite sample B1-S-0.5, B2-S-0.5, B3-S-0.5). • Dieldrin was detected in all of the composite soil samples analyzed and at concentrations ranging from 18.0 µg/kg (composite sample B8-S-0.5, B9-S-0.5, B10-S-0.5, B11-S-0.5 and B18-S-0.5) to 34.0 µg/kg (composite sample B12-S-0.5, B13-S-0.5, B14-S-0.5).
The following bulleted item summarizes the arsenic detected:
• Arsenic was detected in all five discrete soil samples analyzed and at concentrations ranging between 2.17 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg, discrete sample B16-S-0.5) and
3.41 mg/kg (discrete sample B14-S-0.5).
7.3 Regulatory Screening Levels
In general, human receptors may be exposed to contaminants in soil through dermal contact, inhalation of particulate matter, and ingestion. To evaluate if the detected contaminants represent a significant risk to human receptors, the concentrations in soil were compared to regulatory screening levels that have been established for this purpose.
Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) have been developed by the EPA using default exposure and toxicity criteria to provide conservative screening levels, whereby concentrations of contaminants below such levels are not considered to represent a significant risk (including cancer and non-cancer risks) to human receptors. EPA publishes RSLs periodically. The most current release is dated November 2019. For the Site, the “Target Risk = 1E-06, Target Hazard Quotient = 1.0” RSL data set is appropriate to use.
DTSC recommends the use of alternative screening levels based on toxicity criteria reviewed by DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO). DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs) are updated periodically and published inHuman Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note, HERO HHRA Note Number: 3, DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs), Release Date: April 2019 Update(Note 3). For compounds that have screening criteria listed in Note 3, the alternative screening levels are used instead of RSLs.
EPA RSLs and DTSC-SLs for residential soil have been established for chemicals of potential concern detected in the soil samples collected as part of this investigation, which includes arsenic (0.11 mg/ kg), Chlordane (1,700 µg/kg), 4-4’-DDD (2,300 µg/kg), 4-4’-DDE (2,000 µg/kg), 4,4’-DDT (1,900 µg/kg), and Dieldrin (34 µg/kg). As shown in Table 1 and 2, none of the detected chemicals of potential concern exceeded their respective EPA RSLs or DTSC-SLs, except for arsenic which is further discussed below. Therefore, the detections are considered to bede minimis in nature and do not warrant further action.
Although the arsenic concentrations ranging between 2.17 and 3.41 mg/kg exceeded the DTSC-SL of 0.11 mg/kg, it is well documented that natural background concentrations of arsenic in California soils commonly exceed the screening criteria. In the document titled Determination of a Southern Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 26 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies California Regional Background arsenic Concentration in Soil (Chernoff, et al., 2008), which was prepared by DTSC staff, the authors concluded, “A Probability Plot and statistical analysis of a large data set from school sites in Los Angeles County gave an upper-bound arsenic concentration of 12 mg/kg. A Probability Plot for school sites from 5 counties in Southern California also gave an upper-bound background arsenic concentration of 12 mg/kg.” They also stated, “This finding suggests that in Southern California, 12 mg/kg [may be] a useful screening number for evaluating arsenic as a chemical of potential concern.” The maximum arsenic level detected in sample B14-S-0.5 is less than 12 mg/kg; therefore, is considered to be background and not of concern.
7.4 Findings
EFI Global has performed a Limited Soil Investigation at the subject property located at the southeast corner of La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue, in Riverside County, and the City of Riverside, California. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate near-surface soils for the presence (or absence) of potential chemicals of concern associated with the onsite agricultural use. EFI Global collected soil samples at 18 locations throughout the subject property and submitted them for laboratory analytical testing of OCPs and arsenic. All detected concentrations of OCPs were below their respective residential screening levels, while the detected arsenic concentrations appear to represent background or a trace concentration inherent to soil in the site vicinity. Therefore, it is EFI Global’s opinion that the detected concentrations of OCPs and arsenic represent ade minimis condition and no additional environmental assessment is warranted at this time.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 27 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
8.0 NON-SCOPE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
ASTM Standard E1527-13 identifies additional conditions which, should they exist at the subject property, may create a human health risk to the occupants of the site. These risks may also create additional costs to the property owner in the form of identification, operations & maintenance, and cleanup or remediation.
8.1 Asbestos Containing Building Materials
Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring minerals used in many products, including building materials vehicle brakes, insulation and other products that require resistance to heat and corrosion.
Asbestos includes: chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and any of these materials that have been chemically treated and/or altered.
The inhalation of asbestos fibers by workers can cause cancer and other serious diseases of the lungs and other organs that may not appear until years after the exposure has occurred. For instance, asbestosis can cause a buildup of scar-like tissue in the lungs and result in loss of lung function.
Asbestos fibers associated with these health risks are too small to be seen with the naked eye, and smokers are at higher risk of developing some asbestos-related diseases.
Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) do not always pose a hazard to occupants and workers in buildings that contain these materials. Intact, undisturbed ACMs generally do not pose a health risk.
ACMs may become hazardous and pose an inhalation risk when they are damaged, disturbed in some manner, or deteriorate over time and asbestos fibers are released into building air.
ACM can be found in a multitude of building products which include decorative and acoustical plaster texture, fire-proofing (Monokote), joint compound, attic and wall insulation, resilient floor covering, mastic, recessed lighting fixtures, wiring, elevator brakes, fire doors, pipe insulation, pipe gaskets, duct insulation, duct tape, siding and roofing materials (tar/shingles), textured paint, stucco, concrete, asphalt underlayment (Petromat) and plaster.
Local jurisdictions have specific laws and regulations regarding asbestos and actions including building renovations and building demolition.
• As there are no structures on the subject property, the potential for asbestos-containing building materials (ACMs) is considered to be low.
8.2 Lead-Based Paint
Although the use of lead-based paint in residential structures has been prohibited since 1978, it may still be used in commercial and industrial buildings. It is approximated that 80 percent of buildings built prior to 1978 contain lead paint. Even at low levels, lead poisoning can cause IQ deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention spans, hyperactivity and other behavior problems with children under 6 years old being most at risk.
Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used for many years in products found in and around our homes and commercial buildings. Lead can be found in dust from friction surfaces of windows and doors that are painted with lead-based paint and from building components coated with lead-based paint that has begun peeling, flaking and chalking. There is also the potential for soil to have elevated lead levels due to leaching from lead based paint on nearby structures and deposition of airborne lead when leaded fuel was in use prior to the 1976 ban and phase out.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 28 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Since the 1980's, lead has been phased out in gasoline, reduced in drinking water, reduced in industrial air pollution, and banned or has been limited in use in consumer products.
Between the local, State and Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), each state has various action limits that have been enacted with the intent to prevent human exposure and contamination of the surrounding environment.
• As there are no structures on the subject property, the potential for lead-based paint is considered to be low.
8.3 Radon
Radon is a radioactive gas that has been found in structures all over the United States. Radon is produced from the natural breakdown of uranium in soil, rock, and water. Radon typically moves up through the ground and into structures through cracks and other holes in the foundation. Movement of radon through the earth is strongly influenced by moisture content and permeability of soil, porosity, and degree of fracturing in rocks, as well as surface meteorological conditions. High levels of radon have been discovered in every state.
Radon cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted. Breathing air-containing radon may increase the risk of getting lung cancer. The Surgeon General of the United States has warned that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States today after smoking.
Testing for the presence of radon is fairly inexpensive, simple and is the only way to be certain of the on-site concentrations. Various types of sampling methods exist to determine the concentration.
On-site radon sampling was not performed during the completion of this assessment. • Based on research by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the average radon concentrations for Riverside County are between 2.0 and 4.0 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), which is below the 4.0 pCi/L action level set by the USEPA; however, site-specific radon levels vary greatly within the USEPA radon zones and on-site radon measurements would need to be collected in order to determine the radon levels at the subject property.
8.4 Wetlands
According to the Clean Water Act, a wetland is “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Wetland areas have been identified as ecologically diverse and sensitive areas and are generally subject to more stringent development, re-development, and building regulations. •
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed to determine if the subject property is situated within an identified wetland. According to the USFWS, the subject
property is not located within a wetland area.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 29 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
8.5 Mold
Mold and mildew are simple, microscopic organisms in the Fungi kingdom that can grow virtually anywhere if they have adequate moisture, nutrients, air and appropriate temperatures. Depending on the particular mold or fungus, growing colonies can be almost any color. Most household molds and fungi (mildews) are white, black, grey, or brown colored. Spores of dozens of kinds of mold and fungus (mildew) are present at all times in indoor and outdoor air. These spores can settle, germinate and grow wherever good growth conditions are found. They can grow on soil, plants, dead plant materials, foods, fabrics, paper, wood and many other materials found within buildings. Many molds are not harmful and actually have a beneficial role in the environment and in living systems. In soil, molds play a crucial part in decomposition of organic matter and in making nutrients available to plants.
When mold and fungi (mildews) growth occurs in buildings, it can be very destructive to the materials on which they grow and cause high levels of airborne mold spores and volatile organic compounds associated with the characteristic musty / moldy odor. They cause staining, decomposition (rotting of materials) and objectionable, musty odors. Where colonies are extensive they can also produce enough spores, and by-products to be harmful to health. Many of the by-products of mold and fungus (mildew) are irritating to skin, eyes and respiratory tracts. Some molds produce true allergic sensitization and allergic reactions in susceptible people. Some molds produce toxic by-products that could be harmful to skin, and poisonous if ingested or inhaled in quantity. Persons with compromised immune systems may even experience systemic fungal infections of the respiratory tract. • As there are no structures on the subject property, a mold inspection was not conducted as part of this assessment.
8.6 Methane Gas
In response to growing concern regarding methane intrusion into buildings and to the potential for methane build-up underneath buildings, certain municipalities have established methane requirements for structures based on the proximity to oil wells and landfills. If a subject property is located in the proximity of active or abandoned oil wells or landfills, methane mitigation devices installed prior to construction activities at a subject property may be necessary. •
Based on our research, the property is not known to be located in proximity (within 1,000 feet) to any active or abandoned oil wells or landfills. Therefore, the potential for methane risk at the subject property is considered low.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 30 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
9.0 FINDINGS
EFI Global, Inc. has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) and Limited Soil Investigation for Murow Development Consultants (Client) for a agricultural property located at the southeast corner of Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue, in Riverside County, and the City of Riverside, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number: 136-220-016. The research conducted for this study and the report prepared are in conformance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) standard and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-13 scope of work.
9.1 CONCLUSIONS
EFI Global, Inc. has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Soil Investigation in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice 1527-13, for a vacant property located at the southeast corner of Victoria Avenue and La Sierra Avenue, Riverside, California, the subject property. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in the individual sections of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions or de minimis conditions in connection with the subject property, except for the following:
Recognized Environmental Condition (REC)
In our opinion, no RECs were identified during the course of this assessment.
Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC)
In our opinion, no HRECs were identified during the course of this assessment.
Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC)
In our opinion, no CRECs were identified during the course of this assessment.
De Minimis Condition
The low levels of OCPs and arsenic detected in near-surface soils as part of our Limited Soil Investigation are considered to be ade minimis condition for the subject property. However, EFI Global notes that based on the subject property's historical agricultural use, it is possible that buried/concealed/hidden agricultural by-products, both above and below ground may have existed or exists on the subject property. Any buried trash/debris or other waste encountered during future subject property development should be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal. If stained or suspicious soil is encountered during future grading operations, the material should be evaluated and if deemed necessary, characterized for property disposal.
9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, no additional investigation is recommended at this time.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 31 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
10.0 SIGNATURES
I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Prepared By: Date: December 19, 2019
Kevin Ballesteros
Project Manager
Raul Gaina
Project Manager
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Reviewed By: Date: December 19, 2019
Brian Brennan
Senior Project Manager
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 32 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
11.0 REFERENCES
ASTM, 2013. Subcommittee E50.2 Commercial Real Estate Transactions, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process”, Designation E1527-13, West Conshohocken, PA 35pp.
ASTM, 2015. Subcommittee E50.2 on Real Estate Assessment and Management, “Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions”, Designation E2600-15, West Conshohocken, PA 34pp.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2019. The EDR – Radius Map with GeoCheck®, Inquiry No. 5889186.2s, Shelton CT, 104 pp.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2019. The EDR – City Directory Abstract, Inquiry No. 5889186.5, Shelton CT, 21 pp.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2019. Certified Sanborn® Map Report, Inquiry No. 5889186.3, Shelton CT, 2 pp.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2019. The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, Inquiry No. 5889186.8, Shelton CT, 16 pp.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2019. The EDR – Historical Topographic Map Report (Riverside West, California 7.5 minute), Inquiry No. 5889186.4, Shelton CT, 12 pp.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology - http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey - http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS California Department of Water Resources, Individual Basin Descriptions -http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118
DTSC Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) Reports - http://hwts.dtsc.ca.gov/report_list.cfm Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC, 2008,Interim Guidance to Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision), dated August 7.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Human Health Risk (HERO), 2019,Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), Note 3; DTSC-Modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs), dated April.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX, 2019,Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) – Generic Tables (November 2019)
EnviroStor- http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
GeoTracker - http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Google Earth - http://earth.google.com/
RealQuest- http://www.realquest.com/jsp/rq.jsp?action=switch&page=main Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT) - https://gis.countyofriverside.us/ Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public
Riverside County Office of the Assessor - https://www.asrclkrec.com/ Wetlands Mapper - https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.htm Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 33 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies South Coast Air Quality Management District Facility Information Detail System (FIND) - http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/fim/prog/search.aspx
California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Storm Water Multiple Applications and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) - https://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov/smarts/SwPublicUserMenu.xhtml DOGGR - https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#close Pacific Coast Title Company (Order No. 10130083) - Preliminary Report - Vacant Land APN: 136-220-016, Riverside, California 92503 - dated October 15, 2019 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37764
Riverside, California Page 34 of 34
December 19, 2019
EFI Project No. 045.02270
@ efi global
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
APPENDIX I
ILLUSTRATIONS
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies