Planning Commission Staff Report — San Jacinto City Council, February 4, 2025 (part 4 of 7)

CRPR: 4 - California Rare Plant Rank 4 (formerly List 4): Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List. Very few of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 4 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and few, if any, are eligible for state listing. Nevertheless, many of them are significant locally, and CNPS and CDFG strongly recommend that California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants be evaluated for consideration during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

4.1.k
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Appendix B - Biological Technical Report & MSHCP Consistency Analysis (McLeish Planned Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence McLeish Ranch Project Tentative Tract 31282

C-20

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Threat Ranks: The CNPS Threat Rank is an extension added onto the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) and designates the level of endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking with 1 being the most endangered and 3 being the least endangered. A Threat Rank is present for all California Rare Plant Rank 1B's, 2's, 4's, and the majority of California Rare Plant Rank 3's. California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants are seldom assigned a Threat Rank of 0.1, as they generally have large enough populations to not have significant threats to their continued existence in California; however, certain conditions exist to make the plant a species of concern and hence be assigned a California Rare Plant Rank. In addition, all California Rare Plant Rank 1A (presumed extinct in California), and some California Rare Plant Rank 3 (need more information) plants, which lack threat information, do not have a Threat Rank extension. • 0.1 = seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) • 0.2 = fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) • 0.3 = not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP): Planning species covered by the MSHCP. Additional surveys for Narrow Endemic Plant Species and Criteria Area Species to determine presence/absence may be required.

PS = planning species
NEPSSA # = Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (with survey area number noted).

CASSA # = Criteria Area Species Survey Area (with survey area number noted).

Group 1 = Species that have wide distribution throughout the Plan Area within suitable habitat. Take coverage is warranted based upon regional or landscape level considerations, such as healthy population levels, widespread distribution throughout the MSHCP Plan Area, and life history characteristics that respond to habitat-scale conservation and management actions.

Group 2 = Species that are relatively well-distributed throughout the MSCHP Plan Area. Take coverage is warranted based on regional or landscape level considerations with the addition of site-specific conservation and management requirements that are clearly identified in the MSHCP for species that are generally well-distributed, but that have Core Areas that require Conservation.

Group 3 = Species that have narrow habitat requirements and limited distribution within the Plan Area. Take coverage is warranted based upon site specific considerations and the identification of specific conservation and management conditions for species within a narrowly defined Habitat or limited geographic area within the MSHCP Plan Area.

Western Bat Working Group (WBWG): The WBWG is composed of agencies, organizations, and individuals interested in bat research, management, and conservation from the 13 western states and provinces. The goals are (1) to facilitate communication among interested parties and reduce risks of species decline or extinction; (2) to provide a mechanism by which current information on bat ecology, distribution, and research techniques can be readily accessed; and (3) to develop a forum to discuss conservation strategies, provide technical assistance, and encourage education programs. Species are ranked as High, Medium, or Low Priority in each of 10 regions in western North America. Because California includes multiple regions where a species may have different WBWG Priority ranks, the CNNDB includes categories for Medium-High, and Low-Medium Priority.

WBWG-H= High Priority
WBWG-M= Medium Priority
WBWG-L= Low Priority

4.1.k
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Appendix B - Biological Technical Report & MSHCP Consistency Analysis (McLeish Planned Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence McLeish Ranch Project Tentative Tract 31282

C-21
American Fisheries Society: Listing of imperiled freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee.

AFS-E= Endangered
AFS-TH= Threatened
AFS-V= Vulnerable
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): The IUCN assesses, on a global scale, the conservation status of species, subspecies, varieties and even selected subpopulations in order to highlight taxa threatened with extinction, and therefore promote their conservation. Detailed information on the IUCN and the Red List is available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org
IUCN-CR = Critically endangered
IUCN-EN = Endangered
IUCN-NT = Near threatened
IUCN-VU = Vulnerable
IUCN-LC = Least concern
IUCN-DD = Data deficient
IUCN-CD = Conservation dependent
NatureServe Element Ranking: This ranking system’s units of conservation may include non-taxonomic biological entities such as populations or ecological communities, thus, NatureServe refers to the targets of biological conservation as “elements” rather than taxa. The three main categories that are taken into consideration when assigning an element rank are rarity, threats, and trends.

The global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global range:

GX: Presumed Extinct – Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery.

GH: Possibly Extinct – Known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery. Examples of evidence include (1) that a species has not been documented in approximately 20-40 years despite some searching and/or some evidence of significant habitat loss or degradation; (2) that a species has been searched for unsuccessfully, but not thoroughly enough to presume that it is extinct throughout its range.

G1: Critically Imperiled – At very high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, very severe threats, or other factors.

G2: Imperiled – At high risk of extinction due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors.

G3: Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extinction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors.

G4: Apparently Secure – At fairly low risk of extinction due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors.

G5: Secure – At very low risk of extinction due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, and little to no concern from declines or threats.

GNR: Unranked – Global rank not yet assessed.

4.1.k
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Appendix B - Biological Technical Report & MSHCP Consistency Analysis (McLeish Planned Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence McLeish Ranch Project Tentative Tract 31282

C-22
The state rank (S-rank) refers to the imperilment status only within California’s state boundaries:

SX: Presumed Extirpated – Species is believed to be extirpated from the state. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered SH: Possibly Extirpated – Known from only historical records but still some hope of rediscovery. There is evidence that the species may no longer be present in the state, but not enough to state this with certainty. Examples of such evidence include (1) that a species has not been documented in approximately 20-40 years despite some searching and/or some evidence of significant habitat loss or degradation; (2) that a species has been searched for unsuccessfully, but not thoroughly enough to presume that it is no longer present in the jurisdiction.

S1: Critically Imperiled – At very high risk of extirpation in the state due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe threats, or other factors.

S2: Imperiled – At high risk of extirpation in the state due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors.

S3: Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extirpation in the state due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors.

S4: Apparently Secure – At a fairly low risk of extirpation in the state due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors.

Sources:
• CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2021) • The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). • RareFind, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2021). • State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFW, July 2021). • State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CDFW, July 2021). • Special Animals List (CDFW, July 2021).
• Life History Accounts (CDFW).
• Sensitive List (BLM)

4.1.k
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Appendix B - Biological Technical Report & MSHCP Consistency Analysis (McLeish Planned

APPENDIX C
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
McLeish Ranch Residential Project
TTM 31282
City of San Jacinto, California
PREPARED FOR:

Richland Real Estate Fund, LLC
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, California 92615
Contact: Derek Barbour
PREPARED BY:
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Contact: Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA
Director, Cultural Services
June 2022
Updated: October 2024

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Management Summary.................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Undertaking Information/Introduction.................................................................................... 6

1.1 Contracting Data ...................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Undertaking............................................................................................................. 6

1.3 Project Site .............................................................................................................. 6

1.4 Project Personnel...................................................................................................... 6

2.0 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................................... 7

2.2 Assembly Bill (AB) 52 ................................................................................................. 8

2.3 San Jacinto General Plan............................................................................................ 9

2.4 Human Remains......................................................................................................11

3.0 Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Natural...................................................................................................................12

3.2 Cultural ..................................................................................................................12

3.2.1 Prehistory .................................................................................... 12

3.2.2 Ethnography ................................................................................ 13

3.2.3 History ........................................................................................ 15

4.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 18

4.1 Cultural Resources Records Search.............................................................................18

4.2 Paleontological Resources Records Search ..................................................................18

4.3 Historic Aerial Review...............................................................................................18

4.4 Native American Scoping..........................................................................................18

4.5 Field Survey ............................................................................................................18

5.0 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Cultural Resources Records Search.............................................................................19

5.1.1 Studies........................................................................................ 19

5.1.2 Resources.................................................................................... 19

5.2 Paleontological Resources Records Search ..................................................................21

5.3 Historic Aerial Review...............................................................................................21

5.4 Native American Scoping..........................................................................................21

5.5 Field Survey ............................................................................................................22

6.0 Management Considerations ................................................................................................. 25

7.0 Summary and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 26

7.1 Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards..................................................26

8.0 Certification ............................................................................................................................. 30

9.0 References ............................................................................................................................... 31

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 ii Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Cultural Resources Studies Within the Project Site ........................................................................19 Table 2 Cultural Resources Within One Mile of the Project Site ................................................................. 19

LIST OF FIGURES
Follows Page
1 Project Site................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 2 Project Site Aerial.......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

ATTACHMENTS
A Confidential Cultural Resources Records Search (EIC)
B Paleontological Records Search (WSC)
C Native American Scoping (NAHC)
D Personnel Qualifications

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
National Archaeological Database (NADB) Information Sheet Cultural Resources Assessment for the
McLeish Ranch Residential Project, TTM 31282
San Jacinto, California
by
Patrick Maxon, M.A., RPA
June 2022
Updated: October 2024
Submitted by:

Patrick Maxon M.A., RPA
VCS Environmental
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
T: (949) 489-2700
Submitted to:

Derek Barbour
Richland Real Estate Fund, LLC
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, California 92615
USGS San Jacinto, CA 7.5-Minute Quadrangle in Township 4 South; Range 1 West, Section 21 (S.B.B.M).

Project site: 96 acres
Key Words: EIC, WSC, NAHC

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 1 Management Summary

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Purpose and Scope
VCS Environmental (VCS) undertook this study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for the proposed McLeish Ranch Residential Development Project (Project) in the City of San Jacinto. This cultural resources investigation will meet CEQA and the City of San Jacinto’s requirement for cultural resources for its Project application package. This Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was designed to identify cultural resources that may be present on the Project site and to provide management recommendations.

The format of this report follows Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (Office of Historic Preservation 1990).

Dates of Investigation
A cultural resources literature review was completed by staff at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside on March 29, 2022 (Attachment A). A paleontological resources literature review was completed by Darla Radford at the Western Science Center (WSC) on December 28, 2021 (Attachment B). A Sacred Lands File search was received from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on February 2, 2022 (Attachment C). A cultural resources survey of the property was conducted by VCS Director of Cultural Services, Patrick Maxon, RPA and Brian Kussman on March 2, 2022. This report was completed in June 2022 and was updated in October 2024.

Investigation Constraints
The Project site is free of any structures and was recently disked and cleared of vegetation during routine weed abatement and maintenance. Approximately 95% of the ground surface is visible.

Findings of the Investigation
Implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect any known significant historical resources. The area, however, is known to contain historical resources. Uniformly applied development policies or standards are recommended for cultural and tribal cultural resources, consistent with the General Plan Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f:
• The EIC records search identified 24 cultural resources recorded within one mile of the Project site.

None of the resources are within the Project site; however, two prehistoric isolates are recorded three quarters of a mile from the Project site.
• As many as 45 cultural resources studies have previously been completed within one mile of the Project site. Five of the studies (RI-03791, RI-04404, RI-06743, RI-06819, and RI-08350) include at least a portion of the current Project site.
• The NAHC Sacred Lands File search was negative.
• The field survey was negative.

Summary and Recommendations
An examination of historic aerial photographs (NETRONLINE n.d.) revealed that the Project site has never been developed.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 2 Management Summary
Twenty-Four cultural resources are recorded within one mile of the Project site. None are on the Project site.

The sediment underlying the Project area is mapped entirely as Holocene alluvium; however, the nearby Diamond Valley Lake Project fossil localities are also mapped in Holocene alluvial, but the area has produced significant fossil specimens associated with the Pleistocene.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect any existing known cultural resources.

However, because the area is known to contain resources, archaeological monitoring is recommended during ground disturbing activities.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards

1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification that an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Archaeology has been retained to implement the monitoring program. This verification shall be presented in a letter from the Project archaeologist to the Lead Agency.

2. The Project applicant shall request a Native American monitoring during grading. If a monitoring contract is declined by the Consulting Tribe(s), the qualified archaeologist shall act as the lead monitor. The Native American monitor shall work in concert with the archaeological monitor to observe all ground disturbances into younger alluvial soils and search for cultural materials. The Lead Agency shall coordinate with the consulting Tribe(s) to facilitate communications with the Project developer/applicant so that all Parties can develop a mutually agreeable Tribal Monitoring and Treatment Agreement which includes the scope of monitoring, scheduling of monitors from individual consulting Tribe(s), and the course of action for inadvertent discoveries.

3. The Project archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the Project site. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project grading and development scheduling.
b. The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 3 Management Summary
avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols.
c. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

4. During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological and Tribal monitors shall be on-site, as determined by the consulting archaeologist and Tribe(s), to perform full-time monitoring of the excavations. Monitoring is recommended during ground-disturbing activities in all younger Holocene alluvial soils. The frequency of inspections will depend upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The consulting archaeologist shall have the authority to modify the monitoring program if the potential for cultural resources appears to be less than anticipated.

5. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field so the monitored grading can proceed, will remain on site in a secure location, and will then be recorded on DPR 523 Series site record forms.

6. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist and Tribal monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the Lead Agency at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribe(s) and Lead Agency, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Lead Agency must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be implemented by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the Lead Agency before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the county coroner and Lead Agency shall be contacted within 24 hours. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant (as identified by the NAHC) shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. a. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered if preservation in place is not feasible, and features recorded. The Project archaeologist in consultation with the consulting Tribe(s) shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for evaluation. Any recovered artifacts will remain on site until their disposition in perpetuity has been determined. b. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be used in the event of a discovery:
i. Preservation-in-Place. Avoidance, or preservation-in-place, involves leaving a resource where it was found with no development affecting its integrity. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological and cultural resources. ii. Reburial on the Project site in an area not subject to future disturbance. Reburial of a resource shall include provisions to protect the selected reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all required

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 4 Management Summary
cataloging and basic recording have been completed, with the exception of sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. The listing of contents and the location of the reburial shall be included in a confidential Phase IV monitoring report. c. If Preservation-in-Place or reburial is not feasible, all cultural material, excepting human remains and sacred, patrimonial, and funerary items, collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository standards in a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources (OHP 1993). The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title and accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.

7. A Phase IV Monitoring Report, documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context, shall be completed and submitted to the satisfaction of the Lead Agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report will include DPR Primary and Archaeological Site Forms. The Phase IV report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request and a copy of the report shall be submitted to the consulting Tribe(s).

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Full-time monitoring is recommended starting at a depth of five feet below the surface during earth disturbance activities, as required by the City of San Jacinto. Consistent with GP Action RM-3e, a proposed monitoring protocol is detailed below. When implemented with the provisions of CEQA, the City of San Jacinto, Western Science Center (Radford 2021; Appendix C), and the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2019), the monitoring protocols will address potential impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (fossils), if present. The protocols listed below, or as modified by the Lead Agency, should include but not be limited to, the following actions:

1. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Full-time monitoring for paleontological resources will be conducted in areas where grading, excavation, or drilling activities occur at five feet or deeper in order to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. Monitoring of any artificial fill or disturbed soils that may be present at the Project is not warranted.

2. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediment that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner.

Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if they are present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 5 Management Summary

3. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen-washing sediments to recover small vertebrates and invertebrates if indicated by the geologic conditions. Preparation of any individual vertebrate fossils is often more timeconsuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.

4. All fossils must be deposited in an accredited institution (university or museum) that maintains collections of paleontological materials. The Western Science Center in Hemet, California, is the preferred institution by the County of Riverside. All costs of the paleontological monitoring and mitigation program, including any one-time charges by the receiving institution, are the responsibility of the developer.

5. Preparation of a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). A letter documenting receipt and acceptance of all fossil collections by the receiving institution must be included in the final report. The report, when submitted to and accepted by the appropriate Lead Agency (e.g., the City of San Jacinto), will signify satisfactory completion of the Project program to mitigate impacts to any nonrenewable paleontological resources.

Disposition of Data
This report will be filed with the City of San Jacinto, Richland Real Estate Fund, LLC, VCS, and at the EIC. All field notes and other documentation related to the study are on file at VCS, San Juan Capistrano.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 6 Undertaking Information/Introduction

1.0 UNDERTAKING INFORMATION/INTRODUCTION

1.1 Contracting Data
Richland Real Estate Fund, LLC retained VCS Environmental (VCS) to conduct a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the proposed McLeish Ranch Residential Development Project. This report details the findings of the investigation and offers management recommendations to evaluate any discoveries and to reduce the impact of the Project on resources to a less than significant level.

1.2 Undertaking
The proposed Project requests approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Site Plan approval to allow for the development of up to 424 single-family detached homes on approximately 96 acres. The minimum residential lot size would range from 3,600 square feet to 5,200 square feet. The anticipated house sizes would range from approximately 2,700 square feet to 3,500 square feet. The Project proposes a 7.55-acre park area at the northwest corner of the Project site that would serve as an infiltration basin for surface water runoff. Access to the new development would be provided from Lyon Avenue/De Anza Drive and Ranch View Lane.

1.3 Project Site
The approximately 96-acre Project is located in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California; the site is situated west of Lyon Avenue, southwest of Ramona Boulevard, east of Sanderson Avenue, and north of the San Jacinto Reservoir. The Project site is regionally accessible from State Route 79 (SR-79) to the northeast [Figures 1 and 2; Regional Map and Aerial Map]. Open space and farmlands occur west of the site, while residential development is present to the east and north. Figure 1 depicts the regional and specific location of the Project site on a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS’) San Jacinto

7.5-minute quadrangles, in Section 21 of Township 4 South; Range 1 West (S.B.B.M). Figure 2 depicts the Project site in an aerial photograph.

1.4 Project Personnel
Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA, requested the literature review at the EIC, contacted the NAHC, and authored this report. Mr. Maxon and Brian Kussman completed the field survey. Refer to Attachment D for qualifications.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- San Jacinto
Lakeview
.

MCLEISH
RANCH
1:24,000
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Figure 1:

USGS
Topographic
Map
Map Date: October 2021
Prepared By:

Property Boundary

7.5-Minute Quadrangle Frame
VCS Environmental
Figure [x]

7.5-Minute Quadrangle:

San Jacinto
Section: 21
Township & Range:

T4S R1W
County: Riverside
State: California

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development 1 inch = 400 feet
Map Created: November 2021
Data Source: ESRI
McLeish Ranch
Aerial Map
Prepared By:

VCS Environmental Figure

2. Property Boundary
0 125 250 500
Feet
²

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 7 Regulatory Setting

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
This section contains a discussion of the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards that govern cultural resources and must be adhered to both prior to and during Project implementation. The assessment is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15064.5 and California Public Resources Code [PRC] §21083.2). It is assumed that there is no federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and thus no cultural resources analysis is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 United States Code [USC] 470f) and its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800, Protection of Historic Properties).

2.1 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a Lead Agency to determine whether a project would have a significant effect on one or more historical resources. According to Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a “historical resource” is defined as a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC §21084.1); a resource included in a local register of historical resources (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], §15064.5[a][2]); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a Lead Agency determines to be historically significant (14 CCR §15064.5[a][3]).

Public Resources Code (PRC) §5024.1, Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR), and Sections 21080.3.1, 21083.2, and 21084.1 of the CEQA Statutes were used as the basic guidelines for the cultural resources study. PRC 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The purposes of the CRHR are to maintain listings of the State’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change. The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR, which were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (per the criteria listed at 36 CFR §60.4), are listed below.

The quality of significance in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California is present in any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and that:
(a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; or
(b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; or (c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

According to Public Resources Code 5024.1 and described further in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A–D) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR), a resource is considered historically significant if it meets the criteria for listing in the NRHP (per the criteria listed at 36 CFR 60.4). Impacts that affect those characteristics of the resource that qualify it for the NRHP or that would adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Impacts to cultural resources from the proposed Project are thus considered significant if the Project: (1) physically

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 8 Regulatory Setting
destroys or damages all or part of a resource; (2) changes the character of the use of the resource or physical feature within the setting of the resource that contributes to its significance; or (3) introduces visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of significant features of the resource.

The purpose of a cultural resources investigation is to evaluate whether any cultural resources remain exposed on the surface of the Project site or whether any cultural resources can reasonably be expected to exist in the subsurface. If resources are discovered, management recommendations would be required for evaluation of the resources for CRHR eligibility.

Broad mitigation guidelines for treating historical resources are codified in Section 15126.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. To the extent feasible, public agencies should seek to avoid significant effects to historical resources, with preservation in place being the preferred alternative. If not feasible, a data recovery plan shall be prepared to guide subsequent excavation. Mitigation for historical resources such as buildings, bridges, and other structures that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Weeks and Grimmer 1995) will generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance.

2.2 Assembly Bill (AB) 52
This Project is subject to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (PRC §21080.3.1). AB 52 is applicable to projects that have filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or Negative Declaration (ND) on or after July 1, 2015. The law requires lead agencies to initiate consultation with California Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project and have requested such consultation, prior to determining the type of CEQA documentation that is applicable to the Project (i.e., EIR, MND, ND). Significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” are considered significant impacts to the environment.

For “tribal cultural resources,” PRC §21074, enacted and codified as part of a 2014 amendment to CEQA through Assembly Bill 52, provides the statutory definition as follows:
“Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

A. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.

B. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

2. A resource determined by the Lead Agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the Lead Agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

To determine if such resources exist, under AB 52 lead agencies must consult with tribes that request consultation and must make a reasonable and good faith effort to mitigate the impacts of a development on such resources to a less than significant level. AB 52 allows tribes 30 days after receiving notification to request consultation and the Lead Agency must initiate consultation within 30 days of the request by tribes.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 9 Regulatory Setting

2.3 San Jacinto General Plan
Goal RM-3 Heritage Resources
San Jacinto has a rich history dating back to the area’s first inhabitants more than 10,000 years ago. The City's paleontological, archeological, historical, and tribal cultural resources help define the community and offer opportunities for cultural, educational, and community enrichment. The City encourages the protection and enhancement of these resources for generations to come.

RM-3 Policies
RM-3.1 Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, paleontological and tribal cultural resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code.

RM-3.2 Cultural Reminders. Seek to incorporate reminders of San Jacinto’s culture in the built and natural environment through adaptive reuse, signage, markers, and other reminders of San Jacinto’s heritage.

RM-3.3 Public Education. Educate and actively involve the public in preserving cultural assets, including techniques, incentives, and legal requirements for preservation.

RM-3.4 Tribal Consultation. Consult with Native American tribes whose tribal cultural resources may be impacted by proposed development, as necessary, and in accordance with state, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements, in an effort to mitigate or avoid significant effects to resource(s).

RM-3.5 Public Art. Promote the use of public art that celebrates the diverse and culturally rich history of San Jacinto at key gateways, major projects, and public gathering places.

RM-3.6 Historic Preservation. Identify, designate, and protect buildings, districts, eligible properties and sites of historic importance within San Jacinto.

RM-3.7 Funding. Identify funding programs to assist private property owners in the preservation of historic resources.

RM-3 Actions
RM-3a Continue to assess development proposals for potential impacts to sensitive historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

RM-3b For structures that potentially have historic significance, the City shall require that a study be conducted by a professional archaeologist or historian to determine the actual significance of the structure and potential impacts of the proposed development in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The City may require modification of the project and/or mitigation measures to avoid any impact to a historic structure, when feasible, such as retaining or rehabilitating historic buildings pursuant to City of San Jacinto guidelines or relocating the historic building as feasible.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 10 Regulatory Setting
RM-3c For all development proposals within areas with the potential to contain prehistoric/historic resources, the City shall require a study to be conducted by a professional archaeologist. The objective of the study will be to determine if significant archaeological resources are potentially present and if the project will significantly impact these resources. If significant impacts are identified, the City may require the project to be modified to avoid the impacts, or require mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts. Mitigation may involve archaeological investigation and resources recovery.

RM-3d For projects that involve ground disturbing activities on native soil, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall enter a Treatment and Disposition Agreement (TDA) with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians to address treatment and disposition of archaeological/cultural resources and human remains associated with Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians that may be uncovered or otherwise discovered during construction of the project. The TDA may establish provisions for tribal monitors. Following execution of the TDA by the developer and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the TDA will be incorporated by reference into the grading permit.

RM-3e The City shall require an assessment of the potential for development proposals to significantly impact paleontological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

If the project involves earthworks, the City may require a study conducted by a professional paleontologist to determine if paleontological assets are present, and if the project will significantly impact the resources. If significant impacts are identified, the City may require the project to be modified to avoid impacting the paleontological materials, require monitoring of rock units with high potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontologic resources, or require mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts, such as recovering the paleontological resources for preservation.

RM-3f The City shall make provisions for historic archeological resources accidentally discovered during construction for projects where the City has approval authority over the project. These provisions shall include an immediate evaluation of the find and contingency funding and time allotment sufficient to allow for the recovery of the historic archeological resource or implement measures to avoid disturbing the resource if the historic archeological resource is determined to be unique.

RM-3g In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall halt excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the remains are of Native American origin, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the persons responsible for the excavation work, regarding appropriate means of treating the ancestral remains, with appropriate dignity, including the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98, or the Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being granted access to the site.

RM-3h Prior to adopting any general plan, specific plan, or any amendment thereto, the City shall notify appropriate tribes of the opportunity for consultation for the purpose of preserving, or mitigating

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 11 Regulatory Setting
impacts to, cultural places located on land within the City’s jurisdiction that may be affected by the proposed plan or amendment.

RM-3i Prior to the adoption or substantial amendment of a general plan or specific plan, the City shall refer the proposed action to those tribes that are on the NAHC contact list and have traditional lands located within the City’s jurisdiction for a 45 day comment period.

RM-3j Prior to designating open space, the City shall consult with tribes if the affected land contains a cultural place and if the affected tribe has requested public notice under Government Code section 65092.

RM-3k Promote public awareness and encourage tourism in the City by actively identifying and enhancing the community’s historic resources through the location of historic landmark plaques and a Historic Tour Guide. Promote tours of these sites on the City’s and other organization’s websites.

RM-3l Continue to support the improvement and enhancement of the Estudillo Mansion and expand opportunities for public access and use of the historic treasure.

RM-3m Develop and implement architectural standards and historical preservation guidelines for development and redevelopment in the Downtown Village area of the community. Use housing and façade rehabilitation programs to support development and redevelopment activities that preserve and complement historic structures and resources in the downtown.

RM-3n Develop and implement programs and/or incentives to private property owners to help preserve, restore, or reuse historic structures while enhancing their historical significance and integrity.

RM-3o Conduct a historic properties inventory that takes into consideration buildings, neighborhoods, tribal cultural resources, eligible properties and other features of historic, architectural, or cultural significance.

2.4 Human Remains
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code provides for the disposition of accidentally discovered human remains. Section 7050.5 states that, if human remains are found, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains.

Section 5097.98 of the PRC states that, if remains are determined by the Coroner to be of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours which, in turn, must identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 12 Setting

3.0 SETTING

3.1 Natural
The Project site is surrounded by agricultural/vacant land west of the site, with residential development present to the east and north. The San Jacinto reservoir is south of the Project site. The Project site supports six vegetation communities/land cover types including agricultural crops, disturbed – dirt roads, Gooding’s willow-red willow riparian woodland and forest, herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses, mulefat thickets, and tamarisk scrub. A majority of the site is maintained as part of agriculture andweed abatement program.

The topography throughout the Project Footprint is generally flat. Elevations on the Project Footprint range from 1,475 above mean sea level (MSL) in its northwest corner to 1,495 feet MSL in its southeast corner.

3.2 Cultural

3.2.1 Prehistory
The prehistory of western Riverside County can be understood as the transition area between coastal and desert subsistence patterns. Earlier studies (Kroeber 1925, Moratto 1984, Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984, et al.) were comprehensive and statewide; however, they were published before and when California’s contract archaeology was in its infancy and considerable archaeology has been completed in the area since that time. Progress has also been made in addressing the regional research questions posed by earlier researchers. The following chronology, based on that of Erlandson and Colton (1991) is presented in Jones and Klar (2007) – a recent reevaluation and generalized chronology of California prehistory. The following is a summary of Chapter 14 of that book (Byrd and Raab 2007). It describes cultural traits in the southern California Bight (extending from Point Conception to the Mexican border), from ocean to desert.

Early Holocene (11,600 – 7,600 BP). California’s first inhabitants have traditionally been thought of as big game hunters who lived at the end of the last ice-age (~11,000 years before present [BP]). As the environment warmed and dried, the large Ice Age fauna vanished, marking the end of the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (WPLT) characterized by large pluvial (rainfall-fed) lakes, streams, marshes, and grasslands exploited by native populations whose sites are generally found along their shores (Moratto 1984).

Populations responded by exploiting a much wider range of flora and fauna to replace the large mammals.

This traditional model has been tested by the past three decades of archaeological research. Current models suggest a much more complex situation; most dramatically illustrated at coastal sites. The Paleocoastal Tradition (PCT) reflects a coastal adaptation of the WPLT (Davis et al. 1969). PCT sites are also located along bays and estuaries, exploiting mollusks, sea mammals, sea birds, and fish in addition to land plants and animals. Habitation on San Miguel Island has been identified as early as ~11,300 BP at Daisy Cave and ~8,500 BP at Eel Point on San Clemente Island (Byrd and Raab 2007).

Middle Holocene (7,600 – 3,650 BP). The Middle Holocene has been thought of as a time of cultural change where early Holocene cultures morphed over time into the Late Holocene cultures. This “Millingstone Horizon” (Wallace 1955) in coastal southern California suggests a shift in subsistence strategies – to the gathering and processing of plant seeds, grasses and shellfish as the primary dietary staple, with fishing and the hunting of smaller animals playing a less important role. Large habitation sites are seen in inland areas.

Occupation revolved around seasonal and semi-sedentary movements in coastal Orange and San Diego counties. Geographic movement through trade networks are postulated by the presence of Olivella grooved rectangle shell beads as far north as central Oregon dating to 4900-3500 BP (Byrd and Raab 2007).

Characteristics of the middle Holocene sites include ground stone artifacts (manos and metates) used for

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 13 Setting
processing plant material and shellfish, flexed burial beneath rock or milling stone cairns, flaked core or cobble tools, dart points, cogstones, discoidals, and crescentics.

Late Holocene (3,650 – 233 BP). Traditional models of this period maintained that the cultural systems encountered by European explorers in the late 18th century were formed during this time. These cultures were said to have access to rich resources (particularly the acorn), invented the bow and arrow, the mortar and pestle, introduced ceramics, and altered mortuary behaviors from inhumations to cremations. These groups were often elevated to utopian levels by earlier researchers (Raab and Jones 2004).

This period is now recognized to have been one of more complex local and regional patterns of change that occurred at differing times within the region. Byrd and Raab (2007) suggest that cultures in southern California over-exploited high-ranked food items such as shellfish, fish, terrestrial and marine mammals, and plant remains. This, and climatic fluctuations, led to resource depression, which necessitated a shift to less desirable, more costly resources.

3.2.2 Ethnography

CAHUILLA
According to maps prepared in Bean (1978:576) and Bean and Shipek (1978:551), the Project area is located within traditional territory of the Cahuilla, northeast of the Luiseño and due east of the Gabrielino; however, this area was likely occupied or at least visited by all three tribes.

The Cahuilla are an ethnographic Native American group descended from Late Prehistoric Takic-speaking inhabitants of the region. The name Cahuilla is believed to have originated from the group’s word káwiya for “master” or “boss” (Bean 1978:575).

The territory of the Cahuilla has been described as topographically diverse, “from the summit of the San Bernardino Mountains in the north to Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains in the south, a portion of the Colorado Desert west of Orocopia Mountain to the east, and the San Jacinto Plain near Riverside and the eastern slopes of Palomar Mountain to the west” (Bean 1978:575). Three main divisions of the Cahuilla—Desert, Pass (or Western), and Mountain groups—were defined mainly by geographic distribution, but dialectic differentiation was apparent (Strong 1929). A network of trails linking Cahuilla villages and those of neighboring groups, including the Luiseño, facilitated trade and maintenance of social ties.

The Cahuilla were hunter-gatherers who followed a seasonal round of utilizing various floral and faunal resources occurring in their territory (Bean 1972, 1978; Bean and Saubel 1972). Because Cahuilla territory was comprised of high mountains and arid lowlands, their seasonal round has been characterized as vertical rather than horizontal, with people moving upward and downward in layers of ecological zones ordered by elevation (Bean 1972). Settled villages were located near reliable water sources and within range of various resources (food, wood for fuel, and lithic materials for tools). Each village was composed of a group of individuals that were related by blood or marriage and which retained its own specific hunting and resource collecting areas. Cahuilla lineage groups were linked together in a complex interaction sphere of trade, alliance, intermarriage, and ceremonial exchange with neighboring groups including the Luiseño.

Major villages were fully occupied during winter, but during other seasons task groups headed out in periodic forays to collect available plant foods, with larger groupings from several villages organizing for annual acorn harvests. Bean and Saubel (1972) have recorded several hundred species of plants used by the Cahuilla for food, utilitarian materials, and medicines. Major plant foods emphasized during late prehistory included acorns, mesquite, screwbean, pinyon nuts, and various seed-producing legumes that

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 14 Setting
were complemented by agave, wild fruits and berries, tubers, cactus bulbs, roots, and greens. Hunting was accomplished with the throwing stick and bow and arrow; nets and traps were also used for small animals (Bean 1972). Stone tools consisted of two general types: ground stone tools (e.g., mortars, pestles, manos, and metates for pounding and grinding) and flaked stone tools (e.g., knives, drills, and projectile points for cutting and piercing). Ground stone tools were typically made from granite or other coarse stone. Flaked stone tools were typically made from chert, jasper, basalt, quartz, quartzite, obsidian, and other finegrained stone in which breakage patterns could be controlled and sharp edges would result.

LUISEÑO
The Project is located north and east of the ethnographic territory of the Luiseño. The Luiseño are Takic speakers and are descended from Late Prehistoric populations of the region. Takic is part of the larger UtoAztecan language stock which migrated west from the Great Basin (Bean and Smith 1978, Shipley 1978).

The Luiseño name for Lake Elsinore is Paiakhche, (Kroeber 1907:144, 147). The village of Paiakhche is ethnographically documented immediately north of the lake by Kroeber (1925); however, consultation with the Pechanga Tribe shows that the village was located northwest of the Lake and that the correct spelling is Páayaxchi. This name also refers to the Lake itself.

The Luiseño share many similar cultural traits to many other southern California groups. The Luiseño lived in sedentary and independent village groups, each with specific subsistence territories encompassing hunting, food gathering, and fishing areas. Villages were usually located in valley basins, along creeks and streams adjacent to mountain ranges where water was available and where the villages would be protected from environmental conditions and potential enemies. Most inland populations had access to fishing and food gathering sites on the coast (Bean and Shipek 1978).

Luiseño economic and subsistence practices centered upon the seasonal gathering of acorns and seeds; the hunting of deer and small mammals such as rabbits, wood rats, ground squirrels, and birds. Coastal foods included sea mammals, fish and shellfish. Tool technologies were organized around food collection, storage, and preparation strategies, which was reflected in the type, size, and quantity of food items gathered. Stone (lithic) tools included two types: ground stone and flaked stone tools. Ground stone equipment included: mortars, pestles, manos and metate grinding slicks, made from granite, schist, and gneiss. Flaked tools included: bifaces, projectile points, scrapers, and gravers, fabricated from siliceous rock such as chert and jasper, microcrystalline chalcedony, obsidian, fine grain ingenious rocks such as basalt rhyolite, and andesite, and hard silica such as quarts and quartzite. Utilitarian tools were constructed from wood, animal bones, skins, and/or woven from flora materials depending on need (Lovin 1963). Hunting activities were conducted both on an individual basis and/or organized into group activities, depending on seasonal factors and the game hunted. Acorns encompassed as much 50 percent of the Luiseño diet (White 1963). Acorns provided a reliable and abundant food source that was high in calories and could be easily stored for future use. Acorn collection was a central tenant in the lives of the Luiseños and dominated their economic and social structure (Basgall 1987, Johnson and Earle 1987).

Villages were organized around an inherited chief who exerted sole control over the economy, religious rituals, and territorial matters within the village (Bean and Shipek 1978:555). The chief at times would consult with a council of elders and shamans on matters of religious practices and on environmental conditions effecting village life. Large villages may have had a complex behavioral and political structure due to their territorial size and economic control, while the smaller villages’ political complexity was limited by their territorial size (Strong 1929; Bean and Shipek 1978:555).

For the Luiseño, Lake Elsinore is an important cosmological center (DuBois 1908). After becoming sick, Wuyóot was taken to the hot springs of Lake Elsinore for their healing qualities. The Luiseño consider

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 15 Setting
Wuyóot a deity in their creation story as he was the first human and a prophet to the Káamalam, the First People (DuBois 1908). The Luiseño also believe that Wuyóot died at the hot springs of Lake Elsinore.

GABRIELINO/TONGVA/KIZH
At the time of European contact in 1769, when Gaspar de Portolá’s expedition crossed the Los Angeles Basin, what were to be named the Gabrielino Native Americans by the Spanish occupied the area to the west of the Project site (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Shipek 1978; Bean and Smith 1978; McCawley 1996).

While the term Gabrielino identifies those Native Americans who were under the control of the Spanish Mission San Gabriel Archángel, the overwhelming number of people in these areas were of the same ethnic nationality and language (Takic) group. Their territory extended from northern Orange County north to the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County and eastward to the San Bernardino area.

This and the following ethnographic information relate to currently surviving native peoples still living in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. They maintain their cultural practices and customs. The current Gabrielino Tribe comprises at least five bands that are recognized Tribes by the State of California (they do not, however, enjoy Federal recognition). They include the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council; the GabrielenoTongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; and the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation. The terms the Native Americans in Southern California used to identify themselves have, for the most part, been lost; therefore, the names do not necessarily identify specific ethnic or Tribal groups. Some currently refer to themselves as Tongva, while others prefer the term Kizh. For the sake of clarity and consistency, the term Gabrielino will be used for the remainder of this section.

Large, permanent villages were established in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams and in sheltered areas along the coast. Eventually, Gabrielino territory encompassed the greater Los Angeles Basin, coastal regions from Topanga Canyon in the north to perhaps as far south as Aliso Creek, and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicholas, and Santa Catalina (Bean and Smith 1978:538–540). Recent studies suggest the population may have numbered as many as 10,000 individuals at their peak in the Precontact Period.

According to Sutton (2010) the Gabrielino arrived in the Los Angeles Basin possibly as early as 1,500 BCE as part of the so-called Shoshonean (Takic speaking) Wedge from the Great Basin region. The Gabrielino would have gradually displaced and/or intermingled with the local peoples, who were probably Hokan speakers.

However, it should be noted that Gabrielino origin stories assert that the union of sky and the earth created the world and everything in it; finally producing Wewyoot or Weywot, the father of all people (McCawley 1996: 172). This occurred in situ, meaning the people were always here and the Shoshonean Wedge hypothesis is, according to the Gabrielino, false.

Kroeber (1925:621) considered the Gabrielino:
. . . to have been the most advanced group south of Tehachapi, except perhaps the Chumash. They certainly were the wealthiest and most thoughtful of all the Shoshoneans of the State, and dominated these civilizations wherever contacts occurred.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 16 Setting

3.2.3 History

CALIFORNIA
In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present). The Spanish Period (1769-1821) is represented by exploration of the region; establishment of the San Diego Presidio and missions at San Gabriel and San Luis Rey; and the introduction of livestock, agricultural goods, and European architecture and construction techniques. Early exploration of the Riverside County area began in 1772 when Lieutenant Pedro Fages (then Military Governor of San Diego) crossed through the San Jacinto Valley. Permanent settlement began about the turn of the century through the issuance of land grants and grazing permits, and Spanish influence continued to some extent after 1821 due to the continued implementation of the mission system.

The Mexican Period (1821-1848) began with Mexican independence from Spain and continued until the end of the Mexican-American War. The Secularization Act resulted in the transfer, through land grants (called ranchos) of large mission tracts to politically prominent individuals. Sixteen ranchos were granted in Riverside County, the first to Juan Bandini in 1838. The Project is located in what was the Rancho La Laguna, also known as Laguna Grande and La Laguna de Temecula. It was confirmed in 1844 in an official land grant to Julian Manriquez by the Mexican governor of California. The rancho consisted of three leagues that included the lakebed and the shoreline (Hampson 1991). At that time, cattle ranching was a more substantial business than agricultural activities, and trade in hides and tallow increased during the early portion of this period. Until the Gold Rush of 1849, livestock and horticulture dominated California’s economy.

The American Period (1848-present) began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and in 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period. Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by two years of extreme drought, which continued to some extent until 1876, altered ranching forever in the southern California area.

CITY OF SAN JACINTO
This history of the City is adapted from its website (San Jacinto n.d.).

Founded in 1870, and incorporated on April 9, 1888, San Jacinto is one of the County’s oldest communities with roots that stretch back to the earliest days of California.

The first native people settled in the San Jacinto Valley thousands of years ago. Later, the Serrano and Cahuilla people arrived. Their villages were located along and near streams and springs. They were hunters and gatherers and they subsisted primarily on small game and acorns. The Soboba Indian Reservation, just east of San Jacinto, is now the home to the descendants of the Luiseño and some of these people.

The first Spanish explorers entered the San Jacinto Valley in the early 1770s. In 1774, and again in 1775, Col. Juan Bautista de Anza led two expeditions up from Mexico, crossing the Colorado River at Yuma and

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 17 Setting
continuing across the Borrego Desert and up Coyote Canyon. For a few years, the Valley was on the main overland route to California.

Beginning around 1820, the Mission San Luis Rey (located in modern day Oceanside) established a cattle ranch in the Valley, which they named for St. Hyacinth (San Jacinto in Spanish). St. Hyacinth ministered in Eastern Europe in the early 13th century; he was canonized in 1594 and his feast day is August 17th. Locally, the name San Jacinto was soon applied to the San Jacinto River and Mt. San Jacinto (elevation 10,804 ft.), one of the three tallest peaks in southern California.

In 1834, after California had passed from Spanish to Mexican rule, the Mission San Luis Rey was taken over by the government, and its lands granted to private individuals. In 1842, José Antonio Estudillo was granted the 35,500-acre Rancho San Jacinto Viejo (Old San Jacinto), which took in most of the Valley. Members of his family received two other nearby grants, giving the Estudillo family control over some 110,000 acres in the area. The Estudillo family ran cattle on the land. José Estudillo died in 1852, but his family continued to own most of the Valley until the early 1880s. Two of his sons built two-story brick mansions in 1885 - 1886.

The oldest, built by Francisco Estudillo (1844 - 1921) in 1885, is located at Main and Seventh Streets in San Jacinto. It has been named the most significant historical building in the San Jacinto Valley and is one of the most significant in all of Riverside County. Francisco Estudillo was San Jacinto’s first Postmaster (1870), second mayor (1890), and served as the local Indian Agent for the Federal Government in the 1890s. The Estudillo family remained prominent into the 20th Century. In the late 1860s, the family began selling portions of their San Jacinto ranch, and the first American settlers moved into the Valley.

By 1868, a little community had begun to develop on the south side of the Valley, near the San Jacinto River. In 1869, a school district was established. Procco Akimo, a Russian immigrant, established the first store. In 1870, the San Jacinto Post Office was established. During the 1870s, a little town began to grow up around Procco Akimo’s store. This community was located southeast of modern downtown San Jacinto, on what is now Hewitt Street.

After the Estudillo lands were broken up in early 1889, a group of Los Angeles investors organized the San Jacinto Land Association, which acquired some 15,000 acres of the old ranch. In 1883, they laid out a rival town site less than two miles away. For several years, “Old” San Jacinto and “New” San Jacinto struggled for dominance. The battle was not settled until 1888, when the Santa Fe railroad built a branch line into the Valley from Perris, which terminated on the west side of “New” San Jacinto on land donated for the purpose by Francisco Estudillo. “Old” San Jacinto was far from the tracks and eventually faded away. The new City of San Jacinto was incorporated that same year on April 9, 1888.

By the 1870s, the Valley’s economy had moved from cattle ranching to horticulture. Early ranchers had grown grain, then apricots, walnuts and citrus production came to dominate the area. Turkey ranching and dairy farming came later. Besides agriculture, several local lime kilns added to the local economy before World War I.

Tourism also had an impact on the Valley, beginning around 1900. Natural hot springs along the north side of the Valley stimulated the development of several tourist resorts with hotels, guest cabins and bath houses. Gilman Hot Springs was the best-known resort. It was originally developed in the 1880s, and was acquired in 1913 by the Gilman family, who ran the resort for 65 years. Soboba Hot Springs was also popular, with its cottages scattered along the hillside. Further west was Eden Hot Springs.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 18 Methods

4.0 METHODS

4.1 Cultural Resources Records Search
A literature review of documents on file at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside was completed by EIC staff on August 24, 2021 (Attachment A). The review consisted of an examination of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) San Jacinto, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle to evaluate the Project area for any cultural resources sites recorded or cultural resources studies conducted on the parcel and within a one-half mile radius. The EIC is the designated branch of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and houses records concerning archaeological and historic resources in Riverside, Inyo, and Mono Counties. The records search provided data on known archaeological and built environment resources as well as previous studies within one-half mile of the Project site. Data sources consulted at the EIC included archaeological records, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (DOE), historic maps, and the Historic Property Data File (HPDF) maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The HPDF contains listings for the CRHR and/or NRHP, California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI).

4.2 Paleontological Resources Records Search
A paleontological resources literature review was completed by Darla Radford, Collections Manager at the Western Science Center (WSC) in Hemet, California on December 28, 2021 (Attachment B). The review provided information on geological formations, paleontological localities, the Project’s potential to adversely affect fossil resources, and mitigation recommendations.

4.3 Historic Aerial Review
An examination was made by Patrick Maxon of the historic aerial photographs at HistoricAerials.com (NETRONLINE n.d.) on May 10, 2022.

4.4 Native American Scoping
Tribal consultation under Senate Bill (SB) 18 was initiated with Sacred Lands Search (SLF) request of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (Attachment C). The City of San Jacinto will conduct all formal consultation for SB 18 as well as Assembly Bill (AB) 52, with interested Tribes including initial outreach to tribes.

4.5 Field Survey
An archaeological survey of the Project site, utilizing transects spaced 10-15 meters apart, was conducted by VCS Archaeologist Patrick Maxon, RPA and Senior Paleontologist Brian Kussman on March 2, 2022. The entire Project site was examined for the presence of cultural resources.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 19 Results

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 Cultural Resources Records Search

5.1.1 Studies
As many as 45 cultural resources studies have previously been completed within one mile of the Project site. Five of the studies (RI-03791, RI-04404, RI-06743, RI-06819, and RI-08350) include at least a portion of the current Project site.

Table 1 identifies the cultural resource studies previously completed within the Project site.

Table 1
Cultural Resources Studies Within the Project Site
Report Number Author(s) (Year) Type/Size/Resources
RI-03791 Drover (1991) Survey; 800 acres; 0 resources
RI-04404 Jones & Stokes (2000) Linear Survey - Aqueduct; 20 resources RI-06743 Austerman (2006) Survey; 0 resources
RI-06819 McKenna (2006) Survey; 0 resources
RI-08350 Encarnacion et al. (2009) Linear Survey; 0 resources The assessment completed by Dover in 1991 of some 800 acres of the Sunshine Ranch included all of the current Project site. The linear survey of portions of the San Diego and Colorado River Aqueducts by Jones & Stokes in 2000 extended through the site and surrounded the San Jacinto Reservoir. Austerman’s and McKenna’s surveys in 2006 included the same parcels north and west of the Project site. They share the current Project’s northwest boundary. The 2009 Encarnacion linear survey extended through the center of the Project site. None resulted in the recordation of any cultural resources.

5.1.2 Resources
EIC information notes that 24 cultural resources have been recorded within a one-mile radius of the Project site (Attachment A). None of the resources are recorded within the Project site. Native American tribes may have additional cultural resources information.

Table 2 identifies the cultural resource previously recorded within one mile of the Project site.

Table 2
Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project Site
Site Number (P-33-) Recorded (Year) Description
007305 Stuart (1982) Single-Family property
007309 Swift (1982) Single-Family property
007318 Stuart (1982) Single-Family property
007319 Stuart (1982) Bosman’s Sewing Barn
007320 Stuart (1982) Single-Family property

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 20 Results
Site Number (P-33-) Recorded (Year) Description
007322 Moslak et al. (2004) Building
007343 Stuart (1982) William Record Home
007351 Swift (1982) Farm/Ranch
007352 Stuart (1982) Single-Family property
007360 Warner (1982) Hillview Farm
007383 Storey (2003) Single-Family property/Farm/Ranch
011265 Loftus (2016) Colorado River Aqueduct
014888 Moslak (2004) Prehistoric - Mano isolate
014889 Moslak (2004) Prehistoric - Mano isolate
014964 Harris (2006) Single-Family property
015734 Craft (2007) San Diego Aqueduct
015735 Easter & Beedle (2006) Single-Family property
015748 Easter & Beedle (2005) Historic
015752 Easter & Beedle (2005) CBJ Dairy
016638 Shaver & Shaver (2007) Historic
016639 Shaver & Shaver (2007) Historic
016640 Shaver & Shaver (2007) Historic
018035 Taft & Lynch (2015) Watertank House
021063 McKenna (2012) Stein Property; Devoe/Bandick Ranch Complex P-33-014888 and -014889: These isolated artifacts (2 bifacial manos) are the only prehistoric resources recorded within one mile of the Project site. They were both found in close proximity to each other, on the west side of the San Jacinto Reservoir, approximately three quarters of one mile (0.75 miles) west of the western portion of the Project site. Isolate 33-014888 is a bifacial mano composed of course grained granite. Both ends exhibit battering. Isolate 33-014889 is a second bifacial mano composed of hard, semicrystalline quartz. Nearly three quarters of the tool exhibits battering marks.

P-33-021063/CA-RIV-10911: The Devoe/Bandick Ranch Complex, located about one-half mile southsoutheast of the southern end of the Project site, was constructed sometime before 1966, growing steadily with structures, stands of tree, fields, and horse pens. The site began to be cleared sometime between 2002 and 2005 and was completely cleared by 2009. When the site was recorded in 2012, it consisted of fields associated with use as pastureland. There was scant evidence of residential demolition, but there were pipes and hydrants along the Lyon Avenue frontage and a modern drainage swale constructed along the northern property boundary. A wind row defined the property boundary on property to south. There was evidence of recent disking. This site is less than one mile southeast of the current Project site.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 21 Results

5.2 Paleontological Resources Records Search
The Western Science Center (WSC) in Hemet completed a Paleontological Records search on December 28, 2021 (Attachment B) that determined no paleontological resource localities are recorded on the Project site; however, numerous fossil localities have been found within three miles of the Project that are associated with the Diamond Valley Lake Project. According to WSC, the sediment underlying the Project area is mapped entirely as Holocene alluvium, which is typically of low paleontological sensitivity, however, the nearby Diamond Valley Lake Project localities are also mapped in Holocene alluvial and did produce a few specimens associated with the Pleistocene.

According to Radford (2021), excavations for the Project have the potential to impact paleontologically sensitive sediments and any fossils recovered from this Project would likely be scientifically significant. The WSC therefore recommends that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils from the study area, which would be consistent with GP Action RM-3e.

5.3 Historic Aerial Review
An examination of historic aerial photographs (NETRONLINE n.d.) revealed that as of 1966—the earliest available aerial—all but the extreme northern tip of the Project site had been cleared. It remains cleared and undeveloped to today.

5.4 Native American Scoping
On December 7, 2021, VCS contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and to obtain an SB 18 tribal contacts list. The NAHC responded on February 2, 2022. The results of the SLF Search were negative (Attachment C). The City of San Jacinto, however, has its AB 52 tribal contacts list to be used in consultation. The NAHC advises that notification letters to tribes should include the results of a records search, pedestrian survey, and SLF search. Ethnographic and geotechnical studies should also be provided. The City of San Jacinto will conduct this consultation.

The following is the NAHC’s SB 18 Tribal consultation list:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director of Tribal Historic Preservation Office (Lacy Padilla is now the Tribal THPO) • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson (Reid Milanovitch is now the Tribal Chairperson)
• Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians; Amanda Vance, Chairperson • Cabazon Band of Mission Indians; Doug Welmas, Chairperson • Cahuilla Band of Indians; Daniel Salgado, Chairperson • Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians; Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson • Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Honorable Robert Martin, Chairperson • Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Ann Brierty, THPO
• Pala Band of Mission Indians; Shasta Gaughen, THPO
• Pechanga Band of Mission Indians; Mark Macarro, Chairperson • Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation; Jill McCormick, THPO • Ramona Band of Cahuilla; Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson • Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians; Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson • Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians; Cheryl Madrigal, THPO • Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians; Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 22 Results
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians; Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department • Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians; Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson • Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians; Thomas Tortez, Chairperson

5.5 Field Survey
Patrick Maxon, VCS Director of Cultural Services and Brian Kussman, Senior Paleontologist, conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project site on March 2, 2022. The site has been cleared, but short grasses and vegetation have regrown and are covering the site. Despite this cover, the grass is sparse enough to allow the surface to be examined. Visibility was approximately 75%.

Beginning in the southeast corner of the site, nearest N. Lyon Avenue and De Anza Drive, the survey consisted of northwest/southeast trending transects spaced approximately 10-15 meters apart, moving east to west, the entire site was examined closely. No Tribal Cultural Resources were discovered as a result of the survey. However, a description of historic-era resources noted during the survey follows:

An old, nonfunctional, steel standpipe dressed in a concrete apron and secured in a large concrete base (labeled “C.L-2 96+50 AS) is present in the southern portion of the Project site, approximately 950 feet northwest of the N. Lyon Avenue and De Anza Drive intersection. The resource is located at UTM 500757.99mE/3740570.53mN. The resource is clearly present in the 1972 aerial photograph (NETRONLINE n.d.); however, it is unclear whether it is present in the 1966 and 1967 aerials.

The approximately 1.5-acre extreme northwest point of the Project site (center of area is UTM 500196.74mE/3741138.22mN), is the only part of the site that appears to have not been cleared and/or farmed after 1966. Several tree stumps; brick, concrete, wood, and other building materials were noted there during the survey in this triangular area. A low earthen berm surrounds this area.

Project Site Overview; Southeast corner side; View to Northwest

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 23 Results
Standpipe Southeast end of Project Site; View to Southwest Standpipe closeup

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 24 Results
Northwest extreme of Project site; View to Northwest

Northwest extreme of Project site; View to West

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 25 Management Considerations

6.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form, which includes, for Section V. Cultural Resources, questions relating to cultural resources, including the historic built environment, historic and prehistoric archaeology, and human remains. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist have been used as significance criteria. Accordingly, a project may result in a significant environmental impact if:
• The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.
• The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
• The project would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines Section VII, Geology and Soils, includes an additional question related to the presence or absence of fossil resources on the Project site. Accordingly, a project may result in a significant environmental impact if:
• The project directly or indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines Section XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources includes additional questions related to the presence or absence of Tribal Cultural Resources on the Project site. They are as follows:
• Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The purpose of the cultural resources assessment is to identify any historical resources or (through tribal consultation) tribal cultural resources that may exist on the Project site, to determine the sensitivity of the Project site for the presence of buried archaeological and/or paleontological material, and to make recommendations to the Lead Agency regarding the development of mitigation measures or uniformly applied development policies or standards consistent with the Actions of the San Jacinto General Plan to reduce the impacts of the Project on resources to a less than significant level and/or to ensure there are no peculiar impacts to the Project that have not already adequately been analyzed and addressed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 26 Management Considerations
Public Resources Code (PRC) §21084.1-2 and PRC §5020.1(q) of CEQA states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change (i.e., demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired) in the significance of a “historical resource” or a “tribal cultural resource” is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 27 Summary and Recommendations

7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An examination of historic aerial photographs (NETRONLINE n.d.) revealed that the Project site has never been developed.

Twenty-Four cultural resources are recorded within one mile of the Project site. None are on the Project site.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect any existing known cultural resources.

However, because the area is known to contain resources, archaeological monitoring is recommended during ground disturbing activities.

7.1 Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Based on the data presented, it is recommended that archaeological monitoring and Native American monitoring occur during Project excavations into all younger Holocene alluvial soils. Consistent with the General Plan Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f, uniformly applied development policies or standards are recommended for the Project to outline the monitoring protocols. The protocols listed below, or as modified by the Lead Agency and participating Tribe(s), should include, but not be limited to, the following actions:
1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification that an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Archaeology has been retained to implement the monitoring program. This verification shall be presented in a letter from the Project archaeologist to the Lead Agency.
2) The Project applicant shall request a Native American monitoring during grading. If a monitoring contract is declined by the Consulting Tribe(s), the qualified archaeologist shall act as the lead monitor. The Native American monitor shall work in concert with the archaeological monitor to observe all ground disturbances into younger Holocene alluvial soils and search for cultural materials. The Lead Agency shall coordinate with the consulting Tribe(s) to facilitate communications with the Project developer/applicant so that all Parties can develop a mutually agreeable Tribal Monitoring and Treatment Agreement which includes the scope of monitoring, scheduling of monitors from individual consulting Tribe(s), and the course of action for inadvertent discoveries.
3) The Project archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the Project site. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project grading and development scheduling.
b. The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 28 Summary and Recommendations
include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols.
c. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
4) During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological and Tribal monitors shall be on-site, as determined by the consulting archaeologist and Tribe(s), to perform full-time monitoring of the excavations. Monitoring is recommended during ground-disturbing activities in all younger Holocene alluvial soils. The frequency of inspections will depend upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The consulting archaeologist shall have the authority to modify the monitoring program if the potential for cultural resources appears to be less than anticipated. 5) Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field so the monitored grading can proceed, will remain on site in a secure location, and will then be recorded on DPR 523 Series site record forms.
6) In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist and Tribal monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the Lead Agency at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribe(s) and Lead Agency, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Lead Agency must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be implemented by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the Lead Agency before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the County Coroner and Lead Agency shall be contacted within 24 hours. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant (as identified by the NAHC) shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. a. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered if preservation in place is not feasible, and features recorded. The Project archaeologist in consultation with the consulting Tribe(s) shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for evaluation. Any recovered artifacts will remain on site until their disposition in perpetuity has been determined. b. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be used in the event of a discovery:
i. Preservation-in-Place. Avoidance, or preservation-in-place, involves leaving a resource where it was found with no development affecting its integrity. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological and cultural resources.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 29 Summary and Recommendations
ii. Reburial on the Project site in an area not subject to future disturbance. Reburial of a resource shall include provisions to protect the selected reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all required cataloging and basic recording have been completed, with the exception of sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. The listing of contents and the location of the reburial shall be included in a confidential Phase IV monitoring report. c. If Preservation-in-Place or reburial is not feasible, all cultural material, excepting human remains and sacred, patrimonial, and funerary items, collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository standards in a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources (OHP 1993). The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title and accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. 7) A Phase IV Monitoring Report, documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context, shall be completed and submitted to the satisfaction of the Lead Agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report will include DPR Primary and Archaeological Site Forms. The Phase IV report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request and a copy of the report shall be submitted to the consulting Tribe(s).

Paleontological Resources
Full-time monitoring is recommended starting at a depth of five feet below the surface during earth disturbance activities, as required by the City of San Jacinto. Consistent with GP Action RM-3e, a proposed monitoring protocol is detailed below. When implemented with the provisions of CEQA, the City of San Jacinto, Western Science Center (Radford 2021; Appendix C), and the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2019), these monitoring protocols would address potential impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (fossils), if present. The protocols listed below, or as modified by the Lead Agency, should include, but not be limited to, the following actions:

3. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen-washing sediments to recover small vertebrates and invertebrates if indicated by

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 30 Summary and Recommendations
the geologic conditions. Preparation of any individual vertebrate fossils is often more timeconsuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.

5. Preparation of a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance. including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). A letter documenting receipt and acceptance of all fossil collections by the receiving institution must be included in the final report. The report, when submitted to and accepted by the appropriate Lead Agency (e.g., the City of San Jacinto), will signify satisfactory completion of the Project program to mitigate impacts to any nonrenewable paleontological resources.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 31 Certification

8.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DATE: June 2022
Updated: October 2024 SIGNED:
_________________________________
Patrick Maxon., RPA
Director, Cultural Resources

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 32 References

9.0 REFERENCES
Basgall, Mark E.
1987 Resource Intensification Among Hunter-Gathers: Acorn Economies in Prehistoric Southern California. Research in Economics Anthropology 9:21-52.

Bean, Lowell J.
1972 Mukat’s People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
1978 Cahuilla. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, R. F. Heizer (editor), pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell J. and Katherine S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh (from the Earth): Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning.

Bean, Lowell J. and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California R. F. Heizer (editor), pp. 550-563. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, pp. 538-549. Robert F.

Heizer, volume editor. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.

Byrd, B. and M. Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity (pp. 215–227). Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, Editors.

Altamira Press, a Division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Chartkoff, J. L. and K. K. Chartkoff
1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Davis, E.L., C.W. Brott, and D.L. Weide
1969 The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers Vol. 6, San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego.

DuBois, Constance Goddard
1908 The Religion of the Luiseño Indians of Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:69-186.

Erlandson, J. and R. Colton
1991 An Archaeological Context for Early Holocene Studies on the California Coast. In HunterGatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J.M. Erlandson and R.H. Colton, pp. 1-10. Cotson Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Hampson, Paul R.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 33 References
1991 Cultural Resources Survey and Test Excavation, Lake Elsinore, California. Greenwood and Associates. Report on file. Eastern Information Center, Riverside, CA.

Johnson, Allen W. and Timothy Earle
1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Jones, T. and K. Klar
2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. T. Jones and K. Klar (editors), Altamira Press.

Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications Inc., New York. 1907 Shoshonean Dialects of California. American Archaeology and Ethnology 4:66-165.

Kussman, Brian
2022 Phase I Paleontological Assessment, San Jacinto Residential Development Project, TTM 38202, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. On file, VCS Environmental, San Juan Capistrano.

Lovin, June
1963 A Summary Description of Luiseño Material Culture. In Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1962-1963, pp. 81-130. University of California, Los Angeles.

McCawley, W.
1996 The First Angelenos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication, Banning and Novato, California.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando, Florida.

NETRONLINE
n.d. Historic Aerials: http://www.historicaerials.com/.

Office of Historic Preservation
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format.

Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, California. 1993 Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections, State Historical Resources Commission, Department of Parks and Recreation.

Raab, L. and T. Jones
2004 The Future of California Prehistory. In Prehistoric California: Archaeology and the Myth of Paradise, edited by L.M. Raab and T.L. Jones, pp. 204-211. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- McLeish Ranch Residential Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
October 2024 34 References
Radford, Darla
2021 Results of Paleontological record search for the Moreno Valley Town Center Project, in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County.

San Jacinto, City of
n.d. City of San Jacinto General Plan. San Jacinto History - City of San Jacinto, CA (sanjacintoca.gov).

Shipley, William F.
1978 Native Languages of California. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.80-90. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
2019 Best Practice Guidelines for Repositing and Disseminating Contextual Data Associated with Vertebrate Fossils: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 6 p.

Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1): 1-358.

Sutton, Mark
2010 The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44 (2): 1-64.

Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology II.

Weeks, K. and Grimmer, A.
1995 The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services (Washington, D.C.).

White, Raymond C.
1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91–194.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

ATTACHMENT A

CONFIDENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH (EIC)

NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

ATTACHMENT B

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH (WSC)

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- 2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org VCS Environmental December 28, 2021
Patrick Maxon
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Dear Mr. Maxon,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the McLeish Ranch Project in the city of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. The project site is located west of Lyon Avenue, east of Sanderson Avenue and south of Ramona Boulevard in a non-sectioned portion of Township 4 South, and Range 1 West, on the San Jacinto USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle.

The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped entirely as alluvial fan deposits dating to the Holocene epoch (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene units are not typically considered to be highly sensitive for fossil resources, the Western Science Center does have numerous Pleistocene localities in similarly mapped sediments less than 3 miles from the project area. The presence of nearby fossil localities associated with the Diamond Valley Lake Project indicate that the geologic mapping of the area may not accurately represent the age of the underlying sediment. Pleistocene alluvial units are known to produce fossil specimens including those associated with mastodon (Mammut pacificus), mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), ancient horse (Equus sp.), camel (Camelops hesternus), sabertooth cats (Smilodon fatalis) and many more. These species are well documented at Diamond Valley Lake as well as throughout Southern California.

Any fossil specimens recovered from the McLeish Ranch Project would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact the paleontologically sensitive alluvial units, and it is the recommendation of the Western Science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils from the study area.

If you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Darla Radford
Collections Manager

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract

ATTACHMENT C

NATIVE AMERICAN SCOPING (NAHC)

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Type of List Requested
☐ CEQA Tribal Consultation List (AB 52) – Per Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subs. (b), (d), (e) and 21080.3.2 ☐ General Plan (SB 18) - Per Government Code § 65352.3.

Local Action Type:
___ General Plan ___ General Plan Element ___ General Plan Amendment ___ Specific Plan ___ Specific Plan Amendment ___ Pre-planning Outreach Activity Required Information
Project Title:____________________________________________________________________________ Local Government/Lead Agency: ___________________________________________________________ Contact Person: __________________________________________________________________________ Street Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ City:_____________________________________________________ Zip:__________________________ Phone:____________________________________ Fax:_________________________________________ Email:_____________________________________________
Specific Area Subject to Proposed Action
County:________________________________ City/Community: ___________________________ Project Description:

Additional Request
☐ Sacred Lands File Search - Required Information:

USGS Quadrangle Name(s):____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Township:___________________ Range:___________________ Section(s):___________________

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

February 2, 2022
Patrick O. Maxon
VCS Environmental
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18, Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4, McLeish Ranch Project, Riverside County
Dear Mr. Maxon:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties.

Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

The law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

The NAHC also believes that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded or are adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

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

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

Page 2 of 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:

[email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Rd.

Pala, CA, 92059
Phone: (760) 891 - 3515
Fax: (760) 742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6000
Fax: (951) 695-1778
[email protected]
Luiseno
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 et seq for the proposed McLeish Ranch Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2022-
000340
02/02/2022 09:53 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Riverside County
2/2/2022

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 749 - 1051
Fax: (760) 749-5144
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 297 - 2635
[email protected]
Luiseno
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Thomas Tortez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 397 - 0300
Fax: (760) 397-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 et seq for the proposed McLeish Ranch Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2022-
000340
02/02/2022 09:53 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Riverside County
2/2/2022

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

ATTACHMENT D

PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- PATRICK MAXON, M.A., RPA
Director of Cultural Resources
A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
ABOUT
Patrick Maxon, M.A., RPA is a Registered Professional Archaeologist with 27 years of experience in all aspects of cultural resources management, including prehistoric and historic archaeology, paleontology, ethnography and tribal consultation. He has expertise in compliance with CEQA, NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the Clean Water Act, among others. Patrick has completed hundreds of cultural resources projects throughout Southern California and in Arizona and Nevada involving (1) agency, client, Native American, and subcontractor coordination and consultation; (2) treatment plans and research design development; (3) archival research; (4) field reconnaissance; (5) site testing; (6) data recovery excavation; (7) construction monitoring; (8) site recordation; (9) site protection/preservation; (10) mapping/cartography; (11) laboratory analysis; and (12) report production. He has managed projects within the jurisdiction of the USACE, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal Transit Administration, and other federal agencies that require compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. He has also completed projects throughout Southern California under CEQA for State and local governments and municipalities, including Caltrans, the Department of General Services (DGS), the California Energy Commission, the California Department of Water Resources, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and others. Patrick is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), meets the Secretary of Interior’s standards for historic preservation programs for archaeology, and is certified as an Archaeologist for the County of Riverside and the County of Orange.

SELECT EXPERIENCE/PROJECTS
THE HUNTER SUBSTATION | RIVERSIDE, CA
VCS completed a Phase I cultural resources study for this expansion and upgrade of the Hunter Substation, a 69/12kV distribution, air insulated substation (AIS) by the Riverside Public Utilities Commission. The study consisted of a records search at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside; a paleontological records search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County; initiation of Native American consultation; a pedestrian survey of the project site; and preparation of a technical report per City of Riverside standards. The existing substation was evaluated for historic significance but was found not eligible for listing. Mr. Maxon also participated in Native American consultation with the Soboba and Rincon Bands of Luiseño Indians.

DIXIE LINE LUMBER | RIVERSIDE, CA
VCS completed a Phase I cultural resources study for this 7.26-acre project in unincorporated Riverside County. The project is to construct a lumbar truss yard consisting of a 41,100 square foot building comprised of a pre-manufactured building and an attached office and sales building. Mr. Maxon completed a records search at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside; a paleontological records search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County; initiation of Native American consultation; a pedestrian survey of the project site; and preparation of a technical report per City of Riverside standards.

EDUCATION
Master of Arts Anthropology:

California State University,
Fullerton, 1994
B.A. Psychology, Sociology: Towson
State University, Towson, MD, 1987

CERTIFICATIONS/TRAINING
Riverside County Transportation
and Land Management Agency
Certified Archaeologist (No. 226)
California Energy Commission
Cultural Resources Specialist,
2001
Registered Professional
Archaeologist (National)/No.
11468/Register of Professional
Archaeologists
Orange County Certified
Archaeologist, 1999
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 Compliance
Advanced Certification, 2002
Principal Investigator, Southern
California/Bureau of Land
Management
Qualified Archaeologist – Secretary
of the Interior Standards and
Guidelines of Professional
Qualification & Standards for
Archaeology, as per Title 36,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part
61/

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
Association of Environmental
Professionals
American Cultural Resources
Association

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- PATRICK MAXON, M.A., RPA
Director of Cultural Resources VCS Environmental
A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com

ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ON-CALL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES SERVICES Pat is the Cultural Resources Manager for the On-Call Contract. He has provided environmental analyses services on an as-needed basis as part of on-call contracts with the Orange County Water District since 2010. Representative cultural resources task orders completed as part of the on-call contracts, include the following:
• La Palma Recharge Basin, Anaheim, CA
• Prado Basin Mitigation Sites, Orange County, CA
• Fletcher Basin Improvement Project Cultural and Paleontological Resources Mitigation Monitoring Plan, City of Orange, CA
• Centennial Park Injection Well Project, Santa Ana, CA • EW-1 Groundwater Containment and Treatment Project, City of Fullerton, CA. • Santiago Recharge Basin Project, Orange, CA
• Talbert Extraction Well Decommissioning Project, Huntington Beach, CA • Sunset Gap Monitoring Wells
PALM SPRINGS SIGNALIZATION PROJECT | PALM SPRINGS, CA
Pat was the Project Manager for cultural resources on this project which proposed to modify 19 existing signalized intersections in the City of Palm Springs to upgrade existing traffic control devices, improve signal visibility, install advance dilemma zone detectors, and reconstruct existing non-Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curbs. VCS cultural services on this project included the preparation of an Area of Potential Effects (APE) map; completion of a cultural resources literature review of the APE at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at the University of California, Riverside; a field survey of the APE; and preparation of an ASR and HPSR. Discussions with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians were ongoing throughout the project and resulted in a minor change to the project to avoid a culturally sensitive area.

MISSION TRAIL DEVELOPMENT | LAKE ELSINORE, CA
VCS completed cultural and paleontological resources monitoring of grading, guided by a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP) that Mr. Maxon developed for the proposed housing development. Cultural resources, including ground and flaked stone implements, recovered from the site were discovered during grading and subsequently reburied on site in a confidential location by the Tribal monitors from the Pechanga and Soboba Bands of Luiseño Indians. Two paleontological specimens: a pair of Mammoth ribs and a horse vertebra, were recovered and analyzed by qualified paleontologists and included in the technical report. As they were not museum quality specimens, they were developed into a display by the project Applicant.

HOME SWEET HOME | RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA
VCS prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Home Sweet Home Project. The 7.16-acre Project site was vacant and surrounded by residential uses to the north, south, east and a fire station and vacant land to the west. Mr. Maxon completed a Phase I cultural resources study to County of Riverside standards, which included (1) archaeological and paleontological records searches, (2) Native American consultation with the NAHC and subsequent communication with several tribes that wished to consult; (3) pedestrian survey of the project site; and (4) a technical report describing the results of the study and recommended mitigation measure for any potential impacts to resources. No resources were discovered.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22- PATRICK MAXON, M.A., RPA
Director of Cultural Resources VCS Environmental
A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
SUMMERLY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CULTURAL RESOURCES MONITORING | LAKE

ELSINORE, CA
Pat was the Project Manager for this project, which included grading for a drainage channel, a large sewer line, the subsequent residential development, and a 71-acre detention basin. He managed the placement and work of VCS monitors on the project and ensured that any discovery of cultural or paleontological resources was handled appropriately. Daily field notes describing the activities performed each day were maintained by monitors and were included in the final report. No archaeological resources were observed or collected during monitoring activities; however, a large, important assemblage of Pleistocene fossils (bison, camel, mammoth, et al.) was recovered from the lake sediments and recently curated at the Western Science Center in Hemet.

DIAMOND SPORTS COMPLEX | LAKE ELSINORE, CA
Pat was the Cultural Project Manager for this project. VCS undertook a cultural resources investigation that was initiated by developing a cultural resources monitoring plan with the Pechanga and Soboba Bands of Luiseño Indians. VCS subsequently commenced the controlled grading of site CA-RIV-4042 as required in the project mitigation measures. The project was suspended after the discovery of human remains and the County coroners analysis. The City and tribes are consulting on the disposition of the burial.

LAGUNA NIGUEL PASSING SIDING | LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA
The OCTA Laguna Niguel Passing/Siding project adds one lane of track to the railroad from the Laguna Niguel station south several thousand feet. Pat leads all culturalservices for the Passing Siding Project. He managed the construction monitoring services for the project since it is located in a culturally sensitive area due to its proximity to the Mission San Juan.

Several tribal artifacts were recovered during monitoring. These were described in the monitoring report and were then donated by OCTA to the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation.

TRUMARK RESIDENTIAL PROJECT | MISSION VIEJO, CA
Pat is the Cultural Resources Manager for the ongoing Cultural Resources services for the Trumark Residential Project. The proposed project involves approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development Permit, Tentative Tract Map and Variances to allow for the construction and operation of a 91-unit multiple-family dwelling residential development project. The Phase I study consisted of a records search and literature review, a pedestrian survey of the project site, Native American scoping, and preparation of a technical report describing the results of the study. The Project site is within the Upper Aliso Creek Archaeological District and is sensitive for the presence of cultural resources. Subsequently, he assisted in the identification of AB 52/SB 18 consulting parties and participated in the consultation meetings. Monitoring of grading for the development will follow.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

BRIAN KUSSMAN
Senior Paleontologist
A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com

EDUCATION
B.A., Earth Science, California
State University Fullerton

CERTIFICATIONS/TRAINING
AEP CEQA Basics Training,
October 2021

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
South Coast Geologic Society
Member
Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology
Association of Environmental
Professionals
ABOUT
Brian began working for VCS Environmental in 2018 and has over 27 years of experience conducting paleontolgical research, field survey, fossil salvage, fossil preparation, laboratory identification, report preparation, and curatorial experience throughout Southern California. This includes background research, project proposals and reports, field surveys and monitoring, lab preparation and storage, identification and analysis, and curation of paleontological materials in repositories. Project experience includes housing construction, business construction, highway construction, and public utilities development throughout Southern California. He is also responsible for field monitoring, and has assisted with archaeological surveying, monitoring, and the preparation of paleontological monitoring reports.

SELECT EXPERIENCE

PALEONTOLOGY
− Led and worked alongside Mark Roeder on many salvage excavations with L&L, PEA, and VCS. Also led salvage excavations with LSA. Led excavation for a mostly complete Mastodon skeleton at Majestic in California.
− Volunteer experience since 1989 at Clark Regional Park Interpretative Center, including several research projects.
− Monitoring experience on southern California sites, since 1994. − Pleistocene fossil mammal identification expert.
− Familiarity with other fossil types found in local rock units. − Volunteer at Rancho La Brea during the 1991 summer volunteer session. − Sampled carbon, using proper field protocols for contamination prevention, for radiometric dating.
− Briefly assisted with curation at the John Cooper Center in 2016.

GEOLOGY
− Led drilling efforts utilizing hollow stem auger, sonic, reverse mud rotary (800 foot + boreholes), standard mud rotary (130 feet to 325 feet boreholes) and direct push. − Logged soil cuttings, from both conventional and mud drill rigs. − Utility clearance oversight: utility company record searches, metal detection, ground penetrating radar, hand auger, and air knife.
− Groundwater and soil sampling for pollutants, GW sampling includes use of all types of pumps commonly used and interface probes for sounding (lead on those projects). − Borehole geological description entry and creation of diagrams using LogPlot software, and report QA.
− Hazwoper 40 taken but would need to retake, TWIC card clearance. − Familiar with rock and mineral identification.

ARCHAEOLOGY
− Found numerous hearth features in Orange County with Psomas and LSA, as well as lithic artifacts associated with these features. One complete hearth feature excavated with LSA.
− Sampled carbon, for radiometric dating, from these features. − Archaeological monitoring for both prehistoric and historic resources. − Excavation experience recently at a central California coastal site extremely rich in lithics.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

BIOLOGY
− Twice, verified for authorities, that remains were not human. Very familiar with differences between human and other mammalian osteology. − Familiar with local endangered/threatened animals and plants. − Familiar with taxonomy and field identification of cacti and succulents of the Southwest.

INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Ralph B. Clark Regional Park Interpretive Center
Ralph B. Clark Regional Park includes an interpretive center with an extensive fossil collection. It displays marine fossils dating from about one million years ago, to more recent terrestrial mammals that walked the earth tens of thousands of years ago.

These specimens were recovered inside the boundaries of Clark Park, and from the development of the Coyote Hills area in northern Orange County. Brian has volunteered at the park since 1989 and his experience includes the following:
• Worked extensively with modern comparative collections at the Interpretative Center, for identification purposes. • Learned fossil preparation techniques (Pleistocene predominantly, but also Miocene terrestrial fossils of the SespeVaqueros Formation as well as marine vertebrates from throughout Orange County). • Acted as unofficial collections manager at the Ralph B. Clark Interpretive Center. • From late 1990’s, began with research, primarily focused on the Pleistocene terrestrial fossils from the Ralph B. Clark Park.
• In 2014, presented a poster at SVP pinpointing the age of the terrestrial fossils in the park. Also coauthored a poster concerning the age of the Oso Member (primarily exposed in Orange County), of the Capistrano Formation. • Beginning of 2020, began a research project with paleontologists from Anza-Borrego State Park, concerning a rare animal only found in sufficient numbers for research, at these 2 institutions. • Worked on several other research projects for Ralph B. Clark Interpretive Center, including a collaborative project with paleontologists at Anza-Borrego State Park, concerning a rare fossil animal found at both localities.

George C. Page Museum - Rancho La Brea
Rancho La Brea represents the largest collection of late Pleistocene asphaltic fossils in the world, and uses this opportunity to train students, build collections through excavation, prepare and conserve fossils in our public viewing Fossil Lab and curate this massive collection onsite. Rancho La Brea staff also use these collections to study scientific questions with visiting academics. Brian volunteered at Rancho La Brea in 1991 and his experience includes the following:
• Preparation and reconstruction of Mammoth and Mastodon limb bone specimens. • Separation and initial sorting of microfossils from matrix. • Sorting and identification of fossils returned to Rancho La Brea from the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA.
• Cursory observation of Western Camel vertebrae, as part of a potential research project.

SPEAKER AT THE SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY 75TH ANNUAL MEETING | OCTOBER 14-17, 2015

VERTEBRATE FAUNA AND UNGULATE BIOSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE HIGHLY FOSSILIFEROUS OSO SAND MEMBER, CAPISTRANO FORMATION, ORANGE COUNTY, CA.

Barboza, Michelle, California State University, Fullerton, CA, United States of America Parham, James F., John D. Cooper Archaeology and Paleontology Center, California State University, Fullerton, CA, United States of America
Kussman, Brian N., California State University, Fullerton, CA, United States of America The Oso Sand Member is the highly fossiliferous, nearshore facies of the Capistrano Formation, which spans the southwestern rim of the Los Angeles Basin in Orange County, California. Over 20 vertebrate taxa have been identified from this unit, including well preserved fossils of marine taxa, such as a nearly complete skull of a blue marlin and the most complete fossil walrus found to date. In addition to other marine

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

BRIAN KUSSMAN
Senior Paleontologist VCS Environmental
A certified SBE, DBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
mammals (whales and sea cows), terrestrial mammals are also known from the Oso Sand Member including gomphotheriids, rhinocerotids, antilocaprids, canids, cricetids, and lagomorphs. Despite the abundance of material from Oso Sand Member sites, just three papers have reported on this unit: one paper focused on the skull of the blue marlin mentioned above, the other two mentioned mammal fossils in passing. We provide an overview of all known vertebrate fossils from Oso Sand Member, and establish a more refined age for the Oso Sand Member, which will help provide a temporal framework for ongoing paleontological studies. Based on stratigraphic correlation, the Capistrano Formation is reported as Upper Miocene to Lower Pliocene. Previous workers have referred to undescribed specimens to place the Oso Sand Member in the Hemphillian North American Land Mammal Age. Partial camelid teeth are identified as Alforjas, known from the late early to latest Hemphillian (Hh2 to Hh4). Horse teeth previously referred to Pliohippus (Barstovian to Hemphillian) are reidentified as Dinohippus interpolatus, which is characteristic of the early late Hemphillian (Hh3). Based on these identifications, we can constrain the age of the Oso Sand Member to the early late Hemphillian (Hh3). By better defining the age of the Oso Sand Member, we can place the marine and terrestrial vertebrate fossils from this unit into a more precise chronostratigraphic framework that allows us to make more detailed comparisons to other late Neogene faunas in California.

BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF MAMMALIAN TAXA REVISES THE AGE OF RICH PLEISTOCENE SITES FROM THE LA HABRA

FORMATION (ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) FROM RANCHO LA BREAN TO IRVINGTONIAN Kussman, Brian N., California State University, Fullerton, CA, United States of America Parham, James F., John D. Cooper Archaeology and Paleontology Center, California State University, Fullerton, CA, United States of America
Babilonia, Lisa C., Clark Paleontology Museum, Buena Park, CA, United States of America This study provides a new age assessment for the La Habra Formation at the Emery Borrow Pit, Ralph B. Clark Regional Park, Orange County, California, which contains one of the richest non-asphalt Pleistocene sites in California. Over 35 species of mammal, 19 species of birds, and 16 species of amphibians and reptiles have been identified from this site, although it remains poorly represented in the literature. Although Pleistocene terrestrial fossils from the Emery Borrow Pit have been mentioned occasionally, to date only a single fossil, a tapir tooth (Tapirus merriami), has been described and figured from the La Habra Formation. The La Habra Formation has been assigned to the Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age largely due to its proximity to another site, La Mirada. However, unlike La Mirada and other Rancholabrean sites, no Bison (a hallmark taxon for the Rancholabrean) have been found at the Emery Borrow Pit. This is despite an abundance of grazers such as Camelops and Equus have been found. Furthermore, the Microtus from the La Habra Formation most closely resemble Microtus meadensis (an Irvingtonian taxon). Combined with the presence of Megalonyx jeffersonii (known from the Late Irvingtonian to Rancholabrean), the Microtus and the lack of Bison suggest a late Irvingtonian age for the La Habra Formation. Faunas from the Irvingtonian are relatively rare compared to those from the Rancholabrean, increasing this site's importance for interpreting other Pleistocene faunas in the region. The high diversity and antiquity of the fauna from La Habra Formation present an excellent opportunity to characterize the fauna of the Los Angeles Basin just prior to the well-known asphalt site of Rancho La Brea, less than 40 km away.

PUBLICATION
Barboza, M.M., J.F. Parham, G-P. Santos, B.N. Kussman, J. Velez-Juarbe. 2017. The age of the Oso Member, Capistrano Formation, and a review of fossil crocodylians from California. PaleoBios, 34. ucmp_paleobios_33797.

SELECT PROJECTS
SUMMERLY PROJECT | LAKE ELSINORE, CA
Summerly is a 706-acre master-planned golf community in the Lake Elsinore Back Basin. The development consists of approximately 1,955 residential units, 40 acres of roads, and 329 acres of open space, including an 18-hole golf course. This project included grading for a drainage channel, a large sewer line, the subsequent residential development, and a 71-acre detention basin which required cultural monitors on the project and ensured that any discovery of cultural or paleontological resources was handled appropriately. No archaeological resources were observed or collected during monitoring activities; however, a large, important assemblage of Pleistocene fossils (bison, camel, mammoth, et al.) was recovered from the lake sediments and recently curated at the Western Science Center in Hemet. Brian identified fossil remains during the course of salvage excavation efforts so as to prevent damage to adjacent fossils not yet uncovered.

YORBA LINDA ESTATES - LAKEVIEW AVENUE | YORBA LINDA, CA Shea Homes retained VCS Environmental (VCS) to provide cultural and paleontological resources monitoring pursuant to Mitigation Measures 122, 129, 130, and 131, of the Yorba Linda Estates Mitigation Monitoring Program developed in the project’s Initial Study, govern the mitigation of impacts to paleontological, archaeological, and Tribal Cultural resources. Due to the project’s location near a waterway and former existence as a nursery, it required monitoring for cultural and historic

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

BRIAN KUSSMAN
Senior Paleontologist VCS Environmental
A certified SBE, DBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
resources, as well as paleontological. Monitoring occurred on 80 separate days beginning in April 2018 and extending through October 17, 2018. The Lead Monitor for the project was VCS Archaeologist/Paleontologist, Brian Kussman. Brian monitored for paleontological and cultural resources during soil removal as part of remediation, mass excavation, and deep utility trenching.

LANDMARK | CHINO, CA
The construction project includes grading of lots for the development of 38 single family homes and trenching for the installation of sewer, water, and utilities. Monitoring of this work was required pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Mitigation Measures (MMs) CUL-1 through CUL-3 developed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project (Dudek 2017). Monitoring occurred on 90 separate days beginning on February 11, 2019, with grubbing and clearing and extending through December 20, 2019. Brian monitored for both paleontological and cultural resources on this project.

RANCHO DIAMANTE PROJECT | HEMET, CA
The 244.9-acre Rancho Diamante Project site is located south of the Hemet-Ryan Airport in the City of Hemet. The proposed Project is a subdivision of 294 residential lots with paseos and open space consisting of residences, roadways, a stormwater drainage system, and associated infrastructure. To achieve said development, grading operations are required to obtain finished grade elevations. The grading operation will consist of 370,000 cubic yards of excavation and embankment of native soil. Brian monitored for both paleontological and cultural resources.

PACIFIC MAYFIELD CULTURAL MONITORING | MENIFEE, CA
The current project site consists of approximately the southern half (Parcels 5-10) of the 2001 site boundaries. La Piedra Road defines the northern end of the current Project site, and Holland Road defines its southern boundary. Brian has conducted both paleontological and cultural resource monitoring at Pacific Mayfield.

STATE ROUTE 210 MIXED FLOW LANE ADDITION FROM HIGHLAND AVENUE TO SAN BERNARDINO AVENUE PROJECT | CITIES

OF HIGHLAND, SAN BERNARDINO, AND REDLANDS, CA
The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 and the City of Highland, proposes to widen State Route 210 (SR-210) from Sterling Avenue to San Bernardino Avenue in the cities of Highland, San Bernardino, and Redlands, as well as a portion of unincorporated San Bernardino County, California. The land uses surrounding the proposed project corridor are urban and moderately densely developed primarily with residential, public facilities, open space, and general commercial uses. The widening would occur between post miles (PM) Revised (R) 26.3 and R32.4, for a total distance of 6.1 miles. The total length of the proposed project limits is approximately 8.2 miles (PM R25.0 to R33.2), which includes transition striping and signage. Within the limits of the proposed project, SR-210 is a four-lane divided freeway with two 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction, which are flanked by five foot-wide left and right shoulders. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce congestion and improve operational efficiency by providing lane continuity with existing segments of freeway west and east of the proposed project limits. Brian monitored excavations into native alluvium for new bridge foundations. Excavations took place along a several mile section of SR-210 in Highland, CA.

BANNING DISTRIBUTION CENTER PROJECT | BANNING, CA
The project property encompasses 108 acres, with 64.1 acres onsite and 43.9 acres for offsite improvements. The project is located south of Interstate 10 and the Southern Pacific Railroad and north of the Banning Municipal Airport at the eastern edge of the City of Banning. Ground disturbance is estimated to reach a maximum depth of 33 feet below the current grade. The offsite improvements to the project include a road, fire access road, sewer, and water lines. The proposed project’s offsite roadways include a 5,688 linear foot extension of John Street from the project’s west property line to Lincoln Street and a 3,871 linear foot emergency fire access roadway at the southwestern corner of the property, across a creek that flows to Smith Creek, and onto Banning Airport property. The offsite utility improvements include a sewer line and an associated lift station; the lift station is approximately 0.4 miles from the southern edge of the project. A water line will start where the line will tie into the existing water line at the intersection of South Hathaway Street and East Barbour Street, then north on Hathaway and east on the extension of John Street. The remaining water line will be located east and south of the project site, terminating at the intersection of Scott Street and East Westward Avenue. Brian monitored for paleontological and cultural resources during all stages of construction.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

BRIAN KUSSMAN
Senior Paleontologist VCS Environmental
A certified SBE, DBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
ONTARIO GATEWAY PROJECT | ONTARIO, CA
The approximately 21-acre project site, located within the City of Ontario, is situated on the east side of Mill Creek Avenue, south of Ontario Ranch Road, and west of vacant/undeveloped land. The project site is located within the Standalone Residential land use district of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan and consists of Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 0218-652-27. Brian monitored for paleontological and cultural resources due to the project’s proximity to a very fossiliferous site immediately east of Ontario Gateway, made it of high sensitivity.

TIERRA DEL SOL BENTON PARCEL | RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA
The 16.6-acre project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of unincorporated Riverside County, approximately

1.2 miles east of the City of Murrieta and approximately 2.8 miles north of the City of Temecula. Tentative Tract Map No. 37715 proposes to subdivide the 16.6-acre lot into 141 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 2,700 square feet and a density of

8.75 dwelling units per acre. Access into the subdivision will be provided from San Remo Drive and Benton Road. Two detention basins will be constructed within the project site; one located along the northwestern corner of the project site and the other to the east of the main entrance along Benton Road. Brian monitored for paleontological and cultural resources, including historic, during the initial ground disturbances through to completion of mass excavation.

HEIRLOOM FARMS/HARVESTON CULTURAL RESOURCES MONITORING | TEMECULA, CA The project consists of a Development Plan to allow for the construction of a 321 unit, single-family residential community built on 27.86 acres consisting of detached homes and attached townhomes and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 37509) for the creation of 111 single family residential lots, 31 condominium lots and 9 open space lots. VCS provided archaeological and paleontological resources monitoring, Tribal Coordination to develop a Monitoring Agreement with Pechanga, Sensitivity Training at the pre-grade meeting, preparation of a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan, and a Phase IV Negative Findings Monitoring Report. Brian provided paleontological and cultural resources monitoring, during mass excavation, on this project.

ORCHARD HILLS | TUSTIN, CA
Found numerous sites of cultural significance including numerous hearth features, and lithic sites. Participated in the gridded excavation and documentation of a hearth Feature. Multiple carbon samples taken, from hearths, for radiometric dating. Both terrestrial and marine fossil locations were also recovered on this project.

OLINDA LANDFILL | BREA, CA
Brian served as paleontological field technician to perform monitoring at the Brea-Olinda Landfill. He monitored and reported compliance with mitigation measures. He also prepared and identified fossil remains recovered from the excavations into a very fossiliferous marine unit, the Puente Formation.

SANTIAGO CANYON LANDFILL | UNINCORPORATED ORANGE COUNTY, CA Paleontological field technician at Santiago Canyon Landfill. Brian monitored for compliance with mitigation measures, screenwashed sediments for microfossils, in addition to preparing and identifying fossil remains from the project site.

SIMI VALLEY LANDFILL | SIMI VALLEY, CA
Brian served as paleontological field technician monitoring at several construction projects. He monitored and reported compliance with mitigation measures. He also prepared and identified fossil remains recovered from numerous sites on the project area.

PRIMA DESHECHA LANDFILL | SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA
Brian monitored for both paleontological and archaeological resources at the Prima Deshecha Landfill. Archaeological resources consisted of both Native American and historic features. He also participated in the recovery excavations of 2 different whale fossils approximately 10 years apart.

LA PATA ROAD EXTENSION | SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO/SAN CLEMENTE, CA Brian performed paleontological and archaeological monitoring for the La Pata Road Extension. Archaeological resources consisted of both Native American and historic features. Paleontological resources were derived from the marine Capistrano Formation outcrops on the project.

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

BRIAN KUSSMAN
Senior Paleontologist VCS Environmental
A certified SBE, DBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com

EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE
VCS Environmental
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Paleontologist/Cultural Resources Monitor | Date of Employment: April 2018 to Present Dudek
605 Third Street, Encinitas, CA 92024
Paleontologist/Cultural Resources Monitor | Date of Employment: July 2021 to Present LSA and Associates
20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92614
Paleontology/Cultural Resources Monitor | Date of Employment: July 2014 to May 2021 Psomas
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 300, Santa Ana, CA 92707
Paleontology/Cultural Resources Monitor | Date of Employment: 2015 Ultrasystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific, Irvine, CA 92618
Paleontology/Cultural Resources Monitor |Date of Employment: April 2015 to September 2015 L&L Environmental, Inc.
721 Nevada Street, Suite 307, Redlands, CA 92373
Paleontology Monitor | Salvage excavation only, 2014
Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc.
2248 Winrock Avenue, Altadena, CA 91001
Paleontology Monitor | Date of Employment: May 1993 to November 2010

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-

APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) 131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com December 21, 2021 Project No: 21188-01
Mr. William Inghram
C/O Richland Communities
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92615
Subject: Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation for the Proposed “McLeish Ranch” Residential Development, San Jacinto, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed “McLeish Ranch” residential development, San Jacinto, located in Riverside County, California. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the existing onsite geotechnical conditions and to confirm that the site can be developed from a geotechnical perspective.

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

Respectfully Submitted,
LGC Geotechnical, Inc.

Dennis Boratynec, GE 2770 Mason Gonzales, GIT
Vice President Staff Geologist
DJB/BPP/MJG/amm
Distribution: (5) Addressee (4 wet-signed copies and 1 electronic copy) (1) Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering (electronic copy) Attn: Mr. Blaine Womer

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page i December 21, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

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

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation .................................................................................................. 2

1.5 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS.............................................................................................................5

2.1 Regional Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Site-Specific Geology .................................................................................................................................. 5

2.2.1 Quarternary Old Alluvial (Map Symbol - Qa) ................................................................... 5

2.3 Geologic Structure....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.5 Field Infiltration Testing .......................................................................................................................... 6

2.6 Faulting and Seismic Hazards ................................................................................................................ 6

2.6.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ................................................................................. 7

2.6.2 Lateral Spreading ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.7 Seismic Design Parameters .................................................................................................................... 8

2.8 Oversized Material .................................................................................................................................. 10

2.9 Expansion Potential ................................................................................................................................ 11

2.10 Organics Content ...................................................................................................................................... 11

3.0 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................12

4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................13

4.1 Site Earthwork .......................................................................................................................................... 13

4.1.1 Site Preparation ......................................................................................................................... 13

4.1.2 Removals ....................................................................................................................................... 14

4.1.3 Temporary Excavations ........................................................................................................ 14

4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation Prior to Fill Placement ................. 15

4.1.5 Material for Fill ........................................................................................................................... 15

4.1.6 Fill Placement and Compaction .......................................................................................... 16

4.1.7 Trench and Conventional Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction ..................... 17

4.1.8 Shrinkage and Bulking ............................................................................................................ 17

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ............................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters ................................ 18

4.2.2 Conventional Foundations .................................................................................................... 19

4.2.3 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance .............................................. 20

4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines ............................................................................................ 20

4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance ................................................................................................ 21

4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Conventional Retaining Wall Design ........................................ 21

4.5 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections ..................................................................... 23

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page ii December 21, 2021

4.6 Soil Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal ............................................................................................ 24

4.7 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork .................................................................................................... 24

4.8 Subsurface Water Infiltration .............................................................................................................. 25

4.9 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control ........................................................................ 27

4.10 Grading, Foundation and Retaining Wall Plan Review ............................................................. 27

4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction ................................................. 27

5.0 LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................................28

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
Project No. 21188‐01 Page iii December 21, 2021

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map (Page 4)
Figure 2 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail – Fill Condition (Rear of Text) Sheets
Sheet 1 – Geotechnical Exploration Location Map (In Pocket) Tables
Table 1 – Summary of Infiltration Testing (Page 6)
Table 2 – Seismic Design Parameters (Page 10)
Table 3 – Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Foundation (Page 19) Table 4 – Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Imported Sandy Soils (Page 22) Table 5 – Paving Section Options (Page 23)
Appendices
Appendix A – References
Appendix B – Logs of Geotechnical Explorations & Infiltration Test Data Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – Liquefaction Analysis
Appendix E – General Earthwork Specifications for Rough Grading

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 1 December 21, 2021

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services
In accordance with your request, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has prepared this preliminary geotechnical report for the proposed “McLeish” residential development in San Jacinto, located in the County of Riverside, California.

The purpose of our study was to form an opinion on the likely geotechnical conditions and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations relative to the feasibility of the site for development. Our services consisted of a limited subsurface geotechnical investigation and review of the provided previous geotechnical reports, preliminary site plans and readily available geotechnical information including in-house maps and reports.

1.2 Existing Conditions
In general, the subject site encompasses approximately 90 acres located west of the intersection of Lyon Avenue and De Anza Drive, and just north of the San Jacinto Reservoir (Figure 1 – Site Location Map). The site is irregularly shaped and is bound to the west by agricultural area, to the north by open space, and to the east by homes. The subject site is currently occupied by an empty field with dirt roads running through it. It appears that the only previous use of the site was agricultural farming going back as far as 1966 (Historic Aerials, 2021).

1.3 Project Description
Based on the provided information, the proposed site development will include construction of approximately 424 single-family lots, parks, a water quality basin, and associated street improvements (Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, 2021). Proposed vehicular access to the development will be located along the new alignment of De Anza Drive.

We expect the proposed residential development will be at-grade with relatively light building loads (column and wall loads assumed to be a maximum of approximately 30 kips and 3 kips per lineal foot, respectively). The current tentative tract map shows cut and fills on the order of 1 to 2 feet in most areas with a maximum of approximately 10 feet of fill in the northwest corner and a maximum of approximately 5 feet of cut in the basin area.

The recommendations provided herein are based upon the estimated structural loading and expected layout information above. We understand that the project plans are currently being developed at this time; LGC Geotechnical should be provided with updated project plans and any changes to the assumed structural loads when they become available, in order to either confirm or modify the recommendations provided herein.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 2 December 21, 2021

1.4 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation
LGC Geotechnical performed a subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the subject site consisting of three hollow stem borings, two infiltration borings, excavation of ten backhoe test pits, and advancing eight Cone Penetration Tests to evaluate onsite geotechnical conditions.

Ten exploratory test pits (TP-1 through TP-10) were excavated, sampled, and logged to depths ranging between approximately 3 and 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The test pits were geotechnically logged and sampled by a representative of LGC Geotechnical, Inc. The test pit excavations were backfilled and compacted with the excavated materials to the ground surface.

Please note that some settlement of the backfill may occur over time.

Three hollow-stem borings (HS-1 through HS-3) and two hollow-stem borings used for infiltration testing (I-1 and I-2) were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 25 to 50 feet below existing grade and 8.5 feet below existing grade, respectively. The borings were drilled by Cal Pac Drilling Inc., under subcontract to LGC Geotechnical. An engineer observed the drilling operations, logged the borings, and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. The borings were performed using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 6 and 8-inch diameter hollowstem augers. Driven soil samples were collected in the deep boring by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and modified California Drive (MCD) sampler generally obtained at 2.5- foot vertical increments for the first 10 feet below existing ground and 5-foot vertical increments thereafter. The MCD is a split-barrel sampler with a tapered cutting tip and lined with a series of 1-inch-tall brass rings. The SPT sampler (1.4-inch ID) and MCD sampler (2.4-inch ID, 3.0-inch OD) were driven using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches to advance the sampler a total depth of 18 inches or until refusal. The raw blow counts for each 6-inch increment of penetration were recorded on the boring logs. Bulk samples of the near-surface soils were logged and collected for laboratory testing from select borings. At the completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with the native soil cuttings and tamped. Some settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time.

Eight Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings were performed by Kehoe Testing and Engineering under subcontract with LGC Geotechnical. The CPT probes were pushed to the target depths of 50 feet below grade at each location in general accordance with the current ASTM standards (ASTM D5778 and ASTM D3441). The CPT equipment consists of a cone penetrometer assembly mounted at the end of series of hollow sounding rods. The interior of the cone penetrometer is instrumented with strain gauges that allow the simultaneous measurement of cone tip and friction sleeve resistance during penetration. The cone penetration assembly is continuously pushed into the soil by a set of hydraulic rams at a standard rate of 0.8-inch per second while the cone tip resistance and sleeve friction resistance are recorded at approximately every 1 inch and stored in digital form. A specially designed all-wheel drive 25-ton truck provides the required reaction weight for pushing the cone assembly. The CPT soundings were backfilled with bentonite chips as the probe was retracted.

Infiltration testing was performed within two of the borings (I-1 and I-2) at a depth of approximately 8.5 feet below existing grade, per the direction of the project civil engineer. An LGC Geotechnical staff engineer installed standpipes, backfilled the boring annulus with crushed rock, and pre-soaked the infiltration wells prior to testing. Infiltration testing was performed in accordance with the County of Riverside testing guidelines. The infiltration test

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 3 December 21, 2021
wells were subsequently backfilled with native soils and capped with cold patch where needed at the completion of testing.

The approximate location of the test pits, hollow-stem borings, and CPT’s are presented on the Geotechnical Exploration Location Map (Sheet 1) and the logs are presented in Appendix B.

1.5 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was performed on representative bulk, grab, and driven (relatively undisturbed) samples were retained for laboratory testing during our field evaluation.

Laboratory testing included in-situ moisture content and in-situ dry density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, fines content, and organics.

The following is a summary of the laboratory test results:
 Dry density of the samples collected ranged from approximately 82 to 116 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), with an average of approximately 101 pcf. Field moisture contents ranged from approximately 1 to 41 percent, with an average of approximately 12 percent.  Four laboratory compaction tests of a near surface sample indicated a maximum dry density ranging from 121.5 to 127.5 pcf with an optimum moisture content ranging from 8.5 to 10.0 percent.
 Fines content tests (passing #200 sieve) were performed on nine samples with results indicating fines contents ranging from 4 to 85 percent. According to the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS), six of the tested samples are classified as “coarse-grained” and the remaining three are classified as “fine-grained” soil.  Organics testing was performed on fifteen samples with results indicating organics contents ranging from 0.3 to 1.9 percent.

A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Appendix C. The moisture and dry density results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Site Location North Lyon Avenue De Anza Drive
FIGURE 1
Site Location Map
DATE December 2021
ENG. / GEOL.

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT NAME
SCALE
DJB
Not to Scale
Richland - McLeish Ranch
21188-01

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 5 December 21, 2021

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

2.1 Regional Geology
Regionally, the site is located within the San Jacinto valley. This area consists primarily of alluvial flood plain/stream channel deposits sourced from the nearby San Jacinto River (Dibblee, 2003).

Regional geologic mapping and local topographic expressions do not indicate the presence of large-scale landslides within or adjacent to the project area, with the only mapped landslides in the area located approximately 2 miles away at the base of the San Jacinto mountains (Dibblee, 2003).

2.2 Site‐Specific Geology
Based on the 7.5-foot San Jacinto Geologic Map, the subject site is underlain by Quaternary Alluvial deposits.

2.2.1 Quaternary Alluvium (Map Symbol ‐ Qa)
Quaternary alluvial deposits in this region consist of sand and clay (as well as some stream channel gravel and sand in “mountain areas”) often covered by gray soil (Dibblee, 2003). During our field evaluation, alluvial deposits generally consisted of silty sand and sandy silt, with an approximately 1-foot-thick surface layer of disturbed topsoil (primarily a loose dry silty sand).

2.3 Geologic Structure
The Quaternary old alluvial deposits observed to be massive and lacking any significant geologic structure during subsurface exploration.

2.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in HS-1 and HS-2 at approximate depths of 27 and 22 feet below existing grade (approximate elevations of 1450 feet and 1463 feet). Groundwater was not encountered in HS-3 to the maximum explored depth of 25 feet below existing grade.

Groundwater was measured in two of the CPT soundings and estimated at approximate depths of 21 and 31 feet below existing grade (approximate elevations of 1456 and 1463 feet). An existing groundwater observation well is located near the reservoir directly south of the subject site, the most recent reading (taken April 7, 2021) indicates groundwater 325.8 feet below the existing ground surface (CDW, 2021). With this data in mind, it is possible that the groundwater encountered during our evaluation is perched groundwater, potentially from irrigation from nearby agricultural areas. Multiple groundwater aquifers may be present.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 6 December 21, 2021
Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater elevations should be expected over time. In general, groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater may be present within the near-surface deposits due to local seepage or during rainy seasons. Local perched groundwater conditions or surface seepage may develop once site development is completed and landscape irrigation commences.

2.5 Field Infiltration Testing
Determination of infiltration rates was performed in general accordance with guidelines set forth by the County of Riverside (2011). In general, a 3-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe was placed in each borehole to be tested and the annulus was backfilled with gravel, including placement of about 2 inches of gravel at the bottom of the borehole. The measured infiltration rates are considered representative of the site soils in the area of the proposed infiltration system. Measured infiltration rates have been normalized to correct the three-dimensional flow that occurs within the field test to one-dimensional flow out of the bottom of the boring.

The approximate infiltration test locations are shown on the Geotechnical Exploration Location Map (Sheet 1) and the infiltration test data is located in Appendix B and is summarized below in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1
Summary of Infiltration Testing
Infiltration Test
No.

Approx. Depth
Below Existing
Grade (ft)
Tested
Infiltration Rate*
(in./hr.)
Infiltration
Rate**
(in./hr.)
I-1 7.3 4.1 1.4
I-2 7.8 3.6 1.2
*Tested Infiltration Rates Do Not Include Factor of Safety. **Infiltration Rates Include Required Factor of Safety of 3.

It should be emphasized that infiltration test results are only representative of the location and depth where they are performed. Varying subsurface conditions may exist outside of the test locations which could alter the calculated infiltration rates indicated above. Infiltration tests are performed using relatively clean water free of particulates, silt, etc. Please refer to Section 4.8 for subsurface water infiltration recommendations.

2.6 Faulting and Seismic Hazards
California is located on the boundary between the Pacific and North American Lithospheric Plates. The average motion along this boundary is on the order of 50-mm/yr. in a right-lateral sense. The majority of the motion is expressed at the surface along the northwest trending San Andreas Fault Zone with lesser amounts of motion accommodated by sub-parallel faults located predominantly west of the San Andreas including the Elsinore, Newport-Inglewood, Rose Canyon, and Coronado Bank Faults. Within Southern California, a large bend in the San

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 7 December 21, 2021
Andreas Fault north of the San Gabriel Mountains has resulted in a transfer of a portion of the right-lateral motion between the plates into left-lateral displacement and vertical uplift.

Compression south and west of the bend has resulted in folding, left-lateral, reverse thrust faulting, and regional uplift creating the east-west trending Transverse Ranges and several east-west trending faults. Further south within the Los Angeles Basin, “blind thrust” faults are believed to have developed below the surface also as a result of this compression, which have resulted in earthquakes such as the 1994 Northridge event along faults with little to no surface expression.

Prompted by damaging earthquakes in Northern and Southern California, State legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults have been developed. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was implemented in 1972 to prevent the construction of urban developments across the trace of active faults. California Geologic Survey Special Publication 42 was created to provide guidance for following and implementing the law requirements. Special Publication 42 was most recently revised in 2018 (CGS, 2018).

According to the State Geologist, an “active” fault is defined as one which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (roughly the last 11,700 years). Regulatory Earthquake Fault Zones have been delineated to encompass traces of known, Holocene-active faults to address hazards associated with surface fault rupture within California. Where developments for human occupation are proposed within these zones, the state requires detailed fault evaluations be performed so that engineering-geologists can identify the locations of active faults and recommend setbacks from locations of possible surface fault rupture.

The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults were identified on the site during this site evaluations. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. The closest known active faults are the Casa Loma Fault (approximately three quarters of a mile South-West of the site) and the Claremont Fault (approximately 2 miles North-East of the site). Both of these faults are a part of the San Jacinto Fault Zone.

Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include ground lurching and shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction, and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. A discussion of these secondary effects is provided in the following sections.

2.6.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density noncohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that loose, saturated, near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction, depending on their plasticity and moisture content (Bray &

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 8 December 21, 2021
Sancio, 2006). Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event.

According to the County of Riverside General Plan, the area surrounding the site ranges from moderate to high liquefaction susceptibility, the majority of the subject site being considered “Moderate,” with the eastern portion of the site being “High” (County of Riverside, 2018). The data obtained from our field evaluation indicates that the site contains isolated sandy layers susceptible to liquefaction interfingered with fine-grained non-liquefiable soils. The recent explored groundwater 20 to 30 feet below existing grade and historic high groundwater depth of 15 below existing grade were both used in the liquefaction analysis. The liquefaction evaluation was performed using CPT data (Geologismiki, 2021). Liquefaction potential was evaluated using the procedures outlined by Special Publication 117A (SCEC, 1999 & CGS, 2008) and the applicable seismic criteria (e.g., 2019 CBC). Liquefaction analysis was estimated using the PGAM per the 2019 CBC and a moment magnitude of 7.42 (USGS, 2014). Liquefaction analysis is presented in Appendix D.

Results indicate liquefaction settlement to be on the order of 1.5 inches and dry sand dynamic settlement to be on the order of 0.5 inches. This results in total seismic settlement on the order of 2 inches or less. Differential seismic settlement can be estimated as half of the total estimated settlement over a horizontal span of about 40 feet (e.g., 1 inch over 40 feet).

2.6.2 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures.

Due to the site being relatively level and the lack of an adjacent “free face” to drive lateral spreading, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low.

2.7 Seismic Design Parameters
The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and applicable portions of ASCE 7-16 which has been adopted by the CBC. Since the site contains soils that are susceptible to liquefaction (refer to section above “Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement”), ASCE 7-16 which has been adopted by the CBC requires that site soils be assigned Site Class “F” and a sitespecific response spectrum be performed. However, in accordance with Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-16, if the fundamental periods of vibration of the planned structure are equal to or less than

0.5 seconds, a site-specific response spectrum is not required and ASCE 7-16/2019 CBC site

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 9 December 21, 2021
class and seismic parameters may be used in lieu of a site-specific response spectrum. It should be noted that the seismic parameters provided herein are not applicable for any structure having a fundamental period of vibration greater than 0.5 seconds.

Additionally, the following seismic parameters are only applicable for code‐based acceleration response spectra and are not applicable for where site‐specific ground motion procedures are required by ACE 7‐16. Representative site coordinates of latitude

33.8030 degrees north and longitude -116.9981 degrees west were utilized in our analyses.

Please note that these coordinates are considered representative of the site for preliminary planning purposes, however their applicability must be verified with respect to a desired specific location within the site. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class D are provided in Table 2 on the following page. Since site soils are Site Class D, additional adjustments are required to code acceleration response spectrums as outlined below and provided in ASCE 7-16. The structural designer should contact the geotechnical consultant if structural conditions (e.g., number of stories, seismically isolated structures, etc.) require site-specific ground motions.

A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period (MCE) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 7.42 at a distance of approximately 3.68 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion. A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 475-year average return period (Design Earthquake) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 7.08 at a distance of approximately 8.59 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2014).

Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for liquefaction potential. The PGAM for the site is equal to 1.114g (SEAOC, 2021). The design PGA is equal to 0.743g (2/3 of PGAM).

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 10 December 21, 2021
TABLE 2
Seismic Design Parameters
Selected Parameters from 2019 CBC,
Section 1613 ‐ Earthquake Loads
Seismic
Design
Values
Notes/Exceptions
Distance to applicable faults classifies the site as a
“Near-Fault” site. Section 11.4.1 of ASCE 7
Site Class D* Chapter 20 of ASCE 7
Ss (Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration
for Short Periods) 2.233g From SEAOC, 2021
S1 (Risk-Targeted Spectral
Accelerations for 1-Second Periods) 0.912g From SEAOC, 2021 Fa (per Table 1613.2.3(1)) 1.0
For Simplified Design Procedure
of Section 12.14 of ASCE 7, Fa
shall be taken as 1.4 (Section

12.14.8.1)
Fv (per Table 1613.2.3(2)) 1.7
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
SMS for Site Class D
[Note: SMS = FaSS] 2.233g -
SM1 for Site Class D
[Note: SM1 = FvS1] 1.550g
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
SDS for Site Class D
[Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 1.489g -
SD1 for Site Class D
[Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1] 1.034g
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
CRS (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec) 0.887 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 CR1 (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec) 0.875 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 *Since site soils are Site Class D and S1 is greater than or equal to 0.2, the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken equal to 1.5 times the value calculated in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > Ts, or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL. Refer to ASCE 7-16.

2.8 Oversized Material
Oversized material (material larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension) may be generated during site grading. Recommendations for appropriate handling of oversized materials should be determined prior to the start of grading. If feasible, crushing oversized materials onsite and incorporating them into “rock fills” or exporting oversized material may be considered.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 11 December 21, 2021

2.9 Expansion Potential
Based on the results of laboratory testing of investigations of nearby sites, site soils are anticipated to have a “Very Low” expansion potential. Final expansion potential of site soils should be determined at the completion of grading.

2.10 Organics Content
Based on the results of laboratory testing from our investigation site soils contain minimal amounts of organics (less than 2%). These surficial soils will be mixed during site grading and will have a minimal impact on the improvements. No organic export is anticipated.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 12 December 21, 2021

3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our subsurface evaluation, review of the provided reports, and geotechnical review of the proposed plan, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations provided here and in future reports are incorporated during site grading and development. A summary of our geotechnical conclusions and recommendations are as follows:
 The only geologic unit mapped on the site is Quaternary alluvial deposits. Localized zones of potentially compressible soils overlie portions of the site including topsoil and younger alluvium.  The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults were identified on the site during our site evaluation. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. The closest known faults are the Casa Loma and Claremont Faults.
 Groundwater was observed at a depth ranging from approximately 20 to 30 feet below the existing ground surface.
 The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is from ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The subject site will likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life.
 Subsurface data indicates that upper sandy layers are susceptible to liquefaction and dry sand seismic settlement. Our analysis indicates on the order of 2 inches of seismically induced settlement may occur at the site during a significant earthquake. Differential dynamic settlement may be taken as 1-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet.  From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils are considered suitable material for use as general fill, provided that they are relatively free from rocks (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and significant organic material.  Based on the results of laboratory testing of nearby sites, site soils are anticipated to have a “Very Low” expansion potential.
 A majority of on-site soils are suitable for backfill of site retaining walls. Soils that will be used for retaining wall backfill should be tested and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to the backfill of site walls.
 Excavations into the existing site soils should be feasible with heavy construction equipment in good working order. From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils are suitable material for use as fill, provided that they are relatively free from rocks (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and significant organic material.  The field percolation tests resulted in infiltration rates of 1.4 and 1.2 inches per hour. These infiltration rates are based on County of Riverside required factor of safety of 3.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 13 December 21, 2021

4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are to be considered preliminary and should be confirmed upon completion of grading and earthwork operations. In addition, they should be considered minimal from a geotechnical viewpoint, as there may be more restrictive requirements from the architect, structural engineer, building codes, governing agencies, or the owner.

It should be noted that the following geotechnical recommendations are intended to provide sufficient information to develop the site in general accordance with the 2019 CBC requirements. With regard to the possible occurrence of potentially catastrophic geotechnical hazards such as seismic shaking, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, etc. the following geotechnical recommendations should provide adequate protection for the proposed development to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to an “acceptable level.” The “acceptable level” of risk is defined by the California Code of Regulations as “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project” [Section 3721(a)].

Therefore, repair and remedial work of the proposed improvements may be required after a significant seismic event. With regards to the potential for less significant geologic hazards to the proposed development such as expansive soils, fill settlement, groundwater seepage, etc., the recommendations contained herein are intended as a reasonable protection against potential damaging effects. It should be understood, however, that our recommendations are intended to maintain the structural integrity of the proposed development and structures given the site geotechnical conditions but cannot preclude the potential for some cosmetic distress or nuisance issues to develop as a result of the site geotechnical conditions.

The geotechnical recommendations contained herein must be confirmed to be suitable or modified based on the actual as-graded conditions.

4.1 Site Earthwork
We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of required earthwork removals, subgrade preparation, precise grading and construction of the proposed new improvements, including the residential structures, neighborhood amenities, subsurface utilities, interior streets, etc.

We recommend that earthwork onsite be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, future geotechnical report(s), the 2019 CBC/City of San Jacinto grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included in Appendix E.

The following recommendations should be considered preliminary and may be revised based upon future evaluation and review of the project plans and/or based on the actual conditions encountered during site grading/construction.

4.1.1 Site Preparation
Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions, which extend below proposed finish grades, should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Any abandoned sewer or

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 14 December 21, 2021
storm drain lines should be completely removed and replaced with properly placed compacted fill.

If cesspools or septic systems are encountered, they should be removed in their entirety.

The resulting excavation should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. As an alternative, cesspools can be backfilled with lean sand-cement slurry. Any encountered wells should be properly abandoned in accordance with regulatory requirements. At the conclusion of the clearing operations, a representative of LGC Geotechnical should observe and accept the site prior to further grading.

4.1.2 Removals
In order to provide a relatively uniform bearing condition for the planned improvements, we recommend the site soils be temporarily removed and recompacted as fill. We recommend that soils within building pads be removed and recompacted to a minimum depth of 5 feet below existing grade. The envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum distance of 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed improvements. In areas of design cut, over-excavation shall extend a minimum of 5 feet below existing grade or a minimum of 3 feet below finished grade, whichever is deeper.

For minor site structures such as free-standing and screen walls, the removals should extend at least 3 feet beneath the existing grade or 2 feet beneath the base of foundations, whichever is deeper. Within pavement and hardscape areas, removals should extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below the existing grade. The over-excavation in any design cut areas of the pavement may be reduced by the depth of the design cut but should not be less than 1-foot below the finished subgrade (i.e., below planned aggregate base/asphalt concrete). In general, the envelope for over-excavation should extend laterally a minimum distance of 2 feet beyond the edges of the proposed improvements mentioned above.

Local conditions may be encountered during excavation that could require additional over-excavation beyond the above-noted minimum in order to obtain an acceptable subgrade. The actual depths and lateral extents of grading will be determined by the geotechnical consultant, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading.

Removal areas and areas to be over-excavated should be accurately staked in the field by the Project Surveyor.

4.1.3 Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Excavations should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel or equipment are allowed to enter. The contractor must request observation of temporary excavations by a representative of LGC Geotechnical, not only to confirm the geotechnical conditions, but to also help provide observation of early warning signs of potential failures. Based on our field investigation, the majority of site soils are anticipated to be OSHA Type “C” soils (refer to the attached boring logs).

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 15 December 21, 2021
Sandy soils are present and should be considered susceptible to caving. Soil conditions should be regularly evaluated during construction to verify conditions are as anticipated.

The contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person” required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination with the geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor.

Vehicular traffic, stockpiles, and equipment storage should be set back from the perimeter of excavations a minimum distance equivalent to a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation or 5 feet, whichever is greater. Once an excavation has been initiated, it should be backfilled as soon as practical. Prolonged exposure of temporary excavations may result in some localized instability. Excavations should be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to shore/fill them prior to weekends, holidays, or forecasted rain.

It should be noted that any excavation that extends below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection of an existing foundation will remove existing support of the structure foundation. If requested, temporary shoring parameters will be provided.

4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation Prior to Fill Placement In general, removal bottom areas and areas to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, brought to a near-optimum moisture condition (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content), and recompacted per project recommendations. Removal bottoms and areas to receive fill should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement.

4.1.5 Material for Fill
From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally considered suitable for use as general compacted fill, provided they are relatively free of organic materials and construction debris and any oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension).

From a geotechnical viewpoint, any required import soils for general fill (i.e., nonretaining wall backfill) should consist of clean, relatively granular soils of “Very Low” expansion potential (expansion index 20 or less based on American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] D 4829), and free of organic materials, construction debris and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Import for any required retaining wall backfill should meet the criteria outlined in the following paragraph. Source samples should be provided to the geotechnical consultant for laboratory testing a minimum of 3 working days prior to any planned importation.

Conventional (masonry) retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1140 (or ASTM D6913/D422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Soils should also be

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 16 December 21, 2021
screened of organic materials, construction debris, and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The vast majority of the onsite soils will be suitable for retaining wall backfill. We do not anticipate the need for select grading/stockpiling of onsite materials and/or import of select sandy soils meeting the criteria outlined above will be required.

Aggregate base (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) should conform to the latest requirements of Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for untreated base materials (except processed miscellaneous base) or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base.

4.1.6 Fill Placement and Compaction
Material to be placed as fill should be brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to achieve adequate compaction. Drying and/or mixing the very moist soils will be required prior to reusing the materials in compacted fills. Soils are also present that will require additional moisture in order to achieve the required compaction.

The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Each lift should be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts. Generally, placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances and with observation and testing by LGC Geotechnical. Oversized material as previously defined should be removed from site fills.

During backfill of excavations, the fill should be properly benched into firm and competent soils of temporary backcut slopes as it is placed in lifts.

Aggregate base material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557 at near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content).

If gap-graded ¾-inch rock is used for backfill (around storm drain storage chambers, retaining wall backfill, etc.) it will require compaction. Rock shall be placed in thin lifts (typically not exceeding 6 inches) and mechanically compacted with observation by geotechnical consultant. Backfill rock shall meet the requirements of ASTM D2321. Gapgraded rock is required to be wrapped in filter fabric to prevent the migration of fines into the rock backfill.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 17 December 21, 2021

4.1.7 Trench and Conventional Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction If trenches are shallow or the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities, sand having a sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater (per Caltrans Test Method [CTM] 217) may be used to bed and shade the pipes within the bedding zone. Sand backfill within the pipe bedding zone may be densified by jetting or flooding and then tamped to ensure adequate compaction. The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill (zone defined as 12 inches above the pipe to subgrade), provided the soils are screened of rocks and other material greater than 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Subsequent trench backfill should be compacted in uniform thin lifts (as outlined above in Section “Material for Fill”) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). If gap-graded rock is used for trench backfill, refer to Section 4.1.6.

Conventional retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils as outlined in preceding Section 4.1.5. The limits of select sandy backfill should be placed in accordance with the criteria outlined in Section 4.4 and Figure 2. Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Jetting or flooding of retaining wall backfill materials should not be permitted. If gap-graded rock is used for retaining backfill, refer to Section 4.1.6.

In backfill areas where mechanical compaction of soil backfill is impractical due to space constraints, typically sand-cement slurry may be substituted for compacted backfill. The slurry should contain about one sack of cement per cubic yard. When set, such a mix typically has the consistency of compacted soil. Sand cement slurry placed near the surface within landscape areas should be evaluated for potential impacts on planned improvements.

A representative from LGC Geotechnical should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project recommendations.

4.1.8 Shrinkage and Bulking
Allowance in the earthwork volumes budget should be made for an estimated 15 to 20 percent reduction in volume of near-surface (upper approximate 5 feet) soils. It should be stressed that these values are only estimates and that an actual shrinkage factor would be extremely difficult to predetermine. Subsidence due to earthwork equipment is expected to be up to 0.1 feet. These values are estimates only and exclude losses due to removal of vegetation or debris. The effective change in volume of onsite soils will depend primarily on the type of compaction equipment, method of compaction used onsite by the contractor, and accuracy of the topographic survey.

Due to the combined variability in topographic surveys, inability to precisely model the removals and variability of on-site near-surface conditions, it is our opinion that the site will not balance at the end of grading. If importing/exporting a large volume of soils is not considered feasible or economical, we recommend a balance area be designated onsite that can fluctuate up or down based on the actual volume of soil. We recommend a

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 18 December 21, 2021
“balance” area that can accommodate on the order of 5 percent (plus or minus) of the total grading volume be considered.

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations
Provided that the remedial grading recommendations provided herein are implemented, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the proposed residential structures using either a post-tensioned foundation system or a conventional foundation. Due to liquefaction potential (Site Class “F”) and dynamic settlement any isolated pad structural footings should be interconnected with grade beams. Proposed building foundations should be designed in consideration of site liquefaction potential and dynamic settlement outlined in Section 2.6.1.

Site soils are anticipated to be of Very Low expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). However, this must be verified based on as-graded conditions. Recommended soil bearing and estimated static settlement due to structural loads are provided in Section 4.3.

Preliminary foundation recommendations are provided in the following sections. Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion of grading.

4.2.1 Provisional Post‐Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters The geotechnical parameters provided herein may be used for post-tensioned slab foundations. These parameters have been determined in general accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI, 2012) Standard Requirements (PTI DC 10.5), referenced in Chapter 18 of the 2019 CBC. In utilizing these parameters, the foundation engineer should design the foundation system in accordance with the allowable deflection criteria of applicable codes and the requirements of the structural designer/architect.

Other types of stiff slabs may be used in place of the CBC post-tensioned slab design provided that, in the opinion of the foundation structural designer, the alternative type of slab is at least as stiff and strong as that designed by the CBC/PTI method to resist expansive soils.

Our design parameters are based on our experience with similar residential projects and the anticipated nature of the soil (with respect to settlement potential). Please note that implementation of our recommendations will not eliminate foundation movement (and related distress) should the moisture content of the subgrade soils fluctuate. It is the intent of these recommendations to help maintain the integrity of the proposed structures and reduce (not eliminate) movement, based upon the anticipated site soil conditions. Should future owners not properly maintain the areas surrounding the foundation, for example by overwatering, then we anticipate for highly expansive soils the maximum differential movement of the perimeter of the foundation to the center of the foundation to be on the order of a couple of inches. Soils of lower expansion potential are anticipated to show less movement.

Table 3 presented on the following page summarize our recommendations for the posttensioned foundation slab component. Final foundation design should be determined at

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 19 December 21, 2021
the completion of grading.

TABLE 3
Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post‐Tensioned Foundation Parameter PT Slab with
Perimeter Footing
PT Mat with
Thickened Edge
Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 -20
Constant Soil Suction PF 3.9 PF 3.9
Center Lift
Edge moisture variation distance, em
Center lift, ym

9.0 feet

0.25 inch

9.0 feet

0.3 inch
Edge Lift
Edge moisture variation distance, em
Edge lift, ym

5.5 feet

0.55 inch

5.5 feet

0.66 inch
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (assuming
presoaking as indicated below) 200 pci 200 pci
Minimum perimeter footing/thickened edge
embedment below finish grade 12 inches 6 inches
Perimeter foundation reinforcement N/A2 N/A2
Presoak (moisture conditioning) 100% of Opt. 12
inches
100% of Opt. 12
inches

1. Assumed for preliminary design purposes. Further evaluation is needed at the completion of grading.

2. Recommendations for foundation reinforcement and slab thickness are ultimately the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer based upon geotechnical criteria and structural engineering considerations.

3. Recommendations for vapor retarders below slabs are also purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer and should be provided in accordance with applicable code requirements.

4.2.2 Conventional Foundations
Due to liquefaction potential (Site Class “F”) and dynamic settlement any isolated pad structural footings should be interconnected with grade beams. Proposed building foundations should be designed in consideration of site liquefaction potential and dynamic settlement outlined in Section 2.6.1.

Foundation moisture content of the slab subgrade soils should be maintained at at-least 100 percent of optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches prior to trenching. The moisture content should be maintained up to the time of concrete placement.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 20 December 21, 2021

4.2.3 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance
Moisture conditioning of the subgrade soils is recommended prior to trenching the foundation. The recommendations, specific to anticipated site soil conditions, are presented above. The subgrade moisture condition of the building pad soils should be maintained at the recommended moisture content up to the time of concrete placement.

This moisture content should be maintained around the immediate perimeter of the slab during construction and up to occupancy of the building structures.

The geotechnical parameters provided herein assume that if the areas adjacent to the foundation are planted and irrigated, these areas will be designed with proper drainage and adequately maintained so that ponding, which causes significant moisture changes below the foundation, does not occur. Our recommendations do not account for excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape design. Plants should only be provided with sufficient irrigation for life and not overwatered to saturate subgrade soils. Sunken planters placed adjacent to the foundation should either be designed with an efficient drainage system or liners to prevent moisture infiltration below the foundation. Some lifting of the perimeter foundation beam should be expected even with properly constructed planters.

In addition to the factors mentioned above, future homeowners/property management personnel should be made aware of the potential negative influences of trees and/or other large vegetation. Roots that extend near the vicinity of foundations can cause distress to foundations. Future owners (and the owner’s landscape architect) should not plant trees/large shrubs closer to the foundations than a distance equal to half the mature height of the tree or 20 feet, whichever is more conservative, unless specifically provided with root barriers to prevent root growth below the building foundation.

It is the homeowner’s responsibility to perform periodic maintenance during hot and dry periods to ensure that adequate watering has been provided to keep soil from separating or pulling back from the foundation. Future homeowners and property management personnel should be informed and educated regarding the importance of maintaining a constant level of soil-moisture. The owners should be made aware of the potential negative consequences of both excessive watering as well as allowing potentially expansive soils to become too dry. Expansive soils can undergo shrinkage during drying and swelling during the rainy winter season or when irrigation is resumed. This can result in distress to building structures and hardscape improvements. The builder should provide these recommendations to future homeowners and property management personnel.

4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines
The following is for informational purposes only since slab underlayment (e.g., moisture retarder, sand or gravel layers for concrete curing and/or capillary break) is unrelated to the geotechnical performance of the foundation and thereby not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. Post-construction moisture migration should be expected below the foundation. The foundation engineer/architect should determine whether the use of a capillary break (sand or gravel layer), in conjunction with the vapor retarder, is

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 21 December 21, 2021
necessary or required by code. Sand layer thickness and location (above and/or below vapor retarder) should also be determined by the foundation engineer/architect.

4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance
Provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and minimum embedment of 12 inches below lowest adjacent ground surface.

This value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of embedment or 100 psf for each additional foot of foundation width to a maximum value of 3,500 psf. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only.

Bearing values indicated are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by ⅓ for short duration loading (i.e., wind or seismic loads). Due to liquefaction potential and dynamic settlement any isolated pad structural footings should be interconnected with grade beams.

In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity and provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, foundation settlement due to structural loads is anticipated to be 1-inch or less. Differential settlement may be taken as half of the total settlement (i.e., ½- inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet).

Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. For concrete/soil frictional resistance, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed with dead-load forces. For slabs constructed over a moisture retarder, the allowable friction coefficient should be provided by the manufacturer. An allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 230 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,300 psf may be used for lateral resistance. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 310 pcf to a maximum of 3,100 psf for short duration seismic or wind loading. These passive pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only.

We recommend that the upper foot of passive resistance be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete or asphalt. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be used in combination without reduction. The provided allowable passive pressures are based on a factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, respectively. The structural designer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety and/or load factors in their design.

4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Conventional Retaining Wall Design Lateral earth pressures presented in Table 4 are for retaining walls constructed in a fill condition and backfilled with select sandy soils meeting project requirements indicated below. Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf per foot of depth (or pcf).

These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the retaining wall designer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of soil over the wall footing.

The following lateral earth pressures are presented in Table 4 are for approved select granular backfill soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve per ASTM D421/422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829), see Figure 2.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 22 December 21, 2021
Retaining wall backfill soils should also be screened of organic materials, construction debris, and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The wall designer should clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans the required select sandy soil backfill criteria. The vast majority of the site soils will be suitable for retaining wall backfill. Therefore, select grading/stockpiling of onsite materials and/or import of select sandy soils meeting the criteria outlined above is not anticipated. These preliminary findings should be confirmed during grading.

TABLE 4
Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Imported Sandy Soils Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight
(pcf)
Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight
(pcf)
Level Backfill 2:1 Sloped Backfill
Approved Imported Sandy Soils Approved Imported Sandy Soils Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 70
If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for “active” pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the earth pressure will be higher. This would include 90-degree corners of retaining walls. Such walls should be designed for “at-rest.” The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions and a drainage system will be installed and maintained to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures.

Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. To reduce, but not eliminate, saturation of near-surface (upper approximate 1- foot) soils in front of the retaining walls, the perforated subdrain pipe should be located as low as possible behind the retaining wall. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. In general, we do not recommend retaining wall outlet pipes be connected to area drains. If subdrains are connected to area drains, special care and information should be provided to homeowners to maintain these drains. Typical conventional retaining wall drainage is shown on Figure 2. Please note that waterproofing and outlet systems are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical consultant.

Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward projection from the bottom of the proposed retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining wall. If applicable, in addition to the recommended earth pressure, retaining walls adjacent to streets should be designed to resist a uniform active lateral pressure of 80 pounds per square foot (psf) due to normal street vehicle traffic, if applicable. Uniform lateral surcharges may be estimated using the applicable coefficient of lateral earth pressure using a rectangular distribution. A factor of 0.45 and 0.3 may be used for at-rest and active conditions, respectively. The retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical consultant for any

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 23 December 21, 2021
required geotechnical input in estimating surcharge loads.

If required, the retaining wall designer may use a seismic lateral earth pressure increment of 10 pcf for a level backfill condition. This increment should be applied in addition to the provided static lateral earth pressure using a triangular distribution with the resultant acting at H/3 in relation to the base of the retaining structure (where H is the retained height). For the restrained, at-rest condition, the seismic increment may be added to the applicable active lateral earth pressure (in lieu of the at-rest lateral earth pressure) when analyzing short duration seismic loading. Per Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC, the seismic lateral earth pressure is applicable to structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D through F for retaining wall structures supporting more than 6 feet of backfill height. The provided seismic lateral earth pressure should not be used for retaining walls exceeding 12 feet in height. If a retaining wall greater than 12 feet in height is proposed or a retaining wall with a sloping backfill condition, the retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical consultant for specific seismic lateral earth pressure increments based on the configuration of the planned retaining wall structures. This seismic lateral earth pressure is estimated using the procedure outlined by the Structural Engineers Association of California (Lew, et al, 2010).

Soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) are provided in Section 4.3. Earthwork considerations (temporary backcuts, backfill, compaction, etc.) for retaining walls are provided in Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections.

4.5 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
The following preliminary minimum asphalt concrete (AC) pavement sections provided in Table 5 are based on an assumed R-value of 40 for Traffic Indices of 6.5 and less. Pavement sections are based on Caltrans Highway Design Manual. These recommendations must be confirmed with Rvalue testing of representative near-surface soils at the completion of grading and after underground utilities have been installed and backfilled. Final street sections should be confirmed by the project civil engineer based upon the projected design Traffic Index. If requested, LGC Geotechnical will provide sections for alternate TI values. The County of Riverside Road Improvement Standards and Specifications requires a minimum pavement section consisting of 4.0 inches of asphalt concrete over 6.0 inches of aggregate base (AB) based on the TI required for local streets.

TABLE 5
Paving Section Options
Assumed Traffic Index 6.5 or less
R‐Value Subgrade 40
AC Thickness 4.0 inches
Aggregate Base Thickness 6.0 inches
The thicknesses shown are minimum thicknesses. Increasing the thickness of any or all of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its service life. The above recommendations are based on the assumption that proper maintenance and

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 24 December 21, 2021
irrigation of areas adjacent to the roadway will occur through the design life of the pavement.

Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement.

Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in Section 4.1 (“Site Earthwork”) and the related sub-sections of this report.

4.6 Soil Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal
Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the corrosion potential of soils on buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the results of our testing with regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessary.

Based on the results of laboratory testing of investigations of nearby sites, site soils are anticipated to have negligible exposure to sulfates and low exposure to chlorides but are corrosive to buried metallic elements. Final corrosion potential of site soils should be determined at the completion of grading.

Laboratory testing may need to be performed at the completion of grading by the project corrosion engineer to further evaluate the as-graded soil corrosivity characteristics.

Accordingly, revision of the corrosion potential may be needed, should future test results differ substantially from the conditions reported herein. The client and/or other members of the development team should consider this during the design and planning phase of the project and formulate an appropriate course of action.

4.7 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork
Nonstructural concrete (such as flatwork, sidewalks, patios, etc.) has a potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete should be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 6 below. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 25 December 21, 2021
TABLE 6
Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Placed on Very Low Expansion Potential Subgrade
Homeowner
Sidewalks Private Drives Patios/Entryways
City Sidewalk
Curb and
Gutters
Minimum
Thickness (in.) 4 (nominal) 4 (full) 4 (full) City/Agency Standard
Presoaking Wet down prior
to placing
Wet down prior
to placing
Wet down prior to
placing
City/Agency
Standard
Reinforcement 
No. 3 at 36
inches on
centers
No. 3 at 36 inches
on centers
City/Agency
Standard
Thickened Edge  8” wide x 8”
total thickness  City/Agency
Standard
Crack Control
Joints
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint
to a minimum
of 1/3 the
concrete
thickness
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint
to a minimum of
1/3 the concrete
thickness
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint to a
minimum of 1/3 the
concrete thickness
City/Agency
Standard
Maximum Joint
Spacing 5 feet
10 feet or
quarter cut
whichever is
closer
6 feet City/Agency
Standard
Aggregate Base
Thickness (in.)    City/Agency
Standard
To reduce the potential for driveways to separate from the garage slab, the builder may elect to install dowels to tie these two elements together. Similarly, future homeowners should consider the use of dowels to connect flatwork to the foundation.

4.8 Subsurface Water Infiltration
Recent regulatory changes have occurred that mandate that storm water be infiltrated below grade into subsurface soils rather than collected in a conventional storm drain system.

Typically, a combination of methods are implemented to reduce surface water runoff and increase infiltration including; permeable pavements/pavers for roadways and walkways, directing surface water runoff to grass-lined swales, retention areas, and/or drywells, etc.

It should be noted that collecting and concentrating surface water for the purpose of

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 26 December 21, 2021
intentionally infiltrating below grade, conflicts with the geotechnical engineering objective of directing surface water away from slopes, structures and other improvements. The geotechnical stability and integrity of a site is reliant upon appropriately handling surface water. In general, the vast majority of geotechnical distress issues are directly related to improper drainage. In general, distress in the form of movement of improvements could occur as a result of soil saturation and loss of soil support, expansion, internal soil erosion, collapse and/or settlement.

The results of the infiltration testing were found to be favorable. If required, stormwater may be infiltrated into the subsurface soils using the infiltration rates presented in Table 1. The infiltration rates are based on County of Riverside required factor of safety of 3. Results of field infiltration testing are provided in Appendix B.

The following should be considered for design of any required infiltration system:
 Water discharge from any infiltration systems should not occur within the zone of influence of foundation footings (column and load bearing wall locations). For preliminary purposes we recommend a minimum setback of 15 feet from the structural improvements, or the County recommended minimum setback, whichever is more conservative.
 An adequate setback distance between any infiltration facility and adjacent property lines and offsite improvements should be maintained.
 Infiltration systems should not be placed over compacted fill or at the top of descending slopes.
 It may be prudent to provide an overflow system directly connected to the storm drain system in order to prevent failure of the infiltration system, either as a result of lower than anticipated infiltration and/or very high flow volumes. It should be noted that if pretreatment of runoff to remove debris, soil particles, etc., cannot be performed, design infiltration rates may need to be further reduced.
 The infiltration values provided are based on clean water and this requires the removal of trash, debris, soil particles, etc., and on-going maintenance. Over time, siltation and plugging may reduce the infiltration rate and subsequent effectiveness of the infiltration system. It should be noted that methods to prevent this shall be the responsibility of the infiltration designer and are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. If adequate measures cannot be incorporated into the design and maintenance of the system, then the infiltration rates may need to be further reduced. These and other factors should be considered in selecting a design infiltration rate.
 Any designed infiltration system will require routine periodic maintenance.  As with any systems that are designed to concentrate the surface flow and direct the water into the subsurface soils, some type of nuisance water and/or other water-related issues should be expected.
 Contamination and environmental suitability of the site for infiltration was not evaluated by us and should be evaluated by others (environmental consultant). We only addressed the geotechnical issues associated with stormwater infiltration.  The bottom of the proposed infiltration basin should be mapped during construction to confirm sandy soils are present 10 feet below the bottom elevation. Holes may need to be drilled and backfilled with clean sand should fine grained soils be present.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 27 December 21, 2021
LGC Geotechnical should be provided with details for any planned required infiltration system early in the design process for geotechnical input.

4.9 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control
From a geotechnical perspective, we recommend that compacted finished grade soils adjacent to proposed residences be sloped away from the proposed residence and towards an approved drainage device or unobstructed swale. Drainage swales, wherever feasible, should not be constructed within 5 feet of buildings. Where lot and building geometry necessitates that the side yard drainage swales be routed closer than 5 feet to structural foundations, we recommend the use of area drains together with drainage swales. Drainage swales used in conjunction with area drains should be designed by the project civil engineer so that a properly constructed and maintained system will prevent ponding within 5 feet of the foundation. Code compliance of grades is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant.

4.10 Grading, Foundation and Retaining Wall Plan Review When available, any updated rough, precise grading, conventional retaining wall, and foundation plans should be reviewed by LGC Geotechnical in order to verify our geotechnical recommendations are implemented. Updated recommendations and/or additional field work may be necessary.

4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC Geotechnical. Geotechnical observation and testing is required per Section 1705 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC).

Geotechnical observation and/or testing should be performed by LGC Geotechnical at the following stages:
 During rough grading (removal/over-excavation bottoms, fill placement, etc.);  During retaining wall backfill and compaction;
 During utility trench backfill and compaction;
 During precise grading;
 After presoaking building pads and other concrete-flatwork subgrades, and prior to placement of aggregate base or concrete;
 Preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base;  After building and wall footing excavation and prior to placement of steel reinforcement and/or concrete; and
 When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent to issuance of this report.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 Page 28 December 21, 2021

5.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.

This report is based on data obtained from limited observations of the site, which have been extrapolated to characterize the site. While the scope of services performed is considered suitable to adequately characterize the site geotechnical conditions relative to the proposed development, no practical evaluation can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the anticipated geotechnical conditions in connection with a subject site. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during grading and construction.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. The findings and conclusions presented in this report can be relied upon only if LGC Geotechnical has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client, any use of or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk.

In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and modification.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) 4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED

PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE

SAND BACKFILL
Percent Passing #200 Sieve 35% or Less
and EI 20 or Less

NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED
TO MINIMUM 90% RELATIVE
COMPACTION PER ASTM1557-D
MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT

BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF
3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN
MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT

FOOTING/WALL PER DESIGN ENGINEER

WATER PROOFING PER DESIGN ENGINEER
12" MINIMUM
18" MAXIMUM

BACKCUT PER OSHA

EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM
HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER WALL HEIGHT, H
NOTE:

PLACEMENT OF SUBDRAIN

AT BASE OF WALL WILL NOT

PREVENT SATURATION OF SOILS

BELOW AND / OR IN FRONT OF WALL
FIGURE 2
Retaining Wall
Backfill Detail
DATE December 2021
ENG. / GEOL.

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT NAME
SCALE
DJB
Not to Scale
Richland - McLeish Ranch
21188-01

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Appendix
A
References

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 A‐1 December 21, 2021

APPENDIX A
References
American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14).

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2017.
___, 2018, Standard 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Supplement 1, effective: December 12, 2018.

ASTM International, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08.

Blaine A. Womer, 2021, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203, City of San Jacinto, dated December 2021.

Bray, J.D., and Sancio, R. B., 2006, Assessment of Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1165-1177, dated September 2006.

California Building Standards Commission, 2019, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Volumes 1 and 2, dated July 2019.

California Department of Water Resources, 2021, Groundwater Levels for Well 338046N1169954W001, From: https://wdl.water.ca.gov/WaterDataLibrary/
County of Riverside, 2011, Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, dated September 2011. , 2016, General Plan, San Jacinto Valley Area Plan, Revised December 6 2016, From:
https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_Plan_2017/areaplans/SJVAP_12061

6.pdf?ver=2017-10-06-094252-663
Dibblee, Thomas, 2003, Geologic Map of the San Jacinto Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, dated 2003.

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2019, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps, Retrieved October 27, 2021, from: https://seismicmaps.org/
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (updated)(v4.2.0), Retrieved October 27, 2021, from:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Appendix B
Logs of Geotechnical Explorations & Infiltration
Test Data

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
1475
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-1
9/10/2021
~1477' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Richland - McLeish Ranch
21188-01
Logged By BPP
Sampled By BPP
Checked By DJB

Page 1 of 2 ends

R-1 11
14 15
@0'- Silty SAND: gray/brown, dry, medium dense
R-2 7
9 11
@2.5'- Silty SAND: dusky gray, dry, medium dense
R-3 5
6 8
@5'- Silty SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
R-4 4
5 9
@7.5'- Silty SAND: gray/brown, slightly moist, medium
dense
R-5 4
8 11
@10'- SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
SPT-1 4
7 9
@15'- SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
R-6 12
15 15
@20'- SAND: gray, very moist, medium dense
SPT-2 2
6 6
@25'- Silty SAND: dark gray/brown, wet, medium dense B-1 112.4 1.7 SM
106.6 1.5

93.8 4.1

97.9 4.7
100.9 0.9 SP

1.7 116.3 10.4

30.5 SM
@1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa):
-#200
-#200
MD

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) 60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H

EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:

Project Name:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:

Type of Rig:

Drop:

Drive Weight:

Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.

SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
1420
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-1
9/10/2021
~1477' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Richland - McLeish Ranch
21188-01
Logged By BPP
Sampled By BPP
Checked By DJB

Page 2 of 2 ends

R-7 4
5 13
@30'- SILT with Sand: dark gray, wet, stiff
SPT-3 4
8 6
@35'- Sandy SILT: dark gray, wet, very stiff
R-8 4
8 14
@40'- Silty SAND: gray, wet, medium dense
R-9 6
7 11
@50'- Clayey SAND: gray, wet, medium dense
Total Depth = 50'
Groundwater Encountered at Approximately 27'
Backfilled with Cuttings on 9/10/2021

82.4 40.9 ML

31.6 99.9 24.7 SM
106.0 23.6 SC
SPT-4 2
4 7

33.5 ML @45'- Sandy SILT: dark gray, wet, stiff
-#200
-#200
-#200
-#200
-#200

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
1480
1475
1470
1465
1460
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-2
9/10/2021
~1485' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Richland - McLeish Ranch
21188-01
Logged By BPP
Sampled By BPP
Checked By DJB

Page 1 of 1 ends

R-1 3
6 7
@0'- Silty SAND: gray/brown, dry, medium dense
R-2 4
6 6
@2.5'- SAND: gray, dry, loose
R-3 3
4 6
@5'- SAND: gray, dry, loose
R-4 4
4 5
@7.5'- Silty SAND to SAND: gray/brown, moist, loose
R-5 3
3 5
@10'- Silty SAND: gray, moist, loose
SPT-1 1
2 3
@15'- Sandy SILT: dark gray, wet, medium stiff
R-6 2
4 8
@20'- Sandy SILT: gray, wet, stiff
SPT-2 2
3 9
@25'- Silty SAND: dark gray, wet, medium dense
Total Depth = 25'
Groundwater Encountered at Approximately 22'
Backfilled with Cuttings on 9/10/2021 B-1
101.9 0.6 SM
104.2 1.1 SP
103.9 1.7

95.9 8.6 SM/SP

98.3 13.0 SM

32.7 ML

88.7 35.2

22.6 SM
@1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa):
-#200
MD
1455

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
1490
1485
1480
1475
1470
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-3
9/10/2021
~1492' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Richland - McLeish Ranch
21188-01
Logged By BPP
Sampled By BPP
Checked By DJB

Page 1 of 1 ends

R-1 8
10 12
@0'- Silty SAND/Sandy SILT: gray/brown, dry, medium
dense
R-2 4
5 7
@2.5'- SAND: gray, dry, loose
R-3 5
7 9
@5'- SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
R-4 5
6 8
@7.5'- SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
R-5 7
14 16
@10'- Silty SAND: gray/brown, dry, medium dense
SPT-1 4
4 4
@15'- Clayey SAND: gray/brown, wet, medium dense
R-6 10
12 15
@20'- SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
SPT-2 6
8 8
@25'- Sandy SILT: gray, wet, very stiff
Total Depth = 25'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 9/10/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 10/14/2021 105.7 1.1 SM/ML

96.4 1.3 SP
102.8 0.4

97.5 1.5
114.6 1.6 SM

27.1 SC
115.2 1.4 SP

21.5 ML
@1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa):
-#200
MD
1465

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
1475
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-I-1
9/10/2021
~1479' MSL
8"
Truck Mounted
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Richland - McLeish Ranch
21188-01
Logged By BPP
Sampled By BPP
Checked By DJB

Page 1 of 1 ends

R-1 6
4 4
@0'- Silty SAND: gray/brown, dry, loose
R-2 3
3 3
@2.5'- SAND: gray, dry, loose
R-3 2
3 4
@5'- Sandy SILT: gray, wet, medium stiff
R-4 2
2 5
@7'- Silty SAND: gray/brown, slightly moist, loose
Total Depth = 8.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 9/10/2021 B-1
103.0 0.7 SM
100.8 1.2 SP

91.8 26.7 ML

95.7 6.6 SM
@1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa):

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
1475
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-I-2
9/10/2021
~1479' MSL
8"
Truck Mounted
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Richland - McLeish Ranch
21188-01
Logged By BPP
Sampled By BPP
Checked By DJB

Page 1 of 1 ends

R-1 6
9 8
@0'- Silty SAND: dusky gray/brown, dry, medium dense
R-2 5
7 9
@2.5'- SAND: light gray, dry, medium dense
R-3 4
8 8
@5'- Sandy SILT: gray/brown, slightly moist, stiff
R-4 3
5 7
@7'- Silty SAND: gray, dry, loose
Total Depth = 8.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 9/10/2021

99.7 1.8 SM

96.7 1.0 SP

92.7 5.3 ML

97.3 1.7 SM
@1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa):

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project: LGC Geotechnical / McLeish Ranch
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 50.59 ft, Date: 11/29/2021 CPT-1
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/30/2021, 1:23:08 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-SanJacinto11-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project: LGC Geotechnical / McLeish Ranch
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 50.35 ft, Date: 11/29/2021 CPT-2
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/30/2021, 1:23:08 PM 2 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-SanJacinto11-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project: LGC Geotechnical / McLeish Ranch
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 50.34 ft, Date: 11/29/2021 CPT-3
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/30/2021, 1:23:09 PM 3 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-SanJacinto11-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project: LGC Geotechnical / McLeish Ranch
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 50.33 ft, Date: 11/29/2021 CPT-4
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/30/2021, 1:23:09 PM 4 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-SanJacinto11-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project: LGC Geotechnical / McLeish Ranch
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 50.20 ft, Date: 11/29/2021 CPT-5
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/30/2021, 1:23:10 PM 5 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-SanJacinto11-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project: LGC Geotechnical / McLeish Ranch
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 50.34 ft, Date: 11/29/2021 CPT-6
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/30/2021, 1:23:10 PM 6 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-SanJacinto11-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project: LGC Geotechnical / McLeish Ranch
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 50.26 ft, Date: 11/29/2021 CPT-7
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/30/2021, 1:23:11 PM 7 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-SanJacinto11-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project: LGC Geotechnical / McLeish Ranch
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 50.21 ft, Date: 11/29/2021 CPT-8
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/30/2021, 1:23:12 PM 8 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-SanJacinto11-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Richland - McLeish Ranch Project Number: 21188-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 9/14/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-1 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 1492' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: S70W A
@ 0' to 1' - Silty SAND: light brown to gray, dry, loose, rootlets, topsoil G-1 @ 0-1' B
@ 1' to 2' - Silty SAND: coarser sand (gravel), gray, dry, loose, friable in some areas G-2 @ 1-2' C
@ 2' to 3' - SILT: gray, dry, medium dense, ~2% pores G-3 @ 2-3' Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: n/a Backfilled: 9/14/21

ABC ML SM
@ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) Qa 4.1.m
Packet Pg. 838
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Richland - McLeish Ranch Project Number: 21188-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 9/14/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-2 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 1490' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N50E A
@ 0' to 1' - Sandy SILT: gray, dry, loose to medium dense, clumpy, rootlets, topsoil G-1 @ 0-1' B
@ 1' to 3', 4' to 6', 8' to 10' - Sandy SILT: gray, dry, medium dense, some rootlets G-2 @ 1-2' C
@ 3' to 4' - SAND: very fine gray to white sand, dry, loose, friable in some areas G-3 @ 3-4' D
@ 7' to 8' - Coarser SAND w/ Gravel: gray, loose, dry, friable G-4 @ 4-5.5' Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: n/a Backfilled: 9/14/21 AB
C
D SPSM
B
B
@ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) Qa 4.1.m
Packet Pg. 839
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Richland - McLeish Ranch Project Number: 21188-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 9/14/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-3 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 148 7' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: S50W
A @ 0' to 1' - Silty SAND: light gray, dry, loose, rootlets, topsoil G-1 @ 0-1' B @ 2' to 2.5' - Silty SAND: gray, loose, friable, coarser sand with some gravel G-2 @ 1-2' C @ 1' to 2', 2.5' to 3'- Sandy SILT: gray dry, medium dense, darker gray on bottom w/ traces of moisture near 3' G-3 @ 2-3' B-1 @ 0-3' Total Depth: 3.5' Groundwater: n/a Backfilled: 9/14/21 A
B
C SM
C @ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) Qa 4.1.m
Packet Pg. 840
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Richland - McLeish Ranch Project Number: 21188-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 9/14/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-4 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 148 4' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N43E
A @ 0 to 6" - Sandy SILT: gray, dry, loose/clumpy, rootlets, topsoil G-1 @ 0-1' B @ 6" to 3' - Sandy SILT: gray, dry, medium dense, mildly friable in some areas. From 20" to 23", thin sandy bed, gray/white, dry. Around 3', sandy silt grades into a pure silt G-2 @ 1-2' G-3 @ 2-3' Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: n/a Backfilled: 9/14/21 B SM
A @ 6" to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) Qa 4.1.m
Packet Pg. 841
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Richland - McLeish Ranch Project Number: 21188-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 9/14/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-5 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 1484' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N5W A @ 0' to 1' - Silty SAND: light gray, dry, loose, some rootlets, friable, topsoil G-1 @ 0-1' B @ 1' to 5' - Silty SAND: gray to white, dry, friable G-2 @ 1-2' C @ 5' to 10' - SILT: dark gray, moist to slightly moist, loose to medium dense G-3 @ 5-6' B-1 @ 0-5' Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: n/a Backfilled: 9/14/21 A
B
C SMML Black Streaks at contact @ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) Qa 4.1.m Packet Pg. 842
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Richland - McLeish Ranch Project Number: 21188-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 9/14/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-6 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 148 2' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N40W
A @ 0' to 1' - Silty SAND: dry, loose, some rootlets, topsoil G-1 @ 0-1' B @ 1' to 5' - Sandy SILT: gray, dry, some rootlets, medium dense G-2 @ 1-2' C @ 5' to 10' - SILT: gray, dry, medium dense G-3 @ 2-3' G-4 @ 4-5' Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: n/a Backfilled: 9/14/21 A
B
C SMML @ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) 4.1.m
Packet Pg. 843
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Richland - McLeish Ranch Project Number: 21188-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 9/14/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-7 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 1478' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N30W A @ 0' to 1' - Silty SAND: gray, dry, loose to medium dense, rootlets, topsoil G-1 @ 0-1' B @ 1' to 6.5' - Silty SAND: gray, dry, medium dense G-2 @ 1-2' C @ 6.5' to 7.5' - SAND: gray to white, dry, friable/loose G-3 @ 2-3' D @ 7.5' to 10' - SILT: gray, dry, medium dense G-4 @ 3-5' Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: n/a Backfilled: 9/14/21 A
B
C
D SMSPML @ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) Qa 4.1.m Packet Pg. 844
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Richland - McLeish Ranch Project Number: 21188-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 9/14/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-8 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 148 6' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N50W
A @ 0' to1' - Silty SAND: gray dry, medium dense, rootlets, trash, topsoil G-1 @ 0-1' B @ 1' to 2' - Silty SAND: gray, dry, medium dense G-2 @ 1-2' C @ 2' to 3' - SAND: gray to white, dry, loose, friable G-3 @ 2-3' Total Depth: 3.5' Groundwater: n/a Backfilled: 9/14/21 A
BC SPSM @ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) Qa 4.1.m Packet Pg. 845
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Richland - McLeish Ranch Project Number: 21188-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 9/14/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-9 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 148 8' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N50W
A @ 0' to 1' - Silty SAND: loose to medium dense, topsoil G-1 @ 0-1' B @ 1' to 3' - Silty SAND: gray, dry, medium dense G-2 @ 1-2' C @ 3' to 5.5' - SAND: gray/white, dry, very loose & friable G-3 @ 2-3'D @ 5.5' to 9' SILT: Darker gray, visually appears slightly moist, medium dense, clean silt *trench walls very unstable, did not enter past 4 feet* G-4 @ 3-5' Total Depth: 9' Groundwater: n/a Backfilled: 9/14/21 A
B
C
D SMSPML @ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) Qa 4.1.m Packet Pg. 846
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Richland - McLeish Ranch Project Number: 21188-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 9/14/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-10 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 1494' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N50W A
@ 0' to 1' - Silty SAND: light brown to gray, dry, loose to medium dense, rootlets, topsoil G-1 @ 0-1' B
@ 1' to 1.5' - Silty SAND: gray, dry, medium dense G-2 @ 1-2' C
@ 1.5' to 3' - Coarse SAND grading into a Finer SAND: gray, dry overall, loose & friable in some areas G-3 @ 2-3' Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: n/a Backfilled: 9/14/21 A
B
C SMSW
@ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) Qa 4.1.m
Packet Pg. 847
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Boring Number:

Test hole dimensions (if circular)

7.3 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 9:54 10:19 25.0 5.00 5.53 0.53
2 10:20 10:45 25.0 4.42 5.55 1.13
Main Test Data
1 10:45 10:55 10.0 4.08 5.38 1.30 5.7
2 10:57 11:07 10.0 4.01 5.32 1.31 5.6
3 11:08 11:18 10.0 3.90 5.33 1.43 6.0
4 11:19 11:29 10.0 4.44 5.32 0.88 4.1
5 11:30 11:40 10.0 4.13 5.32 1.19 5.2
6 11:41 11:51 10.0 4.50 5.37 0.87 4.1
7 8
9 10
11 12
Minimum Factor of Safety 3

1.4 Sketch: Notes:

Infiltration Test Data Sheet
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name: Richland - Mcleish
Project Number: 21188-01
Date: 9/13/2021
I-1
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):

Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):

Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): *measured at time of test Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)
Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Greater Than or
Equal to

0.5 feet (yes/no)
Yes
Yes
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval, t
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Based on Guidelines from: Riverside County 09/2012
Spreadsheet Revised on: 10/30/2019
Final Depth
to Water,
Df(feet)
Change in
Water Level, D
(feet)
Tested Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
Tested Infiltration Rate (No Factor of Safety) 4.1

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Boring Number:

Test hole dimensions (if circular)

7.82 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 10:02 10:27 25.0 5.05 6.65 1.60
2 10:29 10:54 25.0 3.80 6.05 2.25
Main Test Data
1 10:55 11:05 10.0 4.05 5.45 1.40 5.2
2 11:05 11:15 10.0 3.70 5.27 1.57 5.4
3 11:16 11:26 10.0 3.05 4.70 1.65 4.8
4 11:27 11:37 10.0 3.30 4.63 1.33 4.0
5 11:38 11:48 10.0 3.40 4.65 1.25 3.8
6 11:48 11:58 10.0 3.35 4.57 1.22 3.6
7 8
9 10
11 12
Minimum Factor of Safety 3

1.2 Sketch: Notes:

Infiltration Test Data Sheet
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name: Richland - Mcleish
Project Number: 21188-01
Date: 9/13/2021
I-2
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):

Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):

Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):

Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
*measured at time of test
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)

3.6 Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Greater Than or
Equal to

0.5 feet (yes/no)
Yes
Yes
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval, t
(min)
Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Based on Guidelines from: Riverside County 09/2012
Spreadsheet Revised on: 10/30/2019
Final Depth
to Water,
Df(feet)
Change in
Water Level, D
(feet)
Tested Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
Tested Infiltration Rate (No Factor of Safety)

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Appendix
C
Laboratory Test Results

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project No. 21188‐01 C‐1 December 2021

APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
The laboratory testing program was formulated towards providing data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils with respect to residential construction. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results.

Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples.

Grain Size Distribution: Representative samples were dried, weighed, and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve.

The portion retained on the No. 200 sieve was dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D422 (CTM 202).

Sample Location % Passing # 200
Sieve
HS-1 @ 20 feet 4
HS-1 @ 25 feet 28
HS-1 @ 30 feet 85
HS-1 @ 35 feet 52
HS-1 @ 40 feet 29
HS-1 @ 45 feet 56
HS-1 @ 50 feet 40
HS-2 @ 25 feet 38
HS-3 @ 25 feet 37

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) APPENDIX C (Cont’d)
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Project No. 21188‐01 C‐2 December 2021
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The results of this test are presented in the table below:

Sample
Location Sample Description
Maximum
Dry Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
Content (%)
HS-1 @ 0-5 feet Dusty Gray/Brown Silty Sand 126.0 9.0
HS-2 @ 0-5 feet Dusty Gray/Brown Sand 127.0 8.5
HS-3 @ 0-5 feet Dusky Gray/Brown Silty Sand 127.5 8.5
TP-1 @0-1 feet Dark Gray/Brown Silty Sand 121.5 10.0
Organic Matter Content of Soils: Organic matter content tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2974 (Test Methods A & C). The results are presented in the table below.

Sample Location Organics Content (%)
TP-1 @ 0-1 feet 1.2
TP-1 @ 1-2 feet 0.3
TP-2 @ 0-1 feet 1.3
TP-3 @ 0-1 feet 1.1
TP-3 @ 1-2 feet 0.6
TP-4 @ 0-1 feet 1.3
TP-5 @ 0-1 feet 0.8
TP-5 @ 1-2 feet 0.3
TP-5 @ 5-6 feet 0.1
TP-7 @ 0-1 feet 1.9
TP-7 @ 1-2 feet 0.6
TP-8 @ 0-1 feet 1.2
TP-9 @ 0-1 feet 0.8
TP-9 @ 1-2 feet 0.8
TP-10 @ 0-1 feet 0.7

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Appendix
D
Liquefaction Analysis

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Summary of Estimated Vertical Liquefaction Settlement
CPT No.

Estimated
Settlement
(inch)
CPT-1 1½
CPT-2 1
CPT-3 1 ¼
CPT-4 ¾
CPT-5 1
CPT-6 2/3
CPT-7 1
CPT-8 1½

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project:

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
Total depth: 50.59 ft
CPT: CPT-1
Location:

Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay
Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.42 1.11
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

30.00 ft

15.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/20/2021, 10:21:58 AM 1 Project file: Z:\2021\21188-01 Richland - McLeish Ranch\Engineering\Liquefaction\2021_11 Liquefaction Analysis.clq

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project:

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
Total depth: 50.35 ft
CPT: CPT-2
Location:

Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.42 1.11
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

20.00 ft

15.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/20/2021, 10:21:58 AM 2 Project file: Z:\2021\21188-01 Richland - McLeish Ranch\Engineering\Liquefaction\2021_11 Liquefaction Analysis.clq

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project:

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
Total depth: 50.34 ft
CPT: CPT-3
Location:

Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay Clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.42 1.11
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

20.00 ft

15.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/20/2021, 10:21:58 AM 3 Project file: Z:\2021\21188-01 Richland - McLeish Ranch\Engineering\Liquefaction\2021_11 Liquefaction Analysis.clq

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project:

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
Total depth: 50.33 ft
CPT: CPT-4
Location:

Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand Clay
Clay Clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.42 1.11
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

20.00 ft

15.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/20/2021, 10:21:59 AM 4 Project file: Z:\2021\21188-01 Richland - McLeish Ranch\Engineering\Liquefaction\2021_11 Liquefaction Analysis.clq

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project:

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
Total depth: 50.20 ft
CPT: CPT-5
Location:

Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
50 100 150
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.42 1.11
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

20.00 ft

15.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/20/2021, 10:21:59 AM 5 Project file: Z:\2021\21188-01 Richland - McLeish Ranch\Engineering\Liquefaction\2021_11 Liquefaction Analysis.clq

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project:

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
Total depth: 50.34 ft
CPT: CPT-6
Location:

Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
50 100 150
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay
Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.42 1.11
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

20.00 ft

15.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/20/2021, 10:22:00 AM 6 Project file: Z:\2021\21188-01 Richland - McLeish Ranch\Engineering\Liquefaction\2021_11 Liquefaction Analysis.clq

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project:

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
Total depth: 50.26 ft
CPT: CPT-7
Location:

Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
100 200
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.42 1.11
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

20.00 ft

15.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/20/2021, 10:22:00 AM 7 Project file: Z:\2021\21188-01 Richland - McLeish Ranch\Engineering\Liquefaction\2021_11 Liquefaction Analysis.clq

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Project:

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
Total depth: 50.21 ft
CPT: CPT-8
Location:

Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
100 200
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay
Sand & silty sand Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.42 1.11
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

30.00 ft

15.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/20/2021, 10:22:00 AM 8 Project file: Z:\2021\21188-01 Richland - McLeish Ranch\Engineering\Liquefaction\2021_11 Liquefaction Analysis.clq

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development

Appendix E
General Earthwork Specifications for Rough
Grading

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading

1.0 General

1.1 Intent
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.

Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.

During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moistureconditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 1

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the
Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.

The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction.

2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.

If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.

As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor.

2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 2

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

2.3 Over-excavation
In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.

2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.

2.5 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 the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.

3.0 Fill Material

3.1 General
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. 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.

3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 3

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of the geotechnical consultant. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.

4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction

4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.

4.2 Fill 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 over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557).

4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.

4.5 Compaction Testing
Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 4

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.

4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.

5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.

6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only.

The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.0 Trench Backfills

7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.

7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 5

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 6 the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.

7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.

7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) LEGEND Location of Hallow Steam Auger Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Location of Hallow Stem Auger Infiltration Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Location of Exploratory Test Pit by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Location of Cone Penetration Test (CPT) by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Approximate Limits of Site HS-3 T.D. = 25' I-2 T.D. = 7.8 TP-10 TP-1 HS-3 T.D. = 25' HS-2 T.D. = 25' HS-1 T.D. = 50' TP-2 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 TP-7 TP-6 TP-9 TP-8 TP-10 CPT-1 T.D. = 50' CPT-8 T.D. = 50' CPT-7 T.D. = 50' CPT-3 T.D. = 50' CPT-5 T.D. = 50' CPT-2 T.D. = 50' CPT-4 T.D. = 50' CPT-6 T.D. = 50' I-2 T.D. = 7.8' I-1 T.D. = 7.3 T.D.=3' T.D.=10' T.D.=3.5' T.D.=3' T.D.=10' T.D.=10' T.D.=10' T.D.=3.5' T.D.=9' T.D.=3' T.D.=3' CPT-8 T.D. = 50' Sheet 1 Geotechnical Exploration Location Map ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE DATE 1" = 80' December 2021 Richland - McLeish Ranch DJB 21188-01 SHEET 1 of 1 LGC Geotechnical, Inc. 131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200 San Clemente, CA 92672 TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142 4.1.m Packet Pg. 879
Attachment: Appendix D - Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

APPENDIX E
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Your Property. Our Priority.

Making a better future for all the communities we touch. www.HillmannConsulting.com

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
McLeish Ranch
San Jacinto, California 92581
Prepared For:

Richland Real Estate Fund
3161 Michelson Drive
Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92612
December 22, 2020
Hillmann Project Number C3-8229

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Your Property. Our Priority.

Making a better future for all the communities we touch. www.HillmannConsulting.com
December 22, 2020
Mr. John Schafer
Richland Real Estate Fund
3161 Michelson Drive
Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92612
RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
McLeish Ranch
San Jacinto, California 92581
Hillmann Project No: C3-8229
Dear Mr. Fallows:

Hillmann Consulting LLC is pleased to provide the results of our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the above referenced property. This assessment was performed in general accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13, which is the latest version of the E1527 standard published by the ASTM.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide environmental due diligence services. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact our office at (714) 634-9500.

Sincerely,
Hillmann Consulting, LLC
Gabriela Cyrulik David Rutherford
Environmental Technician Quality Management Director

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -i- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................1

1.1 Summary of Project Details .........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Findings Summary Table .............................................................................................................................2

1.3 Findings, Opinions and Conclusions............................................................................................................2

1.4 Business Environmental Risks / Non-ASTM Scope ....................................................................................4

2.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................5

2.1 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................................5

2.2 Property Location/Legal Description ...........................................................................................................7

2.3 Data Gaps.....................................................................................................................................................7

2.4 User Reliance ...............................................................................................................................................8

2.5 Significant Assumptions ..............................................................................................................................8

2.6 General Limitations and Exceptions ............................................................................................................8

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ........................................................................................11

3.1 Prior Environmental Reports/Documentation ............................................................................................11

3.2 User Questionnaire.....................................................................................................................................11

3.3 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA ..........................................................................................................13

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW...................................................................................................................14

4.1 Physical Setting Sources ............................................................................................................................14

4.2 Historical Use – Property and Adjoining Properties ..................................................................................14

4.3 Standard Environmental Record Sources...................................................................................................19

4.4 Additional Environmental Record Sources................................................................................................23

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ........................................................................................................25

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions......................................................................................................25

5.2 General Site Setting....................................................................................................................................25

5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations................................................................................................................26

6.0 INTERVIEWS..............................................................................................................................29

6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants..........................................................................29

6.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials.........................................................................29

7.0 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS ..................................................................................30

7.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) .......................................................................................................30

7.2 Lead-Based Paint........................................................................................................................................30

7.3 Radon .........................................................................................................................................................30

7.4 Mold/Microbial Damage ............................................................................................................................30

7.5 NWI Mapped Wetlands..............................................................................................................................31

8.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................32

9.0 APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................................33 Appendix A Site Diagram/Vicinity Map
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Questionnaires / User Provided Information
Appendix D Historical Records Documentation
Appendix E Regulatory Records Documentation
Appendix F Other Documents / Lab Results
Appendix G Project Personnel Qualifications

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -ii- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
List of Abbreviations/Acronyms
Hillmann may use the following abbreviations and acronyms for common terminology described in our report. Not all abbreviations or acronyms may be applicable to this report:

ACM – Asbestos Containing Material
AOC – Area of Concern
AST – Aboveground Storage Tank
ASTM – American Society for Testing Materials
BER – Business Environmental Risk
CEA – Classification Exception Area
CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act CERCLIS – Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System CESQG – Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
COC – Chemicals of Concern
CORRACTS – Corrective Action Sites
CREC – Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
DNPL – Delisted National Priority List
DTSC – Department of Toxic Substances Control
ENG – Engineering
ERNS – Emergency Response Notification System
FDEP – Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDNY – Fire Department, City of New York
FDOT – Florida Department of Transportation
FOI/FOIA/FOIL – Freedom of Information / Freedom of Information Act / Freedom of Information Letter HVAC – Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning
HREC – Historic Recognized Environmental Condition
IAQ – Indoor Air Quality
ISRA – Industrial Site Recovery Act
LBP – Lead-Based Paint
LQG – Large Quantity Generator
LTANK – Leaking Storage Tank
LUST – Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MassDEP – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection SDS/MSDS – Safety Data Sheet / Material Safety Data Sheet NA – Not Applicable
NCDOH – Nassau County Department of Health
NFA – No Further Action
NFRAP – No Further Remedial Actions Planned
NJDEP – New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL – National Priority List
NYCDEP – New York City Department of Environmental Protection NYCDOB – New York City Department of Buildings
NYCOER – New York City Office of Environmental Remediation NYSDEC – New York State Department of Environmental Conservation OPRA – Open Public Records Act
PADEP – Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCE – Perchloroethylene
RAO – Response Action Outcome
RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS – Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System REC – Recognized Environmental Condition
RWQCB – Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD – South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCDHS – Suffolk County Department of Health Services
SDG – Significant Data Gap
SEMS – Superfund Enterprise Management System
SRP – Site Remediation Program
SQG – Small Quantity Generator
SVOC – Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
TCE – Trichloroethylene
TSDF – Treatment Storage and/or Disposal Facility
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
UST – Underground Storage Tank
VEC – Vapor Encroachment Condition
VOC – Volatile Organic Compound

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -1- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

1.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Hillmann Consulting, LLC (Hillmann) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California (the Property). The assessment has been conducted in accordance with our contracted scope of work and the ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13 for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Final Rule 40 CFR Part 312. This section contains a summary of findings, opinions and conclusions made by this assessment. However, this section, alone, does not constitute the complete assessment. The report must be read in its entirety.

1.1 Summary of Project Details
Primary Street Address: McLeish Ranch
City: San Jacinto County: Riverside State: California
Tax ID/Parcel Number: APN 436-080-001, 436-080-002, and 436-080-006 Property Owner: David Wiener
Zoning Designation: Agricultural
Approx. Property Area: 95.39 acres
Buildings/# of Floors None – vacant
Approx. Building Area: NA
Approx. Year Built: None – vacant
Commercial Occupants: None - vacant
Current Use: None – vacant
Prior Uses: Agricultural land
Inspected By: Ms. Gabriela Cyrulik
Site Contact/Company: Mr. John Schafer/Richland Real Estate Fund Site Escort/Company: Unescorted
Inspection Date: December 7 and 8, 2020
Weather Conditions: Cloudy, 60 degrees F

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -2- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

1.2 Findings Summary Table
Assessment Subject No
REC REC CREC HREC Rpt.Ref.

Property Regulatory Records Review: X 4.3
Property Historical Records Review: X 4.2
Bulk Petroleum Storage: X 5.3
On-Site Operations: X 5.3
On-Site Haz-Mat Storage/Use/Spills: X 5.3
Transformers/Hydraulic Systems: X 5.3
Waste Discharges: X 5.3
Interviews: X 6.0
Adjoining & Nearby Properties: X

4.3 5.2
Prior Env. Reports/User Provided Info: X 3.0
Data Gaps: X 2.3

1.3 Findings, Opinions and Conclusions

1.3.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions
Hillmann has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of the Property as described in Section 2 of this report.

Any additions to, exceptions to, or deletions from this practice are also described in Section 2 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property, except for the following:

RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
No RECs were identified.

HISTORICAL RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
No HRECs were identified.

CONTROLLED RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
No CRECs were identified.

SIGNIFICANT DATA GAPS
No SDGs were identified.

1.3.2 REC Response Action Recommendations
The following table presents recommended response actions to the identified RECs for further investigation and/or corrective action:

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -3- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

REC RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY TABLE
REC Response Action
No RECs were identified.

1.3.3 Notable Environmental Conditions / De Minimis Conditions The following environmental conditions were identified, but are not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property:

NOTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS / DE MINIMIS CONDITIONS

1. The Property was historically utilized for agricultural purposes from approximately the 1960s to present, with the SE corner of the Property being the only portion still actively used for agricultural purposes. Due to a concern of shallow soil impacts resulting from cumulative applications of pesticides at the site, limited soil sampling and analysis was conducted at the time of the site inspection. Forty-five shallow soil samples were collected and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCP) via EPA method 8081A, and heavy metals and mercury via EPA methods 6010B and 7471A. The analytical results indicated only minor detections of OCPs and heavy metals, all below the RSLs for residential use. In addition, similar soil sampling performed by Centec in 2017 (see Section

3.1) did not indicate elevated concentrations of organochlorine pesticides or arsenic at the Property. Based on the results of the limited soil testing; the historic agricultural uses of the property are not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

2. Hillman observed nuisance solid waste dumping at the northwest and northeast corner of the Property, and is considered to be a de minimis condition.

3. AC Magnolia LLC at 38100 De Anza Drive is listed on the HWTS and HAZNET databases. The site is adjacent to the northwest of the Property and is up-gradient relative to the Property. The HWTS listing indicates that

0.842 tons of asbestos containing waste was disposed of the Property in 2003, with no violations noted. The HAZNET listing provides the Property EPA ID of CAC002572190, with site name and address, no other permanent information is provided. However, given that the Property was never developed with structures, EDR mapped this listing in the incorrect location.

4. Maclin Open Air Markets at 789 Lyon is listed on the LUST, HIST UST, CERS and HIST CORTESE databases.

The site is adjacent to the southeast of the Property and is up-gradient relative to the Property. The LUST listing indicates that the soil was contaminated at this site with gasoline from a leaking underground storage tank, with a leak first being discovered by subsurface monitoring on 9/16/1990. The contaminated soil was disposed of and the site was granted a No Further Action Letter as of 01/31/1991. The HIST UST listing indicates that a three (3) 300-500-gallon carbon steel USTs containing regular, diesel, and unleaded oil was installed on the site in 1977, with no violations noted. The CERS listing indicates that the site was on the leaking underground storage tank cleanup site, with a CERS ID of T0606500207. The HIST CORTESE listing indicates that the site is on the Reg ID of 083301647T, with site name and address listed. Based on the details provided above, a REC is not suspected in connection with the Property.

1.3.4 Environmental Professional Statement
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 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 all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. ________________________________
David Rutherford
Environmental Professional

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -4- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

1.4 Business Environmental Risks / Non-ASTM Scope
Hillmann has performed a limited review of the following potential Business Environmental Risks (BER), also known as “Non-ASTM Scope concerns”, in accordance with the contracted scope of work scope for this assessment. The following is a summary of findings for applicable BERs. For a more detailed discussion of the findings and contracted scope of work, please see the referenced report section.

BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS / NON-ASTM SCOPE
Subject Findings Not
Appl.

Rpt.

Ref.

Asbestos X 7.1
Lead Paint X 7.2
Radon Property is located in the USEPA radon designation Zone 2 or 'moderate risk' area for radon.

7.3 Mold /
Microbial
Damage
X 7.4
NWI
Wetlands
No NWI mapped wetlands areas were depicted at the Property. Areas of mapped wetlands were indicated immediately to the northeast, south and southwest of the Property.

7.5 Lead in
Drinking
Water
X 7.6

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -5- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose and Scope
This assessment was conducted utilizing generally accepted Phase I ESA industry standards in accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13. The ASTM describes these methodologies as representing good commercial and customary practice in the United States of America for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and petroleum products. As such, this practice is intended 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 on CERCLA liability (hereinafter, the “landowner liability protections,” or “LLPs”): that is, the practice that constitutes all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses the property consistent with good commercial and customary practice as defined at 42 U.S.C. §9601(35) (B). The primary goal of the processes established by ASTM E1527-13 is to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property.

The term recognized environmental condition (REC) is defined by the ASTM as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or at a property: (1) due to a release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

The ASTM has also defined the terms historical recognized environmental conditions and controlled recognized environmental conditions as two additional types of RECs. The term historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) is 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 use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the Property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls or engineering controls).

The term controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) 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, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.

Conditions determined to be “de minimis conditions” are not considered to be RECs, HRECs or CRECs. De minimis condition is defined by the ASTM, “…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.” The chief components of this assessment are generally described as follows:
• A non-invasive visual reconnaissance of the Property and adjoining properties in accordance with ASTM guidelines for evidence of RECs.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -6- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
• Interviews of past and present owners and occupants and state and local government officials, seeking information related to the potential presence of RECs at the Property. • A review of standard physical record sources for available topographic, geologic and groundwater data.
• A review of standard historic record sources, such as fire insurance maps, city directories, aerial photographs, prior reports and interviews, etc., to determine prior uses of the Property from the present, back to the Property’s first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier. • A review of standard environmental record sources including federal and state environmental databases, and additional environmental record sources, to identify potential regulatory concerns with the Property, adjoining properties and properties located within the surrounding area.

An evaluation of environmental or other regulatory compliance matters is excluded from the scope of this assessment.

These methodologies are described as representing good commercial and customary practice for conducting an Environmental Site Assessment of a property for the purpose of identifying recognized environmental conditions.

2.1.1 Business Environmental Risks/Non-ASTM Scope Considerations In accordance with our contract agreement, Hillmann may have addressed the following potential environmental subject matters that are outside of the requirements of the ASTM E1527-13 standard:

Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM): A cursory non-intrusive visual screening for the presence of suspect ACM within the accessed areas of buildings built prior to 1990 on the Property. It is emphasized that this cursory non-intrusive visual screening does not constitute an asbestos survey/inspection of the premises. An asbestos survey/inspection should be sought by the report User(s) if more certainty is desired regarding ACM and potential asbestos hazards at the Property.

Furthermore, a review of regulatory compliance matters pertaining to asbestos is excluded from the scope of work.

Lead-Based Paint (LBP): A cursory non-intrusive visual screening of the condition of painted surfaces in the accessed areas of residential buildings/units built prior to 1980 on the Property. It is emphasized that this cursory non-intrusive visual screening does not constitute a comprehensive survey for LBP or potential lead hazards. A comprehensive inspection should be sought by the report User(s) if more certainty is desired regarding LBP at the Property. Furthermore, a review of regulatory compliance matters pertaining to lead-based paint is excluded from the scope of work.

USEPA Designated Radon Potential: Review of general non-site specific data published by the USEPA regarding the Radon Zone classification for the area of the Property.

Mold/Microbial Damage: A cursory non-intrusive visual screening within the accessed areas of buildings on the Property for evidence of systemic microbial problems, including visible mold

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -7- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
growth, water damaged building materials or musty odors. It is emphasized that this cursory nonintrusive visual screening does not constitute a comprehensive survey for moisture/mold/microbial damage. A more comprehensive inspection should be sought by the report User(s) if more certainty is desired regarding the potential for moisture/mold/microbial damages at the Property.

NWI Wetlands: Review of US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory digitized data of mapped wetlands as presented in the attached EDR Radius Map plus Geocheck Report.

It is emphasized that, regardless of the wetlands data obtained via the EDR Geocheck-Physical Setting Source Addendum, a delineation of regulated wetlands by a qualified professional would be warranted to determine the presence or absence of regulated wetlands at the Property.

Lead in Drinking Water: Review of the potential for elevated levels of lead in the drinking water by determining the source of the drinking water supply and a review of available testing or compliance data reports.

2.2 Property Location/Legal Description
Property location and legal description details are described as follows:

Primary Street Address: McLeish Ranch
City: San Jacinto County: Riverside State: California
Tax ID/Parcel Number: APN 436-080-001, 436-080-002, and 436-080-006 Approx. Land Area: 95.39 acres
Apprx. Latitude/Longitude: North 33.805762 degrees/West 116.994882 degrees Additional Details (if appl.): NA
Property Owner: David Wiener
Zoning Designation: Agricultural

2.3 Data Gaps
A data gap is defined by the ASTM as a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. A data gap is only significant if other information and/or professional experience raises reasonable concerns involving the data gap and the ability to determine the presence or absence of recognized environmental conditions. The following table summarizes data gaps encountered during the assessment as well as a discussion of their significance.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -8- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
Data Gap: Significant
(Yes/No)?
Discussion
Historical records data failure No The date and/or type of the first developed use of the Property was not documented.

Records gaps exceeding five years were encountered; however, no significant site use changes are suspected during these intervals.

Response to agency records
requests not received as of date
of report.

No Any additional information indicative of a REC will be forwarded upon receipt.

2.4 User Reliance
This report is for the exclusive use of the User(s) named on the front cover. No other party(ies) shall have any right to rely on the content of this report without first obtaining the consent of the original report User; and without obtaining written consent from Hillmann in the form of a letter of reliance or report recertification.

2.5 Significant Assumptions
The following significant assumptions are made:
• The site operations at the time of the site visit are assumed to reflect typical site conditions relative to potential environmental conditions and that no concealment of environmental conditions or releases by site owners or occupants has occurred. Likewise, it is assumed that no areas of the Property with potential environmental concerns or RECs were concealed or otherwise not reported, intentionally or unknowingly, by the Property owners/occupants and/or site escort at the time of the site visit.
• For the purpose of estimating the approximate direction of groundwater flow in the absence of site specific groundwater data, unless indicated otherwise, an assumption has been made that the gradient of groundwater flow follows the surface topography of the Property and immediate surrounding area.

2.6 General Limitations and Exceptions

2.6.1 Limitations
The report turnaround time specified by the contract agreement for this assessment may present a limitation to the availability of pertinent regulatory agency records. Such limitations, if encountered, are further specified in Section 4.4.

Significant limitations related to the condition or accessibility of the Property at the time of the site reconnaissance, if encountered, are reported in Section 5.1.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -9- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

2.6.2 Other Exceptions or Deletions
No other exceptions or deletions from the ASTM Standard E1527-13 are reported.2.6.3 Special Terms and Conditions
This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared using reasonable efforts in each phase of its work to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with hazardous substances, wastes and petroleum products at the Property. Findings within this report are based on information collected from observations made on the day of the site reconnaissance and from reasonably ascertainable information obtained from governing public agencies and private sources.

This report is not definitive and should not be assumed to be a complete or specific definition of the conditions above or below grade. Information in this report is not intended to be used as a construction document and should not be used for demolition, renovation, site development, redevelopment, or other construction purposes. No representation or warranty is made that the past or current operations at the Property are, or have been, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and codes.

Findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on visual observations of the Property, interviews conducted, the records reviewed, information provided by the Client, and/or a review of readily available and supplied drawings and documents. Information obtained during the assessment, whether written, graphic or verbal, provided by the Property contact(s) or as shown on any documents reviewed or received from the Property contact, owner or agent, or government agency source; is assumed to be accurate except as specifically stated otherwise in this report. Independent verification of the accuracy or completeness of all information reviewed or received during the course of this assessment is not made and excluded from the scope of work for this assessment. No warranty or guarantee is made of the accuracy or completeness of information that was obtained from ostensibly knowledgeable individuals, regulatory agency representatives or other secondary sources.

Regardless of the findings stated in this report, Hillmann is not responsible for consequences or conditions arising from facts that were concealed, withheld or not fully disclosed at the time the assessment was conducted.

This report does not warrant against future operations or conditions, nor does it warrant against operations or conditions present of a type or at a location not investigated.

The regulatory database report provided is based on an evaluation of the data collected and compiled by a contracted data research company. The regulatory research is designed to meet the requirements of ASTM Standard E1527-13. Hillmann can neither warrant nor guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information obtained from the regulatory database report provider during the course of this assessment.

Subsurface conditions may differ from the conditions implied by the surface observations and can only be reliably evaluated through intrusive techniques.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -10- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
Reasonable efforts have been made during this assessment to identify aboveground and underground storage tanks and ancillary equipment. Reasonable efforts are limited to information gained from visual observation of largely unobstructed areas, recorded database information held in public record and available information gathered from interviews. Such methods may not identify surficial and subsurface features that may have been hidden from view due to parked automobiles and other vehicles, snow cover, vegetative growth, pavement, construction or debris pile storage or incorrect information from sources.

No guarantee, explicit or implied, is made that the records pertaining to historical ownership or occupancy which were reviewed represent a comprehensive or precise delineation of past Property ownership or tenancy for legal purposes.

The ASTM E1527-13 standard states that recommendations are not required to be included in a Phase I ESA report; however, further that recommendations are an additional service that may be useful in the User’s analysis of landowner liability protections or business environmental risks; and that the User should consider whether recommendations for additional inquiries or other services are desired.

The recommended response actions to the identified RECs presented in Section 1.3, if any, are not intended to represent the only course(s) of action to take; nor does it imply any opinion as to the timing of the action. Furthermore, it is emphasized that additional response actions may become warranted depending on the outcome of the initial action(s) taken. Hillmann advises that consultation with legal counsel familiar with environmental and real estate law may be beneficial to the decision making process for the type and timing of a response action to identified RECs, if any.

Due to the limited nature of our review of potential Business Environmental Risks, the User of the report should consider whether to take additional action(s) to further define, properly manage and/or mitigate potential BERs.

In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this report and the terms and conditions of the consulting services agreement for this project, the consulting services agreement shall control.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -11- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
The term “User” is defined by ASTM as the party seeking to use Practice E1527 to complete an environmental site assessment of the Property; specifically, the entities named on the front cover to which the report has been addressed.

3.1 Prior Environmental Reports/Documentation
The following prior environmental reports/documentation was provided:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared for McLeish Ranch, 95.25 Undeveloped Acres, Riverside County APNs 436-080-002 and 436-080-006, San Jacinto, California 92582; prepared by Centec Engineering Environmental Assessments and Solutions, and dated April 4, 2017. The report concluded the following regarding RECs in connection with the Property:
“This assessment has revealed no evidence of current Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) associated with the property. There is a potential Historical Recognized Environmental Condition because the property had been in agricultural use from prior to 1966 until the present. Given the possibility that there could be persistent pesticides and/or other agricultural chemicals present in the soil, Centec conducted representative soil sampling across the site, with no elevated concentrations of pesticides or arsenic detected. This issue is therefore not a recognized environmental condition, and no further actions appear necessary at this time.”
“We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527 of McLeish Ranch, 95.25 Undeveloped Acres, Riverside County APNs 436-080-001, 436-080-002, and 436-080-006, San Jacinto, California 92582, the property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in the Introduction Section of this report.

This assessment has revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) in connection with the property.”
With regard to the soil sampling conducted by Centric, the following details were indicated:
“Based on the longtime prior agricultural use of the property and the concern over the possible persistent presence of pesticides, especially with a possible future residential use of the site, Centec conducted soil sampling as part of the Phase I ESA. Centec collected shallow soil samples at 9-18 inches below ground surface at 96 locations in a grid pattern across the site. The samples were composited into 24 samples that were submitted to a state-certified laboratory for analysis of organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. The only pesticides detected were dieldrin, which was detected at trace concentrations (2.5-8.1 parts per billion) in 18 of the samples, DDE (6.9-250 ppb) in 22 of the samples, and DDT (2.5-4.0 ppb) in 5 of the samples. These concentrations are well below the current regulatory “screening levels” of 34 ppb for dieldrin, 2,000 ppb for DDE, and 1,900 for DDT established by the U.S. EPA for a residential site and are therefore not considered to be of concern. Arsenic was consistently detected at low concentrations of 1.17-3.22 parts per million.”

3.2 User Questionnaire
Section 6 of the ASTM E1527-13 standard describes certain tasks required to be performed by the report User in order to qualify for landowner liability protections to CERCLA liability. To assist the report User to meet these requirements, the ASTM E1527-13 standard recommends a

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -12- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
questionnaire of inquiries (User Questionnaire) specified in 40 CFR 312.25, 312.28, 312.29, 312.30, and 312.31 be provided to the original report User. The following is a summary of the User’s response:

Question: Yes/No: Detail:

Environmental liens that are filed or recorded against the property:

Did a search of recorded land title records identify any environmental liens filed or recorded against the property under federal, tribal, state or local law?
No
Activity and use limitations that are in place on the property or that have been filed or recorded against the property:

Did a search of recorded land title records (or judicial records where appropriate, identify any AULs, such as engineering controls, land use restrictions or institutional controls that are in place at the property and/or have been filed or recorded against the property under federal, tribal, state or local law? No
Specialized knowledge or experience of the person seeking to qualify for the LLP:

Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and
processes used by this type of business?
No
Relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the property if it were not contaminated:

Does the purchase price being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the property? If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property?
Yes
Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable
Information:

Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property that would help the
environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example,
-Do you know the past uses of the property? No
-Do you know of specific chemicals that are present or were once present at the property? No
-Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property? No
-Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property? No
The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation:

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -13- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
Question: Yes/No: Detail:

Based on your knowledge and experience related to the property are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of releases at the property?
Litigation/Administrative Proceedings/Government Notices As the User of this ESA, do you have knowledge of (1) any pending, threatened, or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property; (2) any pending, threatened, or past administrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or from the property; and (3) any notices from any governmental entity regarding any possible violation of environmental laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products.

No
NR-no response

3.3 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA
The User did not indicate the purpose of the assessment. In accordance with ASTM E1527-13, it is assumed that the Phase I ESA was being performed in order to qualify for landowner liability protection to CERCLA liability.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -14- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW

4.1 Physical Setting Sources
The following physical setting sources were reviewed:

Source Discussion
USGS 7.5 minute
Topographic Map
Data: (EDR GeocheckPhysical Setting Source
Addendum)
The Property lies at an elevation of approximately 1489 feet above mean sea level. An interpretation of topographic contour lines as well as a review of the EDR GeocheckGeneral Topographic Gradient suggested terrain sloping downward towards the northnorthwest. The closest water body is the San Jacinto Reservoir, located adjoining the south of the Property.

USDA SCS Soil Data:
(EDR Geocheck-Physical
Setting Source Addendum)
The soil type at the Property is classified as “Grangeville”. This soil type is described as soil with moderate infiltration rates, deep and moderately deep, well drained soils with coarse sandy loam textures.

Geologic Data:
(EDR Geocheck-Physical
Setting Source Addendum)
The geologic formation in the vicinity of the Property is described as a stratified sequence of the Cenozoic Era, Tertiary System, and Pliocene Series.

Prior Env. Reports:
(Section 3.1)
No additional relevant site specific geologic data was noted from a review of the prior environmental reports listed in Section 3.1.

Additional Sources/
Data:

No additional physical setting sources or data was obtained.

Groundwater Flow
Discussion:

Based on a review of the above information as well as observation of the site, the direction of shallow groundwater flow at the site is inferred to be towards the west-northwest.

NWI Wetlands Data:
(EDR Geocheck-Physical
Setting Source Addendum)
No NWI mapped wetlands areas were depicted at the Property. Areas of mapped wetlands were indicated immediately to the northeast, south and southwest of the Property.

4.2 Historical Use – Property and Adjoining Properties
Research has been conducted in an attempt 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 RECs in connection with the property. Standard historical sources have been sought in an attempt to document the past uses of the Property as far back as it can be shown that the Property contained structures; or from the time the Property was first used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial or governmental purposes.

4.2.1 Fire Insurance Maps
A Certified Sanborn Map Report was obtained from EDR for a review of published historic fire insurance maps for the Property and surrounding area. The following is a summary of site uses and notable details depicted by the available maps:

Year(s) Prop/Adj Depicted Use(s) Notable Details
Property:

Adjoining:

A copy of the Certified Sanborn Map Report is attached in Appendix D.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -15- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

4.2.2 City Directories
An EDR City Directory Abstract report was reviewed for data of former occupants of the Property’s street address. The following is a generalized summary of the findings of city directory research for past occupants of the Property.

Property
Use(s) / Occupant(s): Years
NA
The EDR City Directory Abstract report was also reviewed for listings of historic occupants of the adjoining properties. The following is a general summary of listings of historic adjoining property occupants:

Adjoining Properties
Use and/or Occupant(s) Years
Residential 1970s – present
A copy of the EDR City Directory report is attached in Appendix D.

4.2.3 Historical Topographic Maps
Historical topographic maps of the Property and vicinity obtained from an EDR Historical Topographic Map report (as attached in Appendix D) and online via www.historicaerials.com have been reviewed. The following interpretation of land usage has been made:

Year(s) Summary
1901
Property: No improvements or notable features depicted.

Adjoining: No improvements or notable features depicted. Road depicted to the east and south. 1942
Property: Unmapped.

Adjoining: Unmapped.
1943, 1948
Property: No improvements or notable features depicted.

Adjoining: Mostly undeveloped with a few dwellings.
1953, 1956
Property: No improvements or notable features depicted; road is depicted in purple indicating development.

Adjoining: Mostly undeveloped with a few dwellings; San Jacinto Reservoir depicted to the SW; De Anza road depicted to the east and south.
1967, 1972,
1979
Property: No improvements or notable features depicted; road is depicted in purple indicating development.

Adjoining: Sheds and dwellings associated with cattle farming are depicted in purple; agricultural land; San Jacinto Reservoir; road is depicted in purple indicating development.
1996 Property: No improvements or notable features depicted.

Adjoining: Few sheds and dwellings; San Jacinto Reservoir; agricultural land. 2012 Property: No improvements or notable features depicted.

Adjoining: No improvements or notable features depicted.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -16- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

4.2.4 Historical Aerial Photographs
Historical aerial photographs of the Property and vicinity obtained from an EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package report, as attached in Appendix D, and online via www.historicaerials.com were reviewed. The following interpretation of land usage has been made:

Year(s) Summary of Interpretation
1938
Property: Vacant fallow fields.

Adjoining: Vacant fallow fields, agricultural land, residential home. 1949, 1953
Property: Vacant fallow fields.

Adjoining: Vacant fallow fields, agricultural land, residential home, and San Jacinto Reservoir. 1961, 1967
Property: Agricultural land and/or dry style-low crop farming.

Adjoining: Sheds and dwellings associated with cattle farming, agricultural land, residential homes, and San Jacinto Reservoir.
1975, 1978,
1985, 1989,
1996, 2002
Property: Agricultural land.

Adjoining: Sheds and dwellings associated with cattle farming, agricultural land, orchards, residential homes, and San Jacinto Reservoir.
2006
Property: Agricultural land.

Adjoining: Undeveloped and agricultural land, residential home, and San Jacinto Reservoir. 2009, 2012
Property: Agricultural land.

Adjoining: Residential homes, agricultural land, and San Jacinto Reservoir. 2016
Property: Undeveloped land. SE corner of the Property is agricultural land.

Adjoining: Residential and agricultural land.

4.2.5 EDR High-Risk Historical Records
The EDR Radius Map™ report, which is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.3, provided a search of proprietary databases of potential historical high-risk uses at or in the vicinity of the Property.

These databases include EDR Historic Cleaners – a database of property addresses with records of historical occupancy by suspected cleaners businesses; EDR Historic Auto – a database of property addresses with records of historical occupancy by potential automotive gas/filling stations and repair facilities; and EDR MGP- a database of sites historically occupied by manufactured gas plants and related facilities.

EDR Database On-site Listings: Adjoining/Off-Site Listings Historic Cleaners:
(on-site/adjoining only)
None None
Historic Auto:
(on-site/adjoining only)
None None
MGP:
(1-mile distance)
None None

4.2.6 Petroleum/Natural Gas Well Review
The historical record sources and the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) online mapping application were reviewed for records of historic petroleum and/or natural gas wells at the Property. No record of any historical petroleum/natural gas wells at or adjoining the Property was identified.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -17- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

4.2.7 Additional Historical Data
Where applicable, the following additional pertinent historical data was obtained:

Interviews/Anecdotal: No additional pertinent historical data was obtained.

Local Gov’t Records: No additional pertinent historical data was obtained.

Prior Env. Reports:
(Section 3.1)
Prior environmental reports reviewed as part of this assessment, as detailed in Section 3.1, did not provide additional pertinent detail of historical site usage.

Site Observations: Indications of historic uses of the Property or adjoining properties were not observed during the site reconnaissance.

Other Sources: No additional pertinent historical data was obtained.

4.2.8 Summary of Identified Historic Uses
The following table presents a summary of the types and approximate date ranges of identified prior uses of the Property:

Property
Date Range Use
Unk to 1900 Undeveloped land
1960s to present Agricultural land
The following table presents a summary of the types of identified prior uses of the adjoining properties:

Adjoining Properties
Date Range Use
Unk to 1950s Undeveloped land, residential
1960s to 2000s Cattle farming sheds, agricultural land, orchards, residential homes 1940s to present Reservoir
2010s to present Residential, agricultural land

4.2.9 Historical Records Data Failure
The ASTM E1527-13 standard defines data failure as a failure to achieve the ASTM specified historical research objectives after reviewing the standard historical sources that are reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful. The objective is to identify all obvious uses of the property from the present, back to the property’s first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier.

Furthermore, records of historic use/conditions should be sought in intervals no less than approximately five years, unless the property conditions appear unchanged over a longer interval.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -18- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
Objective Met? Detail Significant?
First developed use/date
determined?
Yes The first developed use of the Property was agricultural land circa 1960s.

NA
Record sources at 5-year
intervals back to 1940 or first
developed use?
No Historical record gaps exceeding five years were
encountered. However, significant site-use changes or
undiscovered site uses appear unlikely to have occurred during the record gaps.

No
All obvious prior uses
identified?
Yes See Section 4.2.8. NA
Please refer to Section 2.3 for additional discussion of data gaps and their significance to the findings of the assessment.

4.2.10 Historic Uses REC Discussion
The Property was historically utilized for agricultural purposes from approximately the 1960s to present, with the SE corner of the Property being the only portion still actively used for agricultural purposes.

Due to a concern of shallow soil impacts resulting from cumulative applications of pesticides at the site, limited soil sampling and analysis was conducted at the time of the site inspection. Forty-five shallow soil samples were collected and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCP) via EPA method 8081A, and heavy metals and mercury via EPA methods 6010B and 7471A. The analytical results indicated only minor detections of OCPs and heavy metals, all below the RSLs for residential use. Sample locations are depicted on a diagram included in Appendix A. The analytical results are included in Appendix F.

In addition, similar soil sampling performed by Centec in2017 (see Section 3.1) did not indicate elevated concentrations of organochlorine pesticides or arsenic at the Property.

Based on the results of the limited soil testing, the historic agricultural use of the property is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -19- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

4.3 Standard Environmental Record Sources
A regulatory database report, titled EDR Radius Map™ Report, prepared by Environmental Data Resources of Shelton, CT was obtained and reviewed. The report provided a search of standard environmental record sources for listings of the Property, adjoining properties and sites within the surrounding area; and has been reviewed for the purpose of identifying listings suggesting a potential impact to the Property due to presence or migration of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. Additional descriptions of the meaning and significance of the regulatory databases can be found in the regulatory database report in Appendix E. The EDR Radius Map™ Report provided a search of the following database categories in accordance with the requirements of the ASTM Standard E1527-13:

Regulatory Database Search
Distance
Fed. National Priorities List (NPL/a.k.a. “Superfund” sites) & Proposed NPL 1-mile Fed. Delisted NPL ½-mile
Fed. Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS; formerly CERCLIS) ½-mile Fed. SEMS-ARCHIVE (formerly known as CERCLIS NFRAP) ½-mile Fed. RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) 1-mile
Fed. RCRA Transport/Storage/Disposal (TSD) sites ½-mile Fed. RCRA Generators (LQG, SGQ & CESQG) Site & Adjoining Fed. Institutional Control/Engineering Control (IC/EC) Registries Site only Fed. Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) Site only State/Tribal Hazardous Waste Sites (SHWS) 1-mile
State/Tribal Landfill and/or Solid Waste Disposal (LF/SWF) ½-mile State/Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks ½-mile
State/Tribal Registered Storage Tanks Site & Adjoining
State/Tribal IC/EC Registries Site
State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites ½-mile
State/Tribal Brownfields ½-mile
Additional Federal, State, Tribal and Local Environmental Databases Variable Reported distances for adjoining listings discussed in Section 4.3.4, if applicable, are approximate and indicative of the presence of a public roadway or right-of-way between the adjoining site and Property.

The reported gradients indicated where applicable in Sections 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 have been estimated based on a number of factors including but not necessarily limited to field observation, review of topographic maps, database listing details and/or site specific geo-technical data.

4.3.1 Supplemental Database Listings
The regulatory database report was also reviewed for listings on supplemental databases, in addition to the Standard Environmental Record Sources. Any property or adjoining property listings on such databases of significant concern, if identified, is discussed in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4. Otherwise, none of the other supplemental database listings identified by the regulatory database report are considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -20- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

4.3.2 Limited Tier I Vapor Encroachment Screening
Limited analysis of the details of on-site, adjoining and vicinity database sites was conducted to identify potential sources of sub-surface vapor encroachment. This review was based on elements of the ASTM “Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions” (ASTM E 2600-15); and also on elements of “Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property Potentially Impacted by Vapor Migration from Nearby Contaminated Sources” (Buonicore, 2011-S-103-AWMA). Vicinity database sites pertaining to non-petroleum product releases within 1,760 feet of the Property in the up-gradient direction, 365 feet of the Property in the cross gradient direction and 100 feet of the Property in the down gradient direction; and vicinity database sites pertaining to petroleum product releases within 528 feet of the Property in the up-gradient direction, 165 feet of the Property in the cross gradient direction and 100 feet of the Property in the down gradient direction were reviewed to identify active contamination sites with the potential to affect subsurface vapor conditions at the subject property.

The potential for vapor encroachment was considered in assessing whether or not a REC exists in connection with the Property when reviewing applicable sites within those distances.

Regulatory database sites with active petroleum or non-petroleum releases that are considered to constitute a vapor encroachment condition (VEC) to the Property, if any, are identified and discussed in Sections 4.3.3, 4.3.4 and 4.3.5.

4.3.3 Property Listings
The following listings of the Property were identified:

Name/Address: None identified
Database(s):

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

4.3.4 Adjoining Property Listings
The following adjoining property listings were identified. Reported distances, where applicable, are approximate and indicative of the presence of a public roadway or right-of-way between the adjoining site and Property. The reported gradient has been estimated based on a number of factors including but not necessarily limited to field observation, review of topographic maps, database listing details and/or site specific geo-technical data.

Name/Address: AC Magnolia LLC/ 38100 De Anza Drive
Database(s): HWTS and HAZNET
Distance in feet: 0 Direction: NW Gradient: Up
Data Discussion: The HWTS listing indicates that that 0.842 tons of asbestos containing waste was disposed of the Property in 2003, with no violations noted. The HAZNET listing provides the Property EPA ID of CAC002572190, with site name and address, no other permanent information is provided. However, given that the Property was never developed with structures, EDR mapped this listing in the incorrect location.

REC Discussion: Based on the details provided above, a REC is not suspected in connection with the Property.

VEC Discussion: Based on the available data, a VEC is not suspected.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -21- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
Name/Address: Maclin Open Air Markets/ 789 Lyon
Database(s): LUST, HIST UST, CERS and HIST CORTESE
Distance in feet: 102 Direction: SE Gradient: Up
Data Discussion: This site was listed twice for a common incident. The listings indicated that the soil was contaminated at this site with gasoline from a leaking underground storage tank, with a leak first being discovered by subsurface monitoring on 9/16/1990. The contaminated soil was disposed of and the site was granted a No Further Action Letter as of 01/31/1991. The HIST UST listing indicates that a three (3) 300-500-gallon carbon steel USTs containing regular, diesel, and unleaded oil was installed on the site in 1977, with no violations noted. The CERS listing indicates that the site was on the leaking underground storage tank cleanup site, with a CERS ID of T0606500207. The HIST CORTESE listing indicates that the site is on the Reg ID of 083301647T, with site name and address listed.

REC Discussion: Based on the details provided above, a REC is not suspected in connection with the Property.

VEC Discussion: Based on the available data, a VEC is not suspected.

4.3.5 ASTM Search Distance Findings
The following is a discussion of non-adjoining sites identified as located within the ASTM specified search distance surrounding the Property. In order to keep this discussion informative and concise, discussion(s) is/are provided of the listed site(s) for each database category that appears most likely to impact the Property based on distance, area topography and/or regulatory status. Listings of sites within the applicable search distances not specifically discussed below were reviewed and concluded not to be RECs in connection with the Property or VECs based on various factors including distance, area topography, known or inferred groundwater flow direction and/or regulatory status. Listings for the following databases, if identified, have been discussed above in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4: Registered Storage Tanks, Federal RCRA Generators, Federal and State EC/IC, ERNS. A copy of the full regulatory database report, including available details of all listed sites, is included in Appendix E.

Federal NPL # of sites: 0 Search Distance: 1-mile
Notable Listing: None
Distance in feet: Direction: Gradient:

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

Federal Delisted NPL # of sites: 0 Search Distance: 1-mile Notable Listing: None
Distance in feet: Direction: Gradient:

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -22- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
Federal SEMS # of sites: 0 Search Distance: ½-mile
Notable Listing: None
Distance in feet: Direction: Gradient:

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

Federal SEMS-ARCHIVE # of sites: 0 Search Distance: ½-mile Notable Listing: None
Distance in feet: Direction: Gradient:

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

Federal CORRACTS # of sites: 0 Search Distance: 1-mile
Notable Listing: None
Distance in feet: Direction: Gradient:

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

Federal RCRA-TSD # of sites: 0 Search Distance: ½-mile
Notable Listing: None
Distance in feet: Direction: Gradient:

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

State HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE # of sites: 3 Search Distance: 1-mile Notable Listing: Lyon Ave. New Elementary & Middle Schools Distance in feet: 3302 Direction: SSE Gradient: Up
Data Discussion: The ENVIROSTOR listing indicates that the site was on a School Cleanup site type, where soil was contaminated with pesticides and metals, with no further information provided.

REC Discussion: Based on the details provided above, a REC is not suspected in connection with the Property.

VEC Discussion: Based on the available data, a VEC is not suspected.

State SOLID WASTE FACILITY/LANDFILL # of sites: 0 Search Distance: ½-mile Notable Listing: None
Distance in feet: Direction: Gradient:

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -23- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
State LEAKING STORAGE TANKS # of sites: 2 Search Distance: ½-mile Notable Listing: One adjoining site with 2 listings is discussed in Section 4.3.4.

Distance in feet: Direction: Gradient:

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

State VOLUNTARY CLEANUP SITES # of sites: 0 Search Distance: ½-mile Notable Listing: None
Distance in feet: Direction: Gradient:

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

State BROWNFIELD SITES # of sites: 0 Search Distance: ½-mile Notable Listing: None
Distance in feet: Direction: Gradient:

Data Discussion:

REC Discussion:

VEC Discussion:

UNMAPPED/ORPHAN LIST SITES
Hillmann has also reviewed a list of unmapped sites (a.k.a. “Orphan List” sites) indicated by the database report. Unmapped sites that were identified as falling within an applicable specific search distance or warranting discussion have either been discussed in the preceding tables or are detailed below:

Notable Listings: None

4.4 Additional Environmental Record Sources
Requests have been submitted to local, municipal and state agencies for pertinent records pertaining to the Property, particularly with regard to potential environmental concerns such as petroleum storage tanks, storage and usage of hazardous substances and petroleum products, and/or known or suspected environmental contamination. Where applicable, internet research of government environmental regulatory databases was also conducted, as well as a general cursory internet search of the Property address, for information indicative of a REC. The following table summarizes the findings of the research:

Source Type of
Request Outcome
EPA MyProperty Online
search
Hillmann searched online for records pertaining to the Property. No records pertaining to the property were found.

Regional Water
Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
FOI
request
No response was received prior to report issuance.

CA DTSC
(Envirostor)
FOI
request
No response was received prior to report issuance.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -24- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California
Source Type of
Request Outcome
Riverside County
Agricultural
Commissioner’s
Office
FOI
request
A response was received providing the following pertinent records:

Hillmann reviewed minor documents regarding the pesticides use at the Property.

CA SWRCB
(GeoTracker)
Online
search
Hillmann searched online for records pertaining to the Property. No records pertaining to the property were found.

County of Riverside
Department of
Environmental
Health
FOI
request
No response was received prior to report issuance.

Internet Search
Engine
Online
search
Hillmann searched online for records pertaining to the Property. No records pertaining to the property were found.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -25- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
The site reconnaissance consisted of visual and/or physical observations of the Property and improvements, adjoining properties as viewed from the Property boundaries and the surrounding area based on visual observations from adjoining public thoroughfares. Building exteriors were observed at ground level, unless otherwise indicated. Where applicable, representative areas of building interiors were accessed and observed to the extent they were made safely accessible with the cooperation of the site escort.

Site Inspection Personnel: Ms. Gabriela Cyrulik
Property Escort/Company: Unescorted
Inspection Date: December 7 and 8, 2020
Weather Conditions: Fair, 60 degrees F

5.1.1 Significant Inaccessible Areas
No significant areas of the Property inaccessible at the time of the inspection were noted.

5.1.2 Significant Limiting Site Conditions
No significant limiting site conditions were noted at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.2 General Site Setting

5.2.1 Site and Vicinity Characteristics
Abutting Roadways: N. Lyon Ave to the east and south.

Current Property Use: SE corner of the Property being the only portion still actively used for agricultural purposes.

Evidence of Past Property Uses: None observed.

Evidence of Past Adjoining
Property Uses:

None observed.

Surrounding Area Uses: Residential and agricultural

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -26- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

5.2.2 Current Adjoining Property Uses
Dir Street Address Description
N NA Agricultural land
E Broomwood Dr Residential
S 890 N. Lyon Ave. Residential
SW NA San Jacinto Reservoir
W NA Agricultural land
No visual observations indicative of a potential environmental concern were noted on the adjoining properties.

5.2.3 Topographic Characteristics
Terrain: Flat to gently sloping
Direction of Downward Slope: Towards the north-northwest On-site Water Bodies: None observed
Other Significant Features: None observed

5.2.4 General Description of Structures
Buildings/# of Floors None – vacant
Approx. Building Area: NA
Approx. Year Built: None – vacant
Ancillary Structures: None observed
Sources of Heating & Cooling: No heating or cooling systems were present at the Property.

Potable Water/Sewage Disposal: No potable water or sewer services were present at the Property.

5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations

5.3.1 Storage/Usage of Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products The following hazardous substances and petroleum products were observed to be stored and used by property occupants:

Occupant Substance Qty/Container Type Storage Conditions NA No significant storage
or use noted

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -27- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

5.3.2 Drums
No hazardous substance or petroleum product drums were noted on the Property.

5.3.3 Unidentified Substance Containers
No unidentified substance containers suspected of containing hazardous substance or petroleum product were noted on the Property.

5.3.4 Other Hazardous Substances/Petroleum Products
No other containers of hazardous substances or petroleum products were noted on the Property.

5.3.5 Bulk Petroleum/Hazardous Material Storage Tanks
The following storage tanks for bulk petroleum or hazardous material storage were identified or reported to be present; or are suspected to be present based on visual observations:

AST/
UST
Product Capacity Construction Year
Installed
Status Location/Notes
(none)

5.3.6 PCBs in Oil Filled Electrical/Hydraulic Equipment No oil-filled electrical or hydraulic equipment was identified at the Property.

5.3.7 Odors
No strong, pungent or noxious odors were noted at the Property.

5.3.8 Pools of Liquid
No standing water or pools of liquid likely to contain hazardous substances or petroleum products were noted at the Property.

5.3.9 Interior Stains or Corrosion
No interior areas were identified at the Property.

5.3.10 Interior Drains/Sumps
No interior areas were identified at the Property.

5.3.11 Exterior Pits/Ponds/Lagoons
No exterior pits, ponds or lagoons was identified on the Property in connection with waste treatment or disposal.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -28- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

5.3.12 Stained Soil, Pavement/Stressed Vegetation
No stained soil, pavement or stressed vegetation was observed at the Property.

5.3.13 On-Site Solid Waste Disposal/Fill Material
The following evidence of on-site solid waste dumping/disposal was observed:

Hillman observed nuisance solid waste dumping at the northwest and northeast corner of the Property, and is considered to be a de minimis condition.

5.3.14 Waste Water
No sanitary sewer discharges were identified at the Property.

No additional waste water discharges were identified at the Property.

5.3.15 Septic Systems
No septic systems were identified at the Property.

5.3.16 Wells
No potable, monitoring or other groundwater wells were identified at the Property.

5.3.17 Railroad Spurs
No railroad spurs were identified on the Property.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -29- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

6.0 INTERVIEWS

6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants Subject Name/Affiliation Summary
Property Owner /
Representative
Mr. David
Wiener/Property
Owner
Mr. Wiener was provided with an environmental questionnaire; however, a completed environmental questionnaire was not returned prior to report issuance.

Property Occupants Not applicable Property was unoccupied.

Past Owners,
Occupants, Operators
Not applicable Past owners/occupants of the Property were not available for interview at the time of the assessment.

Owners/Occupants of
Adjoining or Nearby
Properties
Not applicable The Property was not an abandoned property with evidence of unauthorized uses or uncontrolled access; therefore, interviews with adjoining or nearby property owners or occupants were not conducted.

6.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials Written and on-line requests for environmental records of the Property from State and Local governmental agencies are detailed in Section 4.4.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -30- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

7.0 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
In accordance with the contract agreement for this assessment, Hillmann has performed cursory reviews of several potential Business Environmental Risks (also known as “Non-Scope Considerations”). The ASTM E1527-13 standard defines the term business environmental risk (BER) as, “a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice.”

7.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM)
The contracted scope of work included a cursory visual screening of the accessed portions of buildings at the Property built prior to 1990 for suspect asbestos containing materials (ACM). The information provided in this section, where applicable, is limited to identification of potential suspect materials in the readily accessible and observed areas of the building, and their general condition.

This is not intended to be a comprehensive survey for the presence of ACM, and no testing has been conducted.

No buildings were present at the Property.

7.2 Lead-Based Paint
The contracted scope of work included a cursory visual screening of the condition of painted surfaces in the accessed areas of residential buildings/units built prior to 1980. This is not intended to constitute a comprehensive survey for LBP or potential lead hazards, and no testing has been conducted.

No residential buildings were present at the Property.

7.3 Radon
Data compiled by the USEPA, as summarized by the regulatory database report, indicated that the Property is located in an area classified as Zone 2 or 'moderate risk' area for radon. Radon testing was not included in the scope of this assessment.

7.4 Mold/Microbial Damage
As per the contracted scope of work, Hillmann conducted a cursory visual screening of the accessed areas of the building for evidence of significant damage to building materials and finishes as result of moisture intrusion and/or mold/microbial growth. Given the absence of building structures at the Property, mold/microbial growth is not considered to be a significant environmental concern.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -31- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

7.5 NWI Mapped Wetlands
As indicated in the Physical Setting Source table of Section 4.1, no NWI mapped wetlands areas were depicted at the Property by the EDR Geocheck-Physical Setting Source Addendum (attached in Appendic E). Areas of mapped wetlands were indicated immediately to the northeast, south and southwest of the Property.

The scope of work for this assessment excludes a visual determination of regulated wetlands at the Property. It is emphasized that, regardless of the wetlands data obtained via the EDR GeocheckPhysical Setting Source Addendum, a delineation of regulated wetlands by a qualified professional would be warranted to determine the presence or absence of regulated wetlands at the Property.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -32- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

8.0 REFERENCES
ASTM E1527-13-Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process; ASTM International, 2013
ASTM E12600-15-Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transaction, ASTM International, 2015
EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheckTM, Environmental Data Resources, 2020 EDR City Directory Abstract Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2020 EDR Sanborn Map Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2020 Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property Potentially Impacted by Vapor Migration from Nearby Contaminated Sources; A. Buonicore, 2011 Phase I Environmental Assessment of McLeish Ranch, 95.25 Undeveloped Acres, Riverside County, San Jacinto, California 92582; Centec Engineering Environmental Assessments and Solutions. 2017

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -33- Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

9.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Diagram / Vicinity Map
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Questionnaires / User Provided Information
Appendix D Historical Records Documentation
Appendix E Regulatory Records Documentation
Appendix F Other Documents / Lab Results
Appendix G Project Personnel Qualifications

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Hillmann Project No. C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

APPENDIX A

MAPS / DIAGRAMS

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map N
McLeish Ranch
San Jacinto, California
SCALE: (NOT TO SCALE) PROJECT No.: C3-8229
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-18
B-12
B-13
B-15
B-16
B-17
B-11
B-14
B-19
B-20
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24
B-25
B-26
B-27
B-28
B-29
B-30
B-31
B-32
B-33
B-34
B-35
B-36
B-37
B-38
B-39
B-40
B-40
B-41
B-42
B-43
B-44
B-45
Property
SE corner active
agricultural land

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Figure 2: Site Diagram N
McLeish Ranch
San Jacinto, California
SCALE: (NOT TO SCALE) PROJECT No.: C3-8229
Property

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Hillmann Project No.: C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

APPENDIX B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Site Photographs - Page 1

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
View of the Property facing north View of the Property facing NW View of the Property facing NE View of the Property facing east View of the Property facing NNW View of trash debris on the northeastern boundary of the Property

PHASE I ESA - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
McLeish Ranch,
San Jacinto, California
Project No.: C3-8229

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Site Photographs - Page 2

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
View of the NW adjoining properties View of irrigation piping adjacent to the SW View of the west boundary of the Property. View of the Property facing south View of the Property facing SW View of the SE corner of the Property, where active agricultural is still present

PHASE I ESA - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
McLeish Ranch,
San Jacinto, California
Project No.: C3-8229

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Site Photographs - Page 3

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
View of active agricultural land facing SE corner of
the Property
View of the SE adjacent residential structure
View of the NW adjacent properties View of the west corner of the Property View of minor trash of the northwestern boundary of
the Property
View of the San Jac

PHASE I ESA - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
McLeish Ranch,
San Jacinto, California
Project No.: C3-8229

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Hillmann Consulting LLC
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Hillmann Project No.: C3-8229 McLeish Ranch, San Jacinto, California

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRES/USER PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) April 4, 2017
Mr. David Wiener

TRUSTEE OF THE WIENER FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
DATED MAY 3, 1988
118 South Beverly Drive, #215
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Re: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Phase I Environmental Assessment of McLeish Ranch, 95.25 Undeveloped Acres
Riverside County APNs 436-080-001, 436-080-002,
and 436-080-006
San Jacinto, California 92582
Centec Project #0217014
Dear Mr. Wiener:

Centec Engineering has completed the Phase I Environmental Assessment for the above-referenced property. Centec understands the report may be forwarded to a lender for its consideration of a loan to be secured by the property.

This assessment has revealed no evidence of a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) associated with the current use of the subject property, three undeveloped, irregular-shaped parcels totaling approximately 95.26 acres, located near Lyon Avenue and De Anza Drive with Riverside County APNs 436-080-001, 436-080-002, and 436-080-006, San Jacinto, California 92582. There is a potential Historical Recognized Environmental Condition because the property is currently in agricultural use and has been from prior to 1966. Given the possibility that there could be persistent pesticides and/or other agricultural chemicals present in the soil, Centec conducted representative soil sampling across the site, with no elevated concentrations of pesticides or arsenic detected. This issue is therefore not a recognized environmental condition, and no further actions appear necessary at this time. This conclusion has been reached for the following reasons:
1) The subject property is not structurally developed. The three parcels appear to be under cultivation, however it is possible that the land is being disked rather than cultivated. None of the actual growing fields appears to have any improper hazardous materials or hazardous waste abandonment issues. There is apparently unauthorized trash at the far northern tip of the property, which also has the appearance of a wetlands. This northern tip area had a pile of old tires, a carpet,

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Appendix E - Phase 1 ESA (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) WIENER FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST- Executive Summary
April 4, 2017 - Centec Project #0217014

Page 2 ends

San Jacinto City CouncilFebruary 4, 2025

San Jacinto City Council
February 4, 2025