Agenda packet, regular meeting, second session — Banning City Council, November 12, 2024 (part 6 of 7)

DPR 523L (1/95)
This Continuation Sheet provides supplemental information to the existing site record. It does not replace the previous record generated for this site.
*P2. d. UTM: NAD 83, Zone 11; 508179 mE / 3752800 mN
*P3a. Description: Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) revisited site 33-013778 and found it consistent with the description in the original record from December 2009 and again in September 2020: a large farm/ranch complex, which included five foundations, two Craftsman structures, and a barn. The five foundations are located within the APE on the west side of 33-013778. The Craftsman structures and the barn are located on the site's east side and outside of the APE. Only the west half of this site has been evaluated formally for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP. The portion of the site within the APE was recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR. No additional resources were identified when Æ staff revisited the site location, and the 2009 and 2020 records were unaffected. *P8. Recorded By: A. DeLeon, Applied EarthWorks Inc., 3550 E. Florida Ave., Ste. H, Hemet, CA 92544 *P9. Date Recorded: 04/03/2024
*P10. Survey Type: ☒ Intensive ☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Other Describe: Phase I Pedestrian Survey
*P11. Report Citation:

Jessica Cochrane
2024 Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California. Report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
*Attachments: ☒ NONE ☐ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map ☐ Continuation Sheet ☐ Building, Structure, ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record and Object Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (list):
1419
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # 33-013778 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #/Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
☐ Continuation ☒ Update

Page 1 of 1 ends

DPR 523L (1/95)
This resource was visited on September 4, 2020 as part of the survey for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project (Mills 2020). Although this Project traverses the western boundary of the site, none of the mapped features are present within the current Area of Potential Effects (APE). Some of the features were visible to the south from the current APE and appeared in the same condition as the most previous update. The site has been previously evaluated (Taniguchi and Dice 2004) and found in-eligible for inclusion in either the NRHP or CRHR. No further management is required for this resource.

Taniguchi C. and M. Dice
2004 California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record for 33-013778. Record on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Mills, Evan
2020 Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California. Report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
1420
35-

ALSO SEE
EIC FORMSXSeeAlso.frm.wpd
March 11, 2004
1421
-
-
-
State of California -The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Other Listings Review Code

Page 1 of 15 ends

Primary# 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial: none
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Reviewer Date
*Resource Name or#: SC #1
Pl. Other Identifier: partly 3176 and 3190 Westward Street, Banning. Also P#33-9 I 76. *P2. Location: □ Not for Publication IBJ Unrestricted
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Beaumont, CA Date: 1988photorev
¼ of the NE¼ of Section 18; S.B.B.M.
*a. County: Riverside
T.3S ; R. lE ; NW¼ of NW¼ of Section 17 and the NE
c. Address: partly 3176 and 3190 Westward Street City: Banning Zip: 92220 d. UTM: Zone: 11; 508179 mE/ 3752800 mN (G.P.S.) (centerpoint, NAD 1927) e. Other Locational Data: The site includes three structures located at the southeast corner of Westward and Sunset in APN #532160012, along with historic foundations west of that intersection in APN #543090008. Elevation: 2420 feet *P3a. Description: Five structure foundations are located within Sage project footprint. Three additional buildings (A, B, C) are located outside the project footprint. The site is located near the corner of Sunset Avenue and Windward Street, and represents a large farm/ranching complex. Sunset Avenue south of the railroad tracks once represented a simple dirt driveway to this site. Half of the site is located within the project footprint, while the other half is located east of Sunset. The Riverside County Historical Survey Commission recorded site P #33-9176, a l920's house located at 3190 Westward Avenue, in 1988. This structure is part of the old homestead site SC #1. The structures lying outside the Sage project footprint have not been officially recorded, but reconnaissance-level descriptions of the off-site properties are offered herein. Feature 1-5 are located within the potential area of direct effect for the Sage project, while structures A, B and C are located east of Sunset Avenue. The latter features will not be directly affected by construction within the Sage footprint.

Feature I. Structure foundation
The feature consists of the remains of a poured concrete floor/foundation with dimensions of 30' NS by 20' EW. The feature has a smooth finished floor surface incised with 6'. by 6'8" squares, mostly intact, with roughly 1/3 of the total floor area (in the NW) covered with soil overburden. The SW corner is exposed to a depth of 17" below the floor surface. Several ½-inch diameter bolts imbedded on the surface of the feature's south end perimeter suggest a superstructure of some kind. The rectangular shaped feature is located alongside Sunset Avenue and lies south about 125 feet from the private dirt and gravel road that represents a western continuation of Westward Avenue. A wooden post, slat and barbwire fence, that rnns parallel to Sunset Avenue, is adjacent to the feature. The fence runs about 7'from the west side of the foundation, continuing north to the private road. Inside the fence, about 20' north of Feature I, lies a cylindrical shaped metal tank on its side with dimensions of 12' long by 4' in diameter. Made of thick metal panels riveted together, the tank bas two circular cutouts on one end. Because it is possible that the margins of Sunset Avenue shall be changed as a result of the development, this feature may be impacted by constn1ction.

Feature 2. Structure foundation
This feature consists of the remains of a concrete and stone foundation with dimensions of 22' NS by 13' EW. Located on a small hill, sloping downward north to south, the rectangular shaped feature is 16 feet south of Feature I and adjacent to the eastern margin of the project area. The foundation walls average about 10" thick on top, becoming thicker with depth and taper out on the inside bottom. The surface of the inside walls of the feature are somewhat "finished," with a whitish-gray colored rough mortar layer of unknown thickness.

Conversely, the outside walls reveal a rough concrete and stone surface and show, in several places, imprints from the original wooden forms utilized in the construction of the foundation. Damage has occurred in the fonn of an irregular shaped hole in the feature's south wall near the bottom. The feature's inside depth measures about 5' and, because of tbe missing floor and superstructure, has become a repository of trash including several discarded chairs and corrugated tin sheets. Debris also surrounds the feature: chunks of concrete lie on the surface adjacent to the south foundation wall; several rusted metal "stove pipe" sections about 20" in diameter (one over 20' long), lie on the surface about 25' to the west. Because it is possible that the margins of Sunset Avenue shall be changed because of the development, this feature may be impacted by construction.

Feature 3. Structure Foundations.

Feature 3 consists of the remains of two poured concrete floor/foundations with dimensions of 12' square each. Partially covered with soil, their depth unknown, both foundations are parallel with one another and 12' apart and would appear to have been in association.

Both are located in a relatively flat, level area adjacent to a barbwire fence, with the north foundation about 50' downhill (south) of Feature 2. Sunset Avenue lies about 50' to the east. The modem ground surface surrounding the feature has been recently plowed or disked. Inside the fence is a pile of discarded wood with several pieces in the form of constructed wall and/or roof sections that may represent part of the features superstructure. The south foundation is roughly 25' north of a gravel access road that intersects with Sunset Avenue and provides entrance onto the property through a gate in the barbwire fence.

DPR 523L (1/95)

RECEIVED IN
DEC O 9 2004
E\C *Required information
1422
-
-
-
State of California -The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Other Listings Review Code

Page 2 of 15 ends

Feature 4. Barn foundation
Primary# 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial: none
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Reviewer Date
*Resource Name or#: SC #1
This feature consists of a large concrete slab footer, telephone poles, telephone pole-size holes, and discarded woodpiles. The main portion of tbe feature is a large 3-sided, U-shaped slab footing with outside dimensions of 114' long by 34½' wide. With an open "front" facing to the east, the feature is located in a flat, sparsely grassy/weed covered area about 150' east of one of the intennittent stream channels that bisect the Sage project footprint. It is also located about 275' west of Features I and 2. Presently enclosed on the east, west and north sides by a barbwire fence, postholes are located on the south side indicating the feature was once entirely enclosed. The footer is 2' wide and 9" in depth (observed in two areas) and bas wooden 2-by-4's bolted to the perimeter of the footing. Telephone pole-size holes are observed on the surface, spaced about 14' apart, both inside and outside the perimeter of the feature. The telephone pole-size holes are roughly 12' from the outside perimeter of the footing that suggest a large structure with overall dimensions of ~60' wide by 126' long.

On the modem ground surface adjacent to the north and south side of tbe feahire lie telephone poles, singly and in piles, most between I 0 and 20' in length. Several have metal (iron) hardware still attached at or near their ends. A pile of discarded wood and several sheets of aluminum siding lie on the surface just west of the pole pile. Another second pile of telephone poles, several over 50' long, are observed on the ground surface about 125' to the SW. Several sizable woodpiles are observed around the foundation slab, one is about 75' to the NE, another about 175' to the NW, and a third pile about 200' to the NE. Comprised of discarded weathered and gray wood, of numerous lengths widths and sizes, the piles and poles likely represent the demolished remains of Feature 4's superstructure. A section of corrugated tin roof gable (probably part of the feature's superstructure), 28' wide by 8' high, was found on the surface west of the feature.

A rectangular concrete water trough, about 80' south of the feahire, measures 12' long by 33" wide. The trough's sides measure 5½" in thickness with an inside depth of 16", and an outside depth of 28". The remains of a metal water (?) tank is located about 150' east of the Feature 4 slab. The circular-riveted panel bottom and corrugated-sided tank bas an open top, and measures 29' in diameter and is 4' high.

Rusted with bent sides in several places, a discarded hot tub and bicycle were observed lying inside. Scattered surface trash in the form of discarded tires, rusted paint cans, and automotive parts were observed about I 00' SW of Feah1re 4. Additionally, to the south and SE, three faded green and yellow colored combines (John Deere), in various states of disrepair, lay abandoned.

The superstructure atop the primary feahtre was a bay barn, which appears on the 2002 and 1953 aerials, and was intact when the project area was visited by MBA staff in 2002 (Dice 2002).

Feature 5. Cattke feeding or trough foundation complex
This feahtre represents the remains of a poured concrete platform/foundation, attached metal and wood board or plank siding located in a flat area above a stream channel and about 750' south of Feahtre 4. This feature is likely associated with the old fann/rancb complex to the north. The feature measures about 230' long (EW) by 11' wide (NS). The feature was once much longer, which is evidenced by the abrnpt break at the west end due to the steep channel sides, as well as the east end, where the feature is truncated at the barbwire fence.

The footer appears to have been poured in 10' sections. The wood board siding, 18" high, is comprised of two pieces on their sides, one atop the other, and runs the entire 230' length on the south side of the feature. The boards are bolted to metal brackets that are set into the concrete and the individual board lengths exceed 20'. The board or plank siding forms the south side of a narrow "trough," with the north side constructed of concrete. Only 12" in height, the concrete is 6" thick at the top and tapers as it goes into the ground, creating a trough width of 28" on top, and 24" at the bottom. A 3½" diameter metal pipe is imbedded in the concrete every 10' and has been cut, making the pipe level with the top of the concrete. The "trough" may have been used for feeding cattle. The 1953 aerial photograph reveals a faint outline that probably represents Feature S.

Not evaluated for significance, but part of this site:

Feah1re A. 3190 Westward Street (P#33-9176)
This Craftsman style building was likely constructed some time between 1905 and 1930, and is located at 3190 Westward Street. The house is rectangular in plan with an asymmetrical fa(:ade. The house has a double front-gabled roof. The roof is clad with asphalt shingles; and has unenclosed overhanging eaves. Just under each gable, both at the fayade and rear elevation, is a triangular section with horizontal wood slats spaced to create vented openings. The gables at the fayade have protruding beams. The secondary gabled roof at the fayade shelters the front porch, which is at grade level and has a concrete floor. The porch itself is supported by piers with slanted sides, often found with Craftsman style designs. The exterior walls are clad with non-original stucco, installed some time after 1983; the house would have originally had horizontal wood boards. The windows are not original; most appear to be vinyl double hung sash. The original casing surrounding the windows, however, are intact. The structure will not be directly impacted by the Sage project.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1423
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Other Listings Review Code
Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial: none
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Reviewer Date

Page 3 of 15 ends

Feature B. 3176 Westward Street
This Craftsman style building at 3176 Westward Street was likely constructed some time between 1905 and 1930. The house is rectangular in plan with a nearly symmetrical fa£ade. The house has a side gabled roof clad with asphalt shingles; there are exposed roof rafters under the unenclosed overhanging eaves. The exterior walls are clad with non-original stucco; the house would have originally had horizontal wood boards. The front porch is inset into the fa?adc, and is at grade level with a concrete floor. The windows have been replaced with what appear to be aluminum sash sliders. There is a shed dormer at the f^ade, which has retained its original shape, but is now clad with stucco and has a replacement window. It is likely that the windows would have original had casing surrounding them, but these are no longer intact. The structure will not be directly impacted by the Sage project.

Feature C: Small barn south of 3176 and 3190 Westward Street This rural vernacular style building was likely constructed some time during the first half of the twentieth century. The building is rectangular in plan and has a side-gabled roof clad with corrugated metal roofing material. There is what is likely a shed roof addition at the rear elevation of the building constructed some time after 1953. The exterior walls are made of a mix of wood board and corrugated metal. At the fapadc, which faces north, there are two large openings with what appear to be sliding doors. The feature represents a barn or large storage shed and lies south and between Feature 6 and 7.

The site represents an active ranching complex more than 50 years old, but which has been subdivided. Records do not exist that allow clear tracking of chain of ownership.

Integrity Statement
In regard to the seven aspects of integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feel and association), the features on this property have maintained their original location, setting and association. The period of significance is associated with the use of the property as a ranching and grazing complex. More than half of the buildings are now gone, and the remaining structures are utilized as non-ranching residences. Unfortunately, the original Stewart Ranch buildings to the west were demolished in the late 1980's and it is simply uncertain whether the ranch buildings at this eastern end of the Stewart property were in direct association. Thus, the integrity level of the site is poor.

The 1953 aerial photograph clearly shows the extent of the site as of that date. There have been substantive changes since that date.

Thus, the overall condition of the site is poor.

Eligibility Statement, Sage Portion Only
The Sage project footprint portion of the site was assessed under National Register Criterion A for its potential significance as part of a historic trend that may have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The site might have once been part of the San Gorgonio pass area Stewart Ranch complex developed before 1950. A 1953 photograph of the project area shows a complete ranching operation that may have been linked to the Stewarts place to the west.

No significant historic trend contributing to the broad patterns of our history could be associated with the site during the period of significance (1920s-1950s). Therefore, the site does not appear to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A.

The site was considered under Criterion B for its association with the lives of persons significant in our past. The Stewart Ranch was evaluated previously and found to be not significant at the National Level, but this family should be considered of local significance.

Therefore, the site does not appear to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion B.

The site was evaluated for Criterion C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high artistic values, or representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. No aspects of the site exhibit such qualities. Therefore, the site does not appear to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C.

The site was considered for Criterion D for the potential to yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

In order for buildings, structures, and objects to be eligible under this criterion, they would need to "be, or must have been, the principal source of important information." It is possible that the site could exhibit buried dumps and privies that might hold a substantial amount of information, yet the review of the data suggests this is rather unlikely. Therefore, the site does not appear to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D.

DPR 523L (1/95) 'Required information
1424
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Other Listings Review Code

Page 4 of 15 ends

Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial: none
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Reviewer Date
*Resource Name or #: SC #1
In summary, the site does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under these criteria. Therefore, the site eomplex is not a historic resource for the purposes of the NHPA.

California Register Eligibility Evaluation
The Sage portion of the site was also evaluated in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, using the following criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

The site does not meet Criterion A, B and D for California Register eligibility, for the reasons described above under the NRHP evaluation.

Criterion B asks whether the Stewart family is important to California history, but previous researchers have shown that the Stewarts are locally significant only. The integrity level of the Sage portion of the site has already been determined under the NRHP evaluation statements above; this was found to be poor. Although the site has retained its original location, it no longer retains high or moderate levels of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, associated with its period of significance. The site does not qualify for the California Register under these criteria. Therefore, the site is not considered a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP33. Farm/ranch, HP2. Single family property *P4. Resources Present: [xlBuilding ElStructurc DObject DSite DDistrict QElement of District DOther P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) P5b. Description of Photo:
1953 aerial photograph of the
site property. (Note: the
identifying feature numbers
are shown. North is up.)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: [ElHistoric
UPrehistoric DBoth
Before 1953 (see P3a.

Description for further detail)
*P7. Owner and Address:

APN543090008:

Douglas Finnic
10410 Live Oak Avenue
Beaumont, CA 92223
APN 532160012:

David Law
PO Box 956
Banning, CA 92220
**P8. Recorded by:

C. Taniguchi and M. Dice
Michael Brandman
Associates
220 Commerce, Suite #200
Irvine, CA 92602
DPR 523L (1/95) 'Required information
1425
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Other Listings Review Code

Page 5 of 15 ends

Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial: none
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Reviewer Date
*Resource Name or #: SC #1
*P9. Date Recorded:

July 20, 2004
*P10. Survey Type: CEQA and NHPA level compliance
*P11. Report Citation: Dice, M.H., C.Y. Taniguchi, P. Messick and D. Kay (2004). Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Historic Site Significance Evaluations for the Sunset Crossing Project Footprint, South Banning Area County of Riverside, California. On-file, Michael Brandman Associates
*Attachments: DNONE [ElLocation Map DSketch Map [ElContinuation Sheets DBuilding, Structure, and Object Record DArchaeological Record DDistrict Record QLinear Feature Record DMilling Station Record DRock Art Record DArtifact Record ElPhotograph Record D Other (List):

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1426
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

LOCATION MAP
Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial none

Page 6 of 15 ends

25750002 Sage: U.S.G.S. Beaumont, Ca. 7.5' topographic map nio Pftt,. •
;
.

Hosp
Site Location
Fruited from TOPO! ©2001 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com) Note: map to scale. Site boundary shown
DPR 523L (1/95) •"Required information
1427
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial none

Page 7 of 15 ends

Feature I and 2 plan view
*Resource Name or #: SC #1
wood post fence
wf barb wire
V
rusted welded
barrel
discarded concrete
chunks
Feature 2
concrete & rock foundation
22' x 13'. 5'deep inside
stove pipe sections
Plan View of Features 1 & 2
Sage communities Project
25750003 7/15/04
P. Messick scg|e
SW corner is 17" above ground
^ O*11"
dia !el
P°le
0 Feet 10'
wood post fence
w/ barb wire
soil covered slab
Feature 1
20'x30'
concrete pad w Vt" dia
bolts around perimeter
beginning of dirt road
end of paved road
DPR 5231(1/95) *Requircd information
1428
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial none

Page 8 of 15 ends

Feature 3 plan view
*Resource Name or #: SC#1
Plan View of Feature 3
Sage communities Project
257500037/15/04
P. Messick Scale
North -
wood remains from feature 2 superstructure
feature 3 = 212 square concrete pads
-— barb wire fence
J_ "*
50'to feature 2-
DPR 523L (1/95) "Required information
1429
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial none

Page 9 of 15 ends

Feature 4 close up plan view
*ResourceNameor#: SC
Plan View of Feature 4
Sage communities Project
257500037/15/04
P. Messick scai
North
2 i,.f diameter
pipe. 8" long
Feature 4- a large building w/ remains
of concrete footing w 2x4's
bolted down on ihe sides
9" .
ihick
remains of
telephone poles
ry 14' spaced
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1430
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial none

Page 10 of 15 ends

Feature 4 expanded plan view
*Resource Name or #: SC #1
Plan View of Feature 4 and
Surrounding Areas
Sage communities Project
257500037/15/04
P. Messick Scale
North
• -/.
barb wire fence
100f goble Section
corrugated I in
28'x8
lei poles-56' long
water tank?
12'longx4' ^,.
wide, nvited w
lying on its side
remains of tel post holes
svery 191/?' ,
I '
V, concrete water trench
-p 33"xl2' long, 51/*" thick
j wells; 16" inside depth;
28" outside height
J. Deer95-H
remains of water lank
29' diameter, 4" height
rivited panel bottom;
corrugated side
John Deer 105
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1431
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial none

Page 11 of 15 ends

Feature 5 plan view
*Resource Name or #: SC #1
Plan View of Feature 5
Sage communities Project
25750003 7/1 SAM
P- Messick
0 Feet 251
25730' sleep drop Profile of feature 5
wood plan
Sunset Ave
dirt rcf — v ,
barb wire .
fence —>\
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1432
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial none

Page 12 of 15 ends

Camera format: Disposable converted to digital
Film type and speed:
*Resource Name or #: SC #1
Lens size:

Negative on file at:_
Photographs and photograph list.

Mo.
7 6
6 6
7 7
7 Day
10 29
29 29
6 6
6 Time
12am
Sam
9am
10am
ll:30am
ll:30am
ll:30am
Exposure Subject/Description
Feature 1 and 2 overview
Feature 3 overview
Feature 4 overview
Feature 5 overview
Structure A overview
Structure B overview
Structure C overview
View Toward
South
West
North/Southwest
Southwest
East
North
East
Accession^
None
None
None
None
View to the south of Feature 1 (foreground) and Feature 2 (foundation background).

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1433
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial none

Page 13 of 15 ends

View of Feature 3 toward the west-southwest.
' -
Panoramic view of Feature 4 to the south.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1434
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13778
HRI#
Trinomial none

Page 14 of 15 ends

View to the west of Feature 5.

View to the south of Structure A located at 3190 Westward Street (P#33-9176) DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1435
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD

Page 15 of 15 ends

Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
33-13778
none
*Resource Name or #:

View of Structure B at 3176 Windward Street
View of Structure C, a barn behind 3176 and 3190 Windward Street.

DPR 523L (1/95) 'Required information
1436
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # 33-013779 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #/Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

CONTINUATION SHEET
☐ Continuation ☒ Update

Page 1 of 1 ends

DPR 523L (1/95)
This Continuation Sheet provides supplemental information to the existing site record. It does not replace the previous record generated for this site.
*P2. d. UTM: NAD 83, Zone 11; 507112 mE / 3753780 mN (northernmost point) 506829 mE / 3752830 mN (westernmost point)
508163 mE / 3752436 mN (south-easternmost point)
507984 mE / 3753074 mN (north-easternmost point)
*P3a. Description: Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) revisited site 33-013779 and found it consistent with the description in the original record from December 2009 and again in September 2020: a large historic water-control complex consisting of 39 features. Some of these features are mapped within the APE. This site was recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR. No additional resources were identified when Æ staff revisited the site location, and the 2009 and 2020 records were unaffected.
*P8. Recorded By: A. DeLeon, Applied EarthWorks Inc., 3550 E. Florida Ave., Ste. H, Hemet, CA 92544 *P9. Date Recorded: 04/03/2024
*P10. Survey Type: ☒ Intensive ☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Other Describe: Phase I Pedestrian Survey
*P11. Report Citation:

Jessica Cochrane
2024 Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California. Report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
*Attachments: ☒ NONE ☐ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map ☐ Continuation Sheet ☐ Building, Structure, ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record and Object Record ☒ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (list):
1437
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # 33-013779 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #/Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

CONTINUATION SHEET
☐ Continuation ☒ Update

Page 1 of 1 ends

DPR 523L (1/95)
This resource was visited on September 4, 2020 as part of the survey for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project (Mills 2020). Although this Project traverses the boundary of the site, none of the mapped features are present within the current Area of Potential Effects. Some of the features were visible from the current APE and appeared in the same condition as the most previous update. The site has been previously evaluated (Messick and Dice 2004) and found in-eligible for inclusion in either the NRHP or CRHR. No further management is required for this resource.

Messick P. and M. Dice
2004 California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record for 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544). Record on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Other Listings Review Code
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial: CA-RIV-7544
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 39 ends

PI. Other Identifier: none
Resource Name or #: SC #2
*P2. Location: D Not for Publication \E1 Unrestricted *a. County: Riverside *b. USGS 7.5'Quad: Beaumont, CA Date: 1988photorev T.3S ;R.1E N!/2of Sec. 18 and S!/2of Sec. 7; SBBM. c. Address: none City: Banning Zip: 92220
d. UTM: Zone: 11; 507112mE/ 3753780 (northernmost point). All plots via GPS, NAD 1983 RFf"FIV /Ff^ IN 506829 mE/ 3752830 mN (westernmost point) il—V.LJ VLLJ
508163 mE/ 3752436 mN (south-easternmost point)
507984 mE/ 3753074 mN (north-easternmost point) RCP Q Q OQflA e. Other Locational Data: None. Elevation: 2420 feet
*P3a. Description:

The site consists of a series of small and large water control features utilized to control runoff through the main intermittent stream channels and the erosion of pasture. Some of the features are probably associated with flood control of waters running beneath the SP railroad tracks along the north margin of the property, but most of the features were built by the rancher. There are two main types: a "pour-off' type that sent waters into drainages with spouts, and a weir-type that slowed waters down in the larger drainages. Many of the pour-off features are linked to a set of ditches or berms likely cut by bulldozers across the Sage project area. The associated ditches and berms can be observed in the 1953 aerial photo above. The purpose of the earthworks is clear: the intent was to channel runoff the existing drainages through a linked series of devices. These were likely built because cattle grazing had removed vegetative groundcovers that once held topsoils in place and the lack of groundcover had sped the process of erosion.

It is possible that additional water control features built on or about the same time will be found on lands outside the study area. If future researchers find such features downstream (in Smith Creek), they should be described and attached to the form sets generated as a result of this study. The estimated years of construction of the features in the site are based on visual inspection of the features themselves, an unscientific analysis of erosion rates in the footprint, and analysis of the 1953 aerial photograph. The features were not built to last without intervention: regular repair and maintenance of the system would be required to reduce erosion on the topsoil and disperse natural runoff onto the pasturelands effectively. It appears that all of these features were built after World War II and were in place before 1953.

Features 1 through 5 are unused numbers.

Integrity Statement
In regard to the seven aspects of integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feel and association), the features on this property have maintained their original location, setting and association. The period of significance is associated with the use of the property as pasturelands. Most, if not all, of the water control features in existence today within the project footprint is associated with attempts to control erosion, which probably resulted from overgrazing. Many of the berms and hand-built control features are effective, but some have eroded such that they can no-longer work. Unfortunately, the original Stewart Ranch buildings were demolished in the late 1980's. Thus, the integrity level of the site is fair.

The 1953 aerial photograph clearly shows the construction-related attempts to slow soil erosion. The bulldozed berms, ditches still shunt runoff into creeks, but many of the built features have been undermined by soil erosion where they meet the drainages. Thus, the overall condition of the site is fair.

Eligibility Statement
The site was assessed under National Register Criterion A for its potential significance as part of a historic trend that may have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The site might have once been part of the San Gorgonio pass area Stewart Ranch complex developed before 1950, and the site represents (for the most part). A 1953 photograph of the project area shows a complete ranching operation and changes to the landscape for erosion control. These features and changes to the landscape represent an effort to control water flows and erosion specific to a particular parcel, and are not associated with broader changes in the history of the area.

DPR 523A (1/95) 'Required information
1439
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Other Listings Review Code
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial: CA-RIV-7544
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Reviewer Date

Page 2 of 39 ends

PI. Other Identifier: none
Resource Name or #: SC #2
The site was considered under Criterion B for its association with the lives of persons significant in our past. The Stewart Ranch was evaluated previously and found to be not significant at the National Level, but this family should be considered of local significance.

Therefore, the site does not appear to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion B.

The site was evaluated for Criterion C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high artistic values, or representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Although the architecture associated with local erosion control is of historic interest, no aspects of the site exhibit the above qualities. Therefore, the site does not appear to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C.

The site was considered for Criterion D for the potential to yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

In order for buildings, structures, and objects to be eligible under this criterion, they would need to "be, or must have been, the principal source of important information." It is possible that additional features will be detected, but all of the features are superficial and will likely not contain important information hidden from view. The study herein is likely to have yielded all possible historic data. Therefore, the site does not appear to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D.

In summary, the site does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under these criteria. Therefore, the site complex is not a historic resource for the purposes of the NHPA.

California Register Eligibility Evaluation
The Sage portion of the site was also evaluated in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, using the following criteria outlined in Section 5024,1 of the California Public Resources Code:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values, 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

The site does not meet Criterion A, B and D for California Register eligibility, for the reasons described above under the NRHP evaluation.

Criterion B asks whether the Stewart family is important to California history, but previous researchers have shown that the Stewarts are locally significant only. The integrity level has already been determined under the NRHP evaluation statements above; this was found to be fair. Although the site has retained its original location, it no longer retains high or moderate levels of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, associated with its period of significance. The site does not qualify for the California Register under these criteria. Therefore, the site is not considered a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP33, Farm/ranch, HP2. Single family property *P4. Resources Present: IZlBuilding [^Structure DObject QSite DDistrict DElement of District DOther P5b. Description of Photo:

None. See photo log for complete views
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
detail)
^Historic DPrehistoric DBoth Before 1953 (see P3a. Description for further *P7. Owner and Address:
various, including: Sage-Banning, 3 Corporate Plaza #102, Newport Beach, CA 92660 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
1440
State of California — The

DEPARTMENT OF PAR

PRIMARY REC
Other Listings

Page 3 of 39 ends

Resources Aeencv Primary # 33-13779
KS AND RECREATION HRI #
ORD Trinomial: CA-RIV-7544
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Review Code Reviewer Date
Resource Name or #: SC#2
**P8. Recorded by:

P. Messick and M. Dice
Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite #200
Irvine, CA 92602
*P9. Date Recorded:

July 30, 2004
*P10. Survey Type: CEQA and NHPA level reconnaissance
*P11. Report Citation: Dice, M.H., C.Y. Taniguchi, P. Messick and D. Kay (2004). Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey and Historic Site Significance Evaluations for the Sunset Crossing Project Footprint, South Banning Area County of Riverside, California. On-file, Brandman P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) see Photo log and Sketch maps
Michael
Associates
*Attachments: IHNONE ^Location Map [ElSketch Map ^Continuation Sheets DBuilding, Structure, and Object Record [ZlArchaeological Record DDistrict Record DLinear Feature Record DMilling Station Record DRock Art Record DArtifact Record ElPhotograph Record D Other (List):

DPR 523A (1/95) "Required information
1441
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary#: 33-13779 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Trinomial: CA-RIV-7544

Page 4 of 39 ends

*A1. Dimensions: a. Length 390 feet (E-W) x b. Width 210 feet (N-S).

Method of Measurement: D Paced D Taped D Visual estimate 0 Other: Referenced to site plan view attached.

Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): d Artifacts 0 Features 0 Soil 0 Vegetation D Topography D Cut bank D Animal burrow D Excavation D Property boundary 0 Other (Explain): Inspection of 1938 photo.

Reliability of Determination: 0High D Low Explain:

Limitations (Check any that apply): D Restricted access D Paved/built over D Site limits incompletely defined 0 Disturbances D Vegetation 0 Other (Explain): Site remnants (quantity unknown) burned by 2003 Grand Prix A2. Depth: D None 0 Unknown Method of Determination:
*A3. Human Remains: D Present 0 Absent D Possible D Unknown (Explain):
*A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) Feature 6
This feature consists of a concrete and stone water catchment/drainage assembly with attached metal spout. Located about V* mile south of Feature 5 and 65' west of Sunset Avenue, the feature was built on a small slope that runs down into a shallow gully about 3' in depth. The feature is somewhat crudely constructed of sheet metal panels riveted together, that in turn are bent, forming a U-shaped pour-off spout. It is possible that the spout was made from sections of stovepipe, with diameters in excess of 20" or more, with the top of the pipe cut and formed into the U-shape. Several sections of discarded stovepipe were observed on the ground near Feature 2 of site SC #1. The spout is attached to a base or anchor, constructed of concrete and stone, which serves as the mouth where water would enter the spout. The masonry anchor partly extends underground giving the entire assemblage strength and stability, so as to perform even under maximum water flow conditions such as periodic flooding. Upon entering at the mouth, water flows down the slightly tapered, downward sloping spout and pours into the gully. Feature 6 measures about lO1/!5 long, from the mouth to the end of the spout, is 2'8" wide at the mouth and 21" wide at the end of the spout. In fairly good condition, the feature laces in a NK direction (water flow) and is located about l2Vi from the barb wire fence that runs parallel with Sunset Avenue.

Feature 7
This feature consists of a concrete and stone water catchment/drainage assembly with attached metal spout. Located roughly 190' NW of Feature 6, the construction and dimensions of the feature are virtually identical. A small pile of stones and/or sub-rounded cobbles (similar to the stones used in the concrete and stone base/anchor) He on the surface just to the west of the feature. In fairly good condition, Feature 7 also faces in a NE direction (water flow) and runs down into a shallow gully about 4' in depth.

Feature 8
The feature consists of the partial remains of a weir made with poured concrete walls. Located in a small and shallow secondary drainage about 125' SW of Feature 7, this feature was constructed using wooden forms and poured concrete. Damaged and covered over with eroded soil after years of disuse, the feature measures about 8' NS by about 3' EW and was certainly larger before eroding. The 8' NS wall, located roughly 15' east from where the drainage begins, is 5" thickness and 21" high and protrudes out from the north side of the drainage. When originally built, the NS wall probably extended into the south side of the drainage as well (covering the whole width) but comes up short due to a breach in the damaged wall. An opening in the wall, measuring 3' wide by 21" high sent water eastward, serving to function somewhat like a dam. Seen in plan view, the width of the feature widens to 4' NS, extending another 3' to the east along the drainage bottom until obscured by eroded soil.

Feature 9
The feature consists of the partial remains of a weir made with poured concrete walls. Located in a small secondary drainage, about 200 feet NW of Feature 8, the construction and dimensions are very similar to Feature 8. The feature is damaged and covered over with thick weedy vegetation and eroded soil. The feature measures about T NS by about 3' EW and may have been larger before eroding. The NS wall is 4%" thick by 22" high and extends into both the north and south sides of the drainage. An opening in the wall 4' wide by 22" high accommodated water that flowed eastward and have served a function somewhat like a dam. As seen in plan view, the width of the feature widens to 5' NS and extends 3' to the east along the drainage bottom; the drainage lies about 6' below the rim. Feature 6, 7 8 and 9 arc all located within a small unnamed drainage about 500 feet long, which is located in the SW quadrant of the Sage project area.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1442
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary#: 33-13779 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Trinomial: CA-RIV-7544

Page 5 of 39 ends

Feature 10
This feature consists of a concrete and stone water catchment/drainage assembly with attached metal spout. Located about 400' north of Feature 6 and about 75' west of Sunset Avenue, the feature was built on the north embankment of a dry wash which is 4' in depth and about 75' wide. The wash is located north of the drainage where Features 6 through 9 were found, and parallels that larger drainage.

Similar in construction to Features 6 and 7, in addition to the concrete and stone anchor at the mouth of the feature, a concrete and stone anchor-like support is observed near the end of the spout. Feature 10 is about 7' long, from the mouth to the end of the spout, is 4l/2' wide at the mouth, and 26" wide at the end of the spout.

Feature 11
This feature consists of a concrete and stone water catchment/drainage assembly with attached metal spout. Located about 175' SW of Feature 10, the feature is almost completely covered in thick vegetation. Facing toward the NW, it measures a lengthy 13'6", and was built on top of a steep-sided narrow wash. This wash is about 5l/z feet in depth and the feature lies south of a confluence with a larger drainage.

Erosion has exposed a concrete and stone support lying beneath the spout, which is about 4!/a' from the end of the spout.

Feature 12
This feature consists of a partial concrete and stone water catchment/drainage assembly with attached metal spout. Located 10' SW of Feature 11, the Feature 12 assembly lies in the bottom of the wash, suggesting that it was dumped into the wash from elsewhere. A partially buried section about 4' long includes the metal spout and the associated concrete and stone masonry seen elsewhere. The features original dimensions and location are unknown.

Feature 13
This feature consists of a partial concrete and stone water catchment/drainage assembly with attached metal spout. Located 175' W of Feature 11, the Feature 13 assembly lies in the bottom of a wash. A partially buried section about 5l/2' long includes the metal spout and the associated concrete and stone masonry seen elsewhere. The features original dimensions are unknown.

Feature 14
This feature is located about 200' NW of Feature 11. It consists of a large, cylindrical-shaped rusted metal tank is located on the north side of the wide embankment of a wash. Measuring 12' long by 3'8" in diameter, the tank is thick-walled and appears to have been welded together in three-4' sections. A metal elbow fitting, 3" in diameter, was observed welded in place on the top, 3' from the end of the tank.

Another hole about 41/z" in diameter was cut into the tank wall. A hinge is connected to the "cutout" piece that is attached to the exterior side, covering the hole. Likely not in situ, and its original function unknown, the sturdy construction suggests it was a container for holding gas or oil.

Feature 15
This feature exhibits a water catchment/drainage assemblage consisting of a concrete/stone masonry base, walls with an attached metal spout, and a large earthen berm. Located just west of a dirt access road and about 200' west of Feature 14, the feature was built on the south side of a shallow wash about 4Yi deep and over 100' wide. Several discarded truck tires, two corrugated metal tanks, and several dead tree trunks lay in the wash north and NW of the feature. The construction of this feature is similar to that of Features 6,7,10, and 11.

Facing north, this feature measures 11 '6" long from the mouth to the end of the bent spout. However, the anchor at the mouth of this section of the feature is enlarged compared to the others, with additional concrete and stone that formed low-lying "wing" walls extending out from each side. The wing walls are 4W long, 6" thick and 26" in height.

Looking at the feature in plan view, the walls fan out from the mouth creating wings with a 10' wide expanse, measured from the ends of each wall tip. Within the expanse, a mound of soil is located on the east side incorporates the concrete and stone wing wall and is level with it. This represents an intact earthen berm, probably constructed at the same time as the walls. The berm appears to have eroded over time but its outline is clearly observed, extending south from the feature. This enlarged area of the feature's mouth, the masonry wing walls and the berm, represents a part a holistic system meant to carry large amounts of sudden runoff.

This feature shows that the berm section of the feature functioned as a conduit or earthen weir, conveying water from ditches cut into the open field, into the spouts that were placed high above the floor of the drainage. This feature represents a well-preserved representative of the original features on-site With this system, the water would flow into the existing drainages by pouring through the mouths and off the metal spouts of each feature. During the pedestrian survey, earthen berms (possibly representing the downslope side of a ditch probably cut with a bulldozer) were observed on the surface in the open fields, criss-crossing a large portion of the project area, particularly in the southern half. The 1953 aerial photograph clearly reveals the outlines of numerous bermed ditches that end at the drainages.

DPR 523L (1/95) 'Required information
1443
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary# : 33-13779 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Trinomial: CA-RIV-7544

Page 6 of 39 ends

Feature 16
This feature probably represents the eroded remnant of a partial concrete and stone water catchment/drainage assembly with attached metal spout. Located about 125' west of Feature 15, the 4W long by 17" wide remnant of a rusted metal spout lies almost entirely buried in the shallow drainage bottom. Possibly tossed or eroded into the wash, the feature's original placement is unknown.

Feature 17
This feature probably represents the eroded remnant of a partial concrete and stone water catchment/drainage assembly with attached metal spout. Located about 300' west of Feature 16, the feature is a rusted metal spout buried in the shallow drainage bottom, with the tip sticking up and out of the ground to 10'6". The spout is cut and shaped into a point. North of and adjacent to the feature, buried in the drainage bottom, is a large chunk of concrete and stone masonry. A berm is observed on top of the drainage rim. The feature represents a collapsed and eroded section of the water control site. Possibly tossed or eroded into the wash, the feature's original placement is unknown.

Located about 150'west of Feature 17, on the south side of the drainage facing NW, the feature is similar in construction and dimensions to Feature 15. The wash is deeper here, with the spout exiting the flats about lOVi' above the drainage bottom. Measuring 11 '6" long from the mouth to the end of the pointed spout, the feature has concrete and stone masonry wing walls about 6" in thickness. The walls rise about 28" above the rim surface. The east wing wall is 4*/2' in length and appears intact, but the west wing wall is 2' long and likely missing some of the original masonry. The ditch/berm does not directly interface with the wing walls (as seen in Feature 15) but the outline of a low mound is observed about 25' south from the masonry.

Feature 19
This feature exhibits the partial remains of another stone and masonry structure, possibly a weir, with poured concrete walls and concrete/stone masonry wing walls. Badly damaged, with perhaps only the south half still in existence, the feature is located about 195' NW of Feature 18, where the drainage narrows. The drainage is 13' deep and about 35' in width. When originally built, the feature probably extended totally across the width of the drainage but a large breach has occurred in the lost section. The feature appears to have been built in two stages: a lower, substantial and massive poured concrete structure is located at the bottom and, built on top of this, concrete and stone masonry walls. A wall running north-to-south protrudes from the south bank of the drainage. This is about 10" wide and fairly level for about 8', where it then drops 4' in height. The wall continues north for another 4' and drops again, where it ends, having collapsed and leaving the large gap about 14' from the north side of the drainage. Much of the wall is lying in fragments and small sections in the bottom of the drainage.

The HW dimensions measure about 20' in width. The bottom part of the feature, comprised mostly of poured concrete, appears to have been designed to facilitate and divert a flow of water delivered to the feature from the west. The poured section served to function something like a dam. The partial remains of several rectangular-shaped 'chambers' or poured box-like structures were observed among lots of loose stones and fragments of concrete and rock masonry. It is uncertain just what these might have been used for. A connecting wall, constructed of both poured concrete and concrete/stone masonry, and measuring about 10" wide by 3!/2' high, runs EW for almost 20' in the middle of the drainage. A section of metal spout about 7' in length, lay buried in the bottom of the drainage next to the wall. A date of 1946, engraved by hand in the concrete, is observed in the surface on the top of the NS wall of the feature.

Feature 20
This feature exhibits a water catchment/drainage assemblage consisting of a concrete/stone masonry base, walls with an attached metal spout, and a large earthen berm. Located about 220' west of Feature 19, the construction and dimensions of the feature are virtually identical to Features 15 and 18. Facing north and built on the south side of a 75' wide drainage, the pointed metal spout is positioned about 9 feet above the bottom of the wash. The wing walls have suffered considerable damage with gaps and are missing numerous stones.

A berm extends out from the feature on the east side and continues south across the flats for an undetermined length.

Feature 21
This feature exhibits the partial remains of another stone and masonry structure, possibly a weir, with poured concrete walls and concrete/stone masonry wing walls. Similar in construction and size to Feature 19, and in better condition, the feature is located about 200' west of Feature 20. The feature measures about 25' NS by 19' EW and runs \W£ from the top of the feature to the drainage bottom.

A concrete and stone masonry wall about 10" thick runs NS across the entire drainage and is level with the flats. An opening in the wall measures about 10' wide by 22" in height: the purpose of this opening is to accommodate an eastward flow of water. Here at the opening, the feature drops 9W to a poured concrete base that is about 6' wide between the two sidewalls of the feature. The concrete bottom continues east (following the drainage) for about 19' where it ends, widening from about 6' to about 8', as noted in the plan view of the feature. The feature's wing walls, connected to the NS wall on each side of the drainage, are composed of concrete and stone masonry that taper inward was the walls fall deeper into the wash. Both walls also extend eastward roughly 15' and decrease in height to about 3' above the bottom of the feature's concrete bottom.

DPR 523L (1/95) 'Required information
1444
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary#: 33-13779 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Trinomial: CA-RIV-7544

Page 7 of 39 ends

The concrete base of the feature was built to facilitate and divert the flow of water. A 6" thick by 3'/2'long low-lying wall, made of concrete and stone masonry, extends out perpendicularly from the center of the NS wall. Slightly curved, the wall runs east about 3l/2 feet.

In addition, an 8" thick by 12" high by 1W wide concrete and stone masonry dam was constructed about 10' east of the NS wall. The concrete base continues another 8' and ends where there is a drop off into the natural dirt bottom of the drainage. l-'eature 22
This feature exhibits another weir-like masonry structure, with stone/concrete walls, and concrete/stone masonry wing walls connected to a earthen berm running on the flats. Located roughly 70' west of Feature 21, the feature lies in a shallow depression (possibly man-made?) that has been totally denuded of vegetation by grazing cattle. Facing eastward, the feature exhibits two stone/masonry wing walls spread about 7' apart, connected by a small concrete/stone dam. The wing walls are 6" thick by roughly 13' in length and the top is located about 30" above the ground surface. The dam, which runs NS and connects both wing walls, has incurred some damage. The north end has some cracked and missing masonry, but otherwise, is in somewhat good condition. Soil mounded on the outside of each of the wing walls, which is associated with construction of the ditches/berms, has incurred some erosion. The remnants of the berms extend west from both walls continuing for an undetermined length. Features 10 through 22 are all located within and near a drainage about 2100' feet in length, which exists from the SE quadrant of the project area toward Smith Creek.

Feature 23
This feature exhibits a water catchment/drainage assemblage consisting of a concrete/stone masonry base with an attached metal spout, and a large earthen berm nearby. Located about 250' north of Feature 10, the feature is built on the south side of the deep and wide channel near the intersection with Sunset Avenue. Similar in materials and construction as Features 6, 7, 10, and 11, the feature faces north and measures about 8' long, from the mouth to the end of the spout. Located at the rim steep sided drainage, the spout hangs roughly 45' feet above the sandy bottom.

Feature 24
The feature consists of a large water catchment/drainage structure with concrete and stone masonry walls, metal drainpipe and nearby earthen berms. Located about 100' west of Feature 23, the large, imposing feature is in remarkably good condition. Facing north and built on a slope leading to a steep-sided and deep intermittent stream channel, a slight outline of this particular feature can be seen on the 1953 aerial photograph. The overall dimensions of the feature are roughly 200+' NS by roughly 60' EW: the si/e of the feature suggests that it was built to handle huge amounts of water. By way of a substantial bcrmed ditch (measuring 4' high by 60'wide by 150-1-' long) that is now filled with scrub and sage vegetation, water was conveyed to the large concrete and stone masonry wing walled dam. Measuring 6' high from the bottom of the drainage to the wall top, it is 33'/25 wide, measured from the ends of each wall, side to side. Built into the sides of the bermed ditch, the structure is broadly U- or V-shaped. The walls are tapered up-drainage and in the center, at the base of the ditch itself, is a roughly 41 diameter concrete and stone lined hole. The hole is about 3'/V deep (below the drainage bottom) and connects to a 30-inch diameter drainpipe that traverses underground about 100' to the north. The water exits the end of the pipe and into the large drainage channel. The ditch is about 13' feet in width and drops down about 6W feet as the feature continues down slope and north toward the channel.

Below the dam, a weed-covered area here is relatively flat for about 20' feet, whereupon another earthen berm was placed. This second berm is about 20' feet wide. This berm drops down another 6' toward the channel, ending about 5' from the channel rim. The metal drainpipe that runs underground protrudes out of the channel wall at this spot, and hangs over the edge for about 10'. Runoff flowing out from Feature 10 through 22 took place upslope from Feature 24, and the runoff was connected to Feature 24 through a series of ditches and berms. Feature 24 was likely the main conduit for water flowing between two separated drainages in this area. The 1953 aerial photograph likely confirms this. The photo shows the location of a bermed ditch associated with Feature 24 on the north side of wash, approximately across from where Feature 15 is located on the south side of the wash.

Feature 25
Located on top of a relatively flat rise and about 150' west of Feature 24, two 30-inch rusted metal pipes were found during the survey, lying side by side on the ground surface. The pipes are 26' and 29' in length. The pipes exhibited several welded seams, one is bent at its end, and a thick, light tan residue (dry and cracked) was observed on the inside ends of the pipes. The pipes are quite similar form to the large pipe drain observed in Feature 24.

Feature 26
This feature exhibits a water catchment/drainage assemblage consisting of a concrete/stone masonry base with an attached metal spout.

Built on the south side of the steep sided channel, and located almost directly across the channel from Feature 5 of SC#1, the feature is similar in materials and construction as Feature 23. Measuring roughly 61/2I from the mouth to the end of the spout, and 28" wide at the end of the spout, the feature faces NE. At this point, the channel is roughly 150' wide and 30' deep.

DPR 523L (1/95) 'Required information
1445
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary#: 33-13779 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Trinomial: CA-RIV-7544

Page 8 of 39 ends

Feature 27
This feature exhibits a water catchment/drainage assemblage consisting of a concrete/stone masonry base with an attached metal spout.

Located about 125' NW of Feature 26, the feature is built on the south side of a secondary drainage and faces NE. Similar in materials and construction to Features 23 and 26, the spout measures roughly 8 feet long, from the mouth to the tip. Water flowing off the spout would have emptied into a 12' deep, steep-sided gully. A small pile of stones and/or subrounded cobbles lie on the surface on each side of the feature and, about 40' to the west, is a pile of dumped concrete.

Feature 28
This feature consists of the decomposed remains of a stone/masonry wall remnant and concrete dumps meant to reduce water flows.

Located roughly 150' NW of Feature 27, the feature is located on the north side of a secondary wash. Damaged by erosion, what remains is a 5" thick by 30" high by 7' wall concrete and stone masonry wall that protrudes out from the side of the drainage. Concrete and stone masonry also extends from the wall east into the channel for several dozen feet. When originally built, the feature may have extended totally across the width of the small drainage, which has subsequently enlaged quite substantially. Concrete may have been dumped into the drainage adjacent to the wall, accumulating in piles. This appears to be modern, and probably represents a collection of sidewalk fragments placed there to slow erosion. Numerous piles of both concrete and asphalt are observed on the surface in the immediate area surrounding the feature and random piles arc dumped into the drainage.

Feature 29
This feature exhibits a water catchment/drainage assemblage consisting of a concrete/stone masonry base with an attached metal spout.

Located about 200' west of Feature 4, and adjacent to an EW dirt and gravel road, the feature is located on the modern ground surface near the rim of a large drainage. A portion of a riveted metal spout, about 6l/2' long, lies just above the surface and runs in an NS direction. The feature becomes buried underneath the surface about 10'/2! from the channel rim and subsequently protrudes out about l¥z from the east wall of the channel. Measuring 24" in diameter the spout pipe has a total length of roughly 23'/2' and is filled partially with soil. Its association with Feature 4 is unknown. The pipe likely ran from the end of a bermcd ditch to the channel.

Feature 30
The feature consists of the remains of channel/streambcd erosion control structure including a welded metal groin, and two metal fences with fence posts. The feature is located on the eastern side of a large wash located in Section 7 of the project area, roughly '/2 mile west of Sunset Avenue and 1/3 mile south of Pershing Siding along the railroad tracks. The channel here is steep sided and about 30 feet deep, and almost all of both features were positioned north of the gas pipeline. On the western side of the channel, erosion has occurred, resulting in a wide gradual slope. Scrub and sage vegetation is thick and vigorous here. A high-pressure gas line runs over the feature in an EW direction and the feature complex was built to prevent erosion. It is uncertain just when this feature was constructed. The groin is a solid, massive structure, roughly 180' feet length and curves outward, toward the center of the wash. The feature is constructed of various lengths of 30-inch diameter metal pipe, rammed into the ground to as as posts. Between each pipe end are 7'high vertical 'footings' of the same type of pipe that are welded together with the horizontal pipe posts. A metal post fence with wire fencing, 6 feet high and about 40 feet long, is located at the north end of the groin.

A second metal post fence and wire fence, averaging about 5' high and roughly 70' long, runs in a NW/SE direction opposite the groin, on the opposite side of the stream. It too curves inward toward the floor of the wash, and the fence runs toward the NW. At its SE end the fence is about 25' from the groin and positioned directly below the gas pipeline. At the NW end, the fence is about 50' from the groin. In disrepair, missing posts and wire, the fence was almost completely obscured by dense scrub and sage vegetation. Most certainly longer when originally built, it appears that the fence was built in one line, but a second fence line placed parallel with the first was also built. A total of only 13 metal posts were standing for both of the rows combined.

Feature 31
This feature consists of the remains of a weir-type (?) structure composed of collapsed, poured concrete walls and concrete/stone masonry wall fragments. The feature is located about 1000' NW of Feature 30 and perhaps 300' south of the railroad tracks. This feature and Feature 33, and located inside a wash that that is heavily eroded and the feature is heavily decomposed. Based on its poor condition, this may not have been the feature's original location. A section of poured concrete wall lies leaning somewhat haphazardly in the drainage about 12' below the rim of the wash. Probably the remnants of a wing wall, this measures about 11' in length, is 4-6" in thickness, and the ends are broken. A segment of concrete and stone masonry about 3W long lies on the ground surface about 4' south of the wing wall remnant. Two other segments of concrete and stone masonry lie another 10' feet further south, in the gully bottom. Each chunk measures roughly 6' in length by \W in width.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1446
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary# : 33-13779 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Trinomial: CA-RIV-7544

Page 9 of 39 ends

Feature 32
This feature consists of the remains of a weir-type (?) structure composed of collapsed, poured concrete fragments, some of whichappear to be in situ. Located about 150' north of Feature 31 and perhaps 250' south of the railroad tracks, the graffiti covered feature is badly damaged. The remnants of a poured concrete wing wall running from EW measures about 24' feet long by 7' high on the west end and 4' high on the east end. The top of the wall is about 2' below the rim of the wash. There is no indication that this feature extended completely across the width of the drainage when originally built. An additional segment of concrete and stone masonry is observed about 5' below the in situ portion, running in a NS direction. Due to its proximity, there may be a possible association with Feature 31. Feature 31 may, in fact, represent the remains of the east side of Feature 32, which was washed down-canyon during a storm.

Feature 33
The feature represents the partial remains of a pipe and poured concrete down spout. Located roughly 300' west of Feature 32 and about 200' south of the railroad tracks, the feature is almost totally buried in the ground. The feature lies about 10' from the rim of the wash: the rim is about 45' above the wash floor in this area. The feature appears to represent a flume that sent water emanating from a culvert beneath the railroad tracks into the nearby wash.

Feature 34
The feature consists of a flume composed of a poured concrete and earthen berm sides. Located on the west side of the drainage running south from Pershing Siding and about 250' SE of Feature 33, the feature consists of a poured concrete flume paralleling the rim of the wash. Erosion has undermined the soil on the steep sided drainage leaving the concrete pour-off protruding out over the edge by several feet. The concrete channel, averaging -40 inches in width, and about 10" deep, is covered with thick scrub and sage vegetation. Water flowed through the concrete flume channel in a NW direction. The channel and its associated earthen berm extends in a southerly direction for an indeterminate length.

Feature 35
The feature consists of the partial remains of a poured concrete pipe support. Located about 400' NW of Feature 30, on the west side of the Pershing wash, the feature lies partially collapsed in a steep sided secondary drainage, facing in a NE direction. Due to its location down in this dangerous drainage, exact measurements of the feature were impossible. An imprint of the pipe it once supported, was visible on the top of the concrete support, and was estimated to be about 20' inches in diameter. Features 23 through 35 are all located in the large wash, which is slightly over one miles in length.

Feature 36
The feature is located in denuded pasture about 500 feet east of the Smith Creek drainage and 110' south of the dirt and gravel road that bisects the project area. The cow pasture is flat with a fenced in corral and the feature is located about 300' feet east of the corral.

Stripped of vegetation, the loose soil is best described as a medium brown friable loam with numerous cow dung piles on the surface, fresh and otherwise. A light scatter of marine shell was observed on the modern ground surface. Small fragments of clam, oyster and scallop were observed, most the size of a dime or smaller. A few fragments were the size of a quarter. None were collected. The area was flagged for fragments and the feature limits were delineated: the feature is roughly 90' EW by 65' NS. The ground surface was troweled down to a depth of a few inches in a few places but no shell was found subsurface. The origin of the shell is questionable because prehistoric groups are known to have traded such foodstuff inland. We concluded, based on the lack of stone flakes, milling stones, and the thinness of the deposit, that the shell scatter represents recent or historic midden. This feature is not significant.

Feature 37
The feature represents a dump area associated with water-control structural debris. Located at the intersection of Smith Creek and the dirt and gravel road that bisects the project area (the road is paved in this section), the dump consists of piles of concrete and concrete/stone masonry structural debris that appears similar to that described in other features in the project area. The area just north alongside a paved portion of the road measures about 200' EW by 30' NS. One large section of concrete has a broken brick imbedded with the "SIMONS" makers mark. Other debris include metal pipes of various diameters, rebar, and several truck tires.

Feature 38
The feature consists of the partial remains of a concrete and stone masonry flume with associated earthen berms. Located in the western side of the Sage project area, about 800' west of Feature 37, the feature is located in a wash that runs EW, emptying into Smith Creek.

The teature is constructed of concrete and stone masonry and measures 93' long EW by 5' wide NS. The feature was probably longer but has been undermined by erosion occurring in the drainage and the leading edge is broken off. Concrete and stone masonry fragments lie in thick scrub and sage vegetation at the drainage bottom, roughly 100' feet to the east, which suggests that the feature probably extended that far. The west end widens to accommodate normal water flow and a set of earthen berms probably representing a ditch can be observed in this area.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1447
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary#: 33-13779 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Trinomial: CA-RIV-7544

Page 10 of 39 ends

Feature 39
The feature consists of the decomposed remains of poured concrete walls, concrete and stone masonry walls. Located in the Smith Creek drainage in the NW corner of the parcel and several hundred feet south of the railroad tracks, the feature is badly damaged due to erosion.

Originally, the feature crossed the shallow drainage entirely, a distance of about 32 feet. What remains are two wing walls on each side of the drainage, both in states of disrepair. The eastern wing wall is about 25' long by 6' high, while the west wall is about 15' feet long and 4' high. Both broken on their ends, the walls were certainly much longer. A low concrete and stone masonry wall continues south from a concrete wall on the western side for roughly 20 feet. In the middle of the sandy and gravelly wash, between the two wing walls, are the remains of a stone and concrete masonry foundation, barely sticking up out of the surface. L-shaped and joining the wing walls, the foundation may represent structural remains of some kind that were utilized for controlling water flow between the wing walls. *A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) Water control features and a few histsoric deposits: no artifacts associated with these were noted. *A6. Were Specimens Collected? 0 No D Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record/catalog & identify where artifacts are curated.) *A7. Site Condition: IZlGood G Fair D Poor (Describe disturbances.):
*A8. Nearest Water: (Type, distance, and direction.) Smith Creek intermittent, on-site. *A9. Elevation: 2510-2400 ft above sea level.

A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe culturally relevant variables such as vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.)
The site is located on dissected flats within the Smith Creek watershed. Most vegetation has been grazed and was very dry at the time of recording. Slope is gradual and to the southeast. The north, west and east sides of the project area and site boundary are developed.

All. Historical Information:

See continuation sheet.
*A12. Age: D Prehistoric D Protohistoric D 1542-1769 D 1769-1848 D 1848-1880 D 1880-1914 0 1914-1945 0 Post 1945 n Undetermined (Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known) A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations) The water control features are associated with ranching and were probably constructed once grazing had stripped the land of natural vegetation and caused soil erosion. Construction likely took place more than 50 years ago, perhaps in the late 1940's.

A14. Remarks:

A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references).

Dice, M.H., C.Y. Taniguchi, P. Messick and D. Kay (2004). Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey and Historic Site Significance Evaluations for the Sunset Crossing Project Footprint, South Banning Area County of Riverside, California. On-file, Michael Brandman Associates
A16. Photographs (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): See Photograph Continuation Page
Original Media/Negatives Kept at: None: digital.
*A17. Form Prepared by: Michael Dice Date: July 30, 2004 Affiliation and Address:

Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, Cal. 92602
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1448
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

LOCATION MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 11 of 39 ends

25750002 Sage: U.S.G.S. Beaumont, Ca. 7,5' topographic map 1000 METTflS
Printed from TOPO! ©2001 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com) Note: map to scale. Site boundary shown
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1449
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 12 of 39 ends

Plan View of Feature 6
Sage communities Project
Feature 6 plan view.
*Resource Name or #: SC #2
257500037/15/04
P. Messick
Feature 8 plan view
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1450
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 13 of 39 ends

Feature 9 plan view
Plan View of Feature 9
Sage communities Project
0 Foei 2'
Plan View of Feature 10
Sage communities Project
Feature 10 plan view
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1451
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 14 of 39 ends

Plan View of Feature 15
Sage communities Project
257500037/15/04
P. Messick
Feature 15 plan view.

DPR 523L (1/95) 'Required information
1452
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 15 of 39 ends

Plan View of Feature 19
Sage communities Project
Feature 19 plan view
Plan View of Feature 21
Sage communities Project
257500037/15/04
P. Messick
lop surface of
drainage
Feature 21 plan view
DPR 523L (1/95)
inscribed 13/4" high
*Required information
1453
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 16 of 39 ends

Plan View of Feature 22
Sage communities Project
25750003 7/15/04
P. Messick Seals
70 feet to feature 21
0 Feet 5'
Feature 22 plan view
Plan View of Feature 30
Sage communities Project
Feature 30 plan view
DPR 523L (1/95) 'Required information
1454
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 17 of 39 ends

open stone & concrete
drainage 48" diameter, to
30" diameter; metal culvert
Plan View of Feature 24
Sage communities Project
257500037/15/04
P. Messick Scale
30 diameter metal culvert/drain pipe
subsurface
5 drop down
into dry wash
30 diameter metal
culvert drainpipe
Feature 24 plan view.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1455
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 18 of 39 ends

Plan View of Feature 31
Sage communities Project
concrete
rock wall
Feature 31 plan view
DPR 523L (1/95) "Required information
1456
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 19 of 39 ends

, open gate 21'wide
-drainage trending NW/SE
Feature 36 plan view
Plan View of Feature 37
Sage communities Project
25750003 7/15/04
P. Messick Scale
North /
0 Feel 251
*Resource Name or #: SC #2
r
barbed wire fence
Plan View of Feature 36: Shell Scatter
Sage communities ProJGct
c power line
Feature 37 plan view
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1457
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 20 of 39 ends

Feature 38 plan view
Plan View of Feature 39
Sage communities Project
257500037/15/04
P. Messick Scale
0 Feet 10'
*Resource Name or #: SC #2
Plan View of Feature 38
Sage communities Project
257500037/15/04
P. Messick scale
small cottonwood
Feature 39 plan view
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
1458
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 21 of 39 ends

Camera format: Disposable converted to digital
Film type and speed:
*Resource Name or #: SC #2
Lens size:

Negative on file at:_
Photographs and photograph list.

Mo.
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 Day
25 25
25 25
25 25
25 25
25 25
25 25
26 26
26 26
26 26
26 26
26 26
26 26
26 26
26 26
26 26
26 26
26 Time Exposure Su bj ect/Descri p ti on
Feature 6 overview
Feature 7 overview
Feature 8 overview
Feature 10 shunt opening view
Feature 1 1 canyon rim view
Feature 12 gully view
Feature 13 upstream view
Feature 14 water tank
Feature 15 overview
Feature 16 exposed shunt opening
Feature 17 collapsed on drainage edge
Feature 18 overview
Feature 19 view from gully
Feature 20 overview
Feature 21 gully view
Feature 22 overview
Feature 23 overview
Feature 24 overview
Detailed view of Feature 24 rock work
Feature 25 overview
Feature 26 overview
Feature 27 overview
Feature 28 overview
Feature 29 overview
Feature 30 overview
Feature 31 overview
Feature 32 overview
Feature 32 overview
Feature 33 overview
Feature 34 overview
Feature 35 overview
Feature 37 overview
Feature 38 overview
View Toward
NW
NW
W
downstream
W
N
NW
W
NE
N
E
N
W
W
W
W
-
SE
W
N
E
SE
S
NW
W
N
N
SE
Downstream
SF
SF
Accession^
None
None
None
None
1459
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 22 of 39 ends

View of Feature 6 toward the northwest.

View of Feature 7 toward the northwest.
1460
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 23 of 39 ends

View of Feature 8 toward the west.

View to the south of Feature 10 shunt opening.
1461
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 24 of 39 ends

View to the west of Feature 11.

View to the north of Feature 12.
1462
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 25 of 39 ends

View upstream of Feature 13.
*Resource Name or #: SC #2
View of Feature 14 water tank
1463
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 26 of 39 ends

View to the northwest of Feature 15.

View to the north of Feature 16.
1464
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 27 of 39 ends

View to the northeast of Feature 17.

View to the north of Feature 18.
1465
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 28 of 39 ends

View to the east from the gully bottom of Feature 19.

View to the north of Feature 20
1466
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 29 of 39 ends

View to the west from the gully at Feature 21
View to the west at Feature 22.
1467
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 30 of 39 ends

View to the west of Feature 23.

View to the west of Feature 24
1468
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 31 of 39 ends

Detailed view of Feature 24.
1469
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 32 of 39 ends

View to the southeast of Feature 25.

View to the west of Feature 26.
1470
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 33 of 39 ends

View to the north of Feature 27.

View to the east of Feature 28.
1471
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 34 of 39 ends

View to the southeast of Feature 29.

View to the south of Feature 30
1472
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 35 of 39 ends

View to the northwest of Feature 31.

View to the west of Feature 32.
1473
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 36 of 39 ends

View to the north of Feature 32.

View to the north of Feature 33.
1474
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 37 of 39 ends

View to the southeast of Feature 34.
*Resource Name or #: SC #2
View of Feature 35.
1475
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 38 of 39 ends

View to the southeast of Feature 37.

View to the southeast of Feature 38.
1476
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP
Primary # 33-13779
HRI#
Trinomial CA-RIV-7544

Page 39 of 39 ends

Drawn by: Michael Dice. North is to the left. Scale: note map is reduced to fit on this page, new scale is 1 inch = 1162 feet 1477

APPENDIX B
Native American Communication
1478

LIST OF NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS AND RECORD OF RESPONSES Name Date Responses
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin
THPO
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
September 11, 2020
September 17, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Response letter received from Pattie Garcia-Plotkin stating the Tribe request all the documentation related to the Project (site records and report).

Amanda Vance
Chairperson
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
September 11, 2020
September 30, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No Response received.

Judy Stapp
Director of Cultural Affairs
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
September 11, 2020
September 30, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email.

Response received from Judy Stapp stating, the Tribe does not have any knowledge of site information for the Project.

Daniel Salgado
Chairperson
Cahuilla Band of Indians
September 11, 2020
September 30, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No Response received.

Shane Chapparosa
Chairperson
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians
September 11, 2020
September 30, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No Response received.

Ann Brierty
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
September 11, 2020
September 30, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No Response received.

Donna Yocum
Chairperson
San Fernando Band of Mission Indians
September 11, 2020
September 30, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.

Joseph Hamilton
Chairperson
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
September 11, 2020
September 30, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.

Jessica Mauck
Cultural Resources
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
September 11, 2020
September 14, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Response received from Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resource Analyst.

The Tribe stated, they do not have any resources within the PA or buffer area however, that does not mean low potential for buried cultural resources.
1479
Name Date Responses
Steven Estrada
Chairperson
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
September 11, 2020
September 14, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Response received from Linda Flaxbeard stating the Project is outside their Traditional Use Area and Reservation and they will not be consulting on the Project.

Mark Cochrane
Co-Chairperson
Wayne Walker
Co-Chairperson
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
September 11, 2020
September 30, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.

Joseph Ontiveros
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
September 11, 2020
September 30, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.

Michael Mirelez
Cultural Resource Coordinator
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
September 11, 2020
September 30, 2020
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.
1480
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-657-5390 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Date: 9/13/2019
Project: Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project (AE# 4093) County: Riverside County
USGS Quadrangle Name: Beaumont
Township: 3 South Range: 1 East Section(s): 7 & 18
Company/Firm/Agency: Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Contact Person: Kholood Abdo
Street Address: 3550 East Florida Avenue, Suite H
City: Hemet Zip: 92544
Phone: (951) 766-2000
Fax: (951) 766-0020
Email: [email protected]
Project Description:

The proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard extension Project in the City of Banning, CA will result in ground disturbance. Applied EarthWorks, Inc. has been contracted to conduct a cultural resource study of the Project area for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1481
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Cultural and Environmental Department
1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Phone: (916) 373-3710
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nahc.ca.gov
Twitter: @CA_NAHC
September 24, 2019
Kholood Abdo
Applied EarthWorks
VIA Email to: [email protected]
RE: Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, Riverside County Dear Ms. Abdo:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
[email protected].

Sincerely,
Steven Quinn
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Attachment
1482
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
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
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
Shane 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
Denisa Torres, Cultural Resources
Manager
12700 Pumarra Rroad
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 849 - 8807
Fax: (951) 922-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Rroad
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 849 - 8807
Fax: (951) 922-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
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
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
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 Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2019-
005014
09/24/2019 12:26 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
9/24/2019
1483
San Fernando Band of Mission
Indians
Donna Yocum, Chairperson
P.O. Box 221838
Newhall, CA, 91322
Phone: (503) 539 - 0933
Fax: (503) 574-3308
[email protected]
Kitanemuk
Vanyume
Tataviam
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Lee Clauss, Director of Cultural
Resources
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Fax: (909) 864-3370
[email protected]
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Mercedes Estrada,
P. O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
mercedes.estrada@santarosacah
uilla-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Steven Estrada, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
mflaxbeard@santarosacahuillansn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (909) 528 - 9032
[email protected]
Serrano
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (253) 370 - 0167
[email protected]
Serrano
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
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Scott Cozart, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92583
Phone: (951) 654 - 2765
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Michael Mirelez, Cultural
Resource Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 399 - 0022
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 Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2019-
005014
09/24/2019 12:26 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
9/24/2019
1484
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Ann Brierty
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear THPO Brierty:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, Project (Project). The Project involves the realignment and construction of an extension of Sun Lake Boulevard in the City of Banning, Riverside County. The Project is subject to the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) is the lead Section 106 agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located on the Beaumont, CA 7.5' USGS quadrangle map within Township 3S / Range 1W, Section 7, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (S.B.B.M.).

Æ submitted an archaeological literature and records search request to the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside on September 16, 2019. The records search indicated 16 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a 1-mile buffer of the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE), and 100 percent of the APE has been previously surveyed. These studies resulted in the documentation of 44 cultural resources within the 1- mile buffer area, two of which are within the APE. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project APE. The survey was completed on September 4, 2020. Transects spacing ranged from 10 to 15 meters. No prehistoric cultural resources were observed during the survey but the two historic resources within the APE were observed although none of the features are within the APE.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 29, 2020. The NAHC responded on June 30, 2020 noting that Sacred Lands File search was completed with negative results. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1485
1 0.5 0 1
Miles
101 0.5
Kilometers
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Feet
T3S/R1W, Sections 1, 12, 13, 14, and 24; T3S/R1E, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20; SBB&M °
Beaumont (1953, photorevised 1988) and Cabazon (1956, photorevised 1988), CA 7.5' USGS Topographic Quadrangles Records search map for the Webb - Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project - AE#4093.

Legend
Survey Area
Study Area (RS limit)
SCALE 1:24,000
Date: 9/11/2020 Document Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\Webb - Sun Lakes - 4093\Projects\02 Records Search\SunLakes_RS_Arch.mxd 1486
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Shane Chapparosa
Chairperson
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Chairperson Chapparosa:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1487
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Mark Cochrane and Wayne Walker
Co-Chairpersons
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
P. O. Box 1160
Patton, CA 92274
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Co-Chairpersons:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1488
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Steven Estrada
Chairperson
Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA 92539
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Chairperson Estrada:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1489
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin
Director
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Director Garcia-Plotkin:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1490
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Joseph Hamilton
Chairman
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA 92539
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Chairman Hamilton:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1491
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Jessica Mauck
Cultural Resources
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 391670,
Anza, CA, 92539
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Ms. Mauck:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1492
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Michael Mirelez
Cultural Resource Coordinator
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
P. O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA 92274
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Mr. Mirelez:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1493
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Joseph Ontiveros
Cultural Resource Department
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Mr. Ontiveros:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1494
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Daniel Salgado
Chairperson
Cahuilla Band of Indians
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Chairperson Salgado:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1495
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Judy Stapp
Director of Cultural Affairs
Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Director Stapp:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1496
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Amanda Vance
Chairperson
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Chairperson Vance:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1497
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com September 11, 2020
Donna Yocum,
Chairperson
San Fernando Band Mission Indians
P.O. Box 221838
Newhall, CA, 91322
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sun lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning Riverside County, California.

Dear Chairperson Yocum:

Respectfully yours,
Evan Mills, MA, RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1498
Dear Mr. Evan Mills,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Realignment of Sun Lakes Boulevard project.

The project area is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. For this reason, the ACBCI THPO requests the following:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
Applied Earthworks
Mr. Evan Mills
3550 E Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
September 17, 2020
Re: Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760)699-6907. You may also email me at [email protected].

Cordially,
Pattie Garcia-Plotkin
Director
Tribal Historic Preservation Office

AGUA CALIENTE BAND

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
03-020-2019-004
*Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project.
1499
Evan Mills <[email protected]>
Scoping Letter for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 3 messages
Evan Mills <[email protected]> Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:34 PM To: [email protected]
Good aŌernoon,
AƩached please find a scoping leƩer and map for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Thank you,
Evan
--Evan Mills | Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Associate Archaeologist
AE 20th.jpg
3350 E Florida Ave. suite H
Hemet, CA 92544
951-766-2000 office
www.appliedearthworks.com
3 attachments
image002.jpg
2K
Stapp_Webb_Sun Lakes Blvd Extension_4093.pdf
146K
SunLakes_RS_Arch_2020_.pdf
4468K
Evan Mills <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:51 AM To: [email protected]
Good morning,
Just a quick follow up on the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning, Riverside County. To Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - Scoping Letter for the Sun Lakes Boule... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=cbb83b259b&view=pt&search=all... 1 of 4 9/30/2020, 1:15 PM
1500
summarize, the Project involves the realignment and construcƟon of an extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard in the City of Banning. A literature and records search was conducted and 16 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a 1-mile buffer of the Project’s Area of PotenƟal Effects (APE), and 100 percent of the APE has been previously surveyed. The records search indicated 44 cultural resources are documented within the 1-mile buffer area, two of which are within the APE. The two resources within the APE are historic ranch properƟes and none of the features of these sites are within the current APE. No prehistoric resources were documented during the field survey.

Thank you,
Evan
[Quoted text hidden]
image002.jpg
2K
Stapp, Judy <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:49 PM To: Evan Mills <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Mills,
The Cabazon Band of Mission Indians has no archival information on the above referenced project indicating that it may be a site of Native American traditional cultural value.

Best regards,
Judy Stapp
Director of Cultural Affairs
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Evan Mills <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning,
Just a quick follow up on the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, in the City of Banning, Riverside County. To summarize, the Project involves the realignment and construction of an extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard in the City of Banning. A literature and records search was conducted and 16 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a 1-mile buffer of the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE), and 100 percent of the APE has been previously surveyed. The records search indicated 44 cultural resources are documented within the 1-mile buffer area, two of which are within the APE. The two resources within the APE are historic ranch properties and none of the features of these sites are within the current APE. No prehistoric resources were documented during the field survey.

Thank you,
Evan
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:34 PM Evan Mills <[email protected]<mailto:emills@ appliedearthworks.com>> wrote:

Good afternoon,
Attached please find a scoping letter and map for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Thank you,
Evan
--
Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - Scoping Letter for the Sun Lakes Boule... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=cbb83b259b&view=pt&search=all... 2 of 4 9/30/2020, 1:15 PM
1501
Evan Mills | Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Associate Archaeologist
[AE 20th.jpg]
3350 E Florida Ave. suite H
Hemet, CA 92544
951-766-2000
office
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.appliedearthworks.com&d=DwIGaQ&c= euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=PIrUKItrUlqYlakS_nEHszDwZ4DLle0t_bwS8fKxZaE&m= 092WP9Opw1XqyQoxb1GySbQiwfSaAYz1RvG12zJ9iCo&s=bY0fw0QQiM3_zbaxoOQhOJgW0sLzjctZSRLr6EYlGC s&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.appliedearthworks.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c= euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=PIrUKItrUlqYlakS_nEHszDwZ4DLle0t_bwS8fKxZaE&m= 092WP9Opw1XqyQoxb1GySbQiwfSaAYz1RvG12zJ9iCo&s=9JLdAHgsBmxgO6IhpOWhnsPFAV7vgn 3kECGxrrSGfGs&e=>
Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - Scoping Letter for the Sun Lakes Boule... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=cbb83b259b&view=pt&search=all... 3 of 4 9/30/2020, 1:15 PM
1502
Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - Scoping Letter for the Sun Lakes Boule... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=cbb83b259b&view=pt&search=all... 4 of 4 9/30/2020, 1:15 PM
1503
Evan Mills <[email protected]>
RE: Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California
1 message
Ryan Nordness <[email protected]> Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 9:26 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Jessica Mauck <[email protected]>
Hello Andrew Mills,
We want to thank you for reaching out to San Manuel in regards to the Sun Lakes Boulevard project. After reviewing resources in the APE buffer area, we do not have any sites in proximity or within the proposed location. That is not to say that there is a low potential for such resources, the site, only that we do not have such data in our files.

If you have any questions or comments for San Manuel Band of Mission Indians please reach out to me at your earliest convenience as I will be your Point of Contact going forward. I’d also like to add that is a pleasure to work with you again. It’s good to be working on something that isn’t Athos Solar haha.

Respectfully,
Ryan Nordness
Ryan Nordness

CULTURAL RESOURCE ANALYST
O: (909) 864-5050 x50-2022
Internal: 50-2022
M: 909-838-4053
26569 Community Center Dr Highland CA 92346

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS

ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify the sender by reply e-mail so that the email address record can be corrected. Thank You
Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - RE: Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=cbb83b259b&view=pt&search=all... 1 of 1 9/14/2020, 10:28 AM
1504
9/15/2020 Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - Scoping Letter for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=cbb83b259b&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1677834692964676279&simpl=msg-f%3A16778346929… 1/2 Evan Mills <[email protected]>
Scoping Letter for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project Marina Hendon <[email protected]> Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:24 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> No response needed as this is out of our area.

From: Melinda Flaxbeard <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 3:33 PM
To: Marina Hendon <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Scoping Letter for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project Respectfully,
Please note my email address has changed to [email protected] Linda Flaxbeard, CFO
PO Box 391820
Anza, CA 92539
951-659-2700
951-447-1933 cell
From: Evan Mills <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Melinda Flaxbeard <[email protected]>
Subject: Scoping Letter for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project Good afternoon,
Attached please find a scoping letter and map for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Thank you,
Evan
1505
9/15/2020 Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - Scoping Letter for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=cbb83b259b&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1677834692964676279&simpl=msg-f%3A16778346929… 2/2 --
Evan Mills | Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Associate Archaeologist
3350 E Florida Ave. suite H
Hemet, CA 92544
951-766-2000 office
www.appliedearthworks.com
1506
1507
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Fuel
On-Road Construction Trips1 45,273 Gallons
Off-Road Construction Equipment2 205,997 Gallons
Diesel Total 251,270 Gallons
On-Road Construction Trips1 8,985 Gallons
Off-Road Construction Equipment3 - Gallons
Gasoline Total 8,985 Gallons
Consumption
Table 1 – Total Construction-Related Fuel Consumption
Diesel
Gasoline
Notes:

1. On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod for construction in 2023 and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2017 web based data for Riverside County. See Table 2 for calculation details.

2. Off-road mobile source fuel usage based on a fuel usage rate of 0.05 gallons of diesel per horsepower (HP)-hour, based on SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9‐3E.

3. All emissions from off-road construction equipment were assumed to be diesel. 1508
Trips Trip length
Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Fuel Efficiency
(trips) (miles) (miles) (mpg) (Fuel) (gallon)
Worker2,3 18,305 14.7 269,084 29.3 Gasoline 8,985
Vendor4 2,092 6.9 14,435 9.6 Diesel 1,577
Hauling5 16,457 20 329,140 7.5 Diesel 43,695
Annual Fuel Usage1
Table 2 – On-Road Construction Trip Estimates
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Notes:

1. On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod output (See Air Quality/GHG Memo) for construction and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2017 web based data for 2023 in Riverside County.

2. Worker trips were assumed to be 100% gasoline powered vehicles.

3. Per CalEEMod, worker Trips were assumed to be 50% LDA, 25% LDT1, and 25% LDT2.

4. Vendor trips were assumed to be 50% MHDT and 50% HHDT, split evenly between the MHDT and HHDT construction categories.

5. Per CalEEMod, hauling trips were assumed to be 100% HHDT.

Trip Type
1509
Fuel Type Energy
Consumption Units
Street Lights1 154,053 kWh/year
Total Electricity 154,053 kWh/year
Table 3 – Annual Energy Consumption from Operation
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Electricity
Notes:

1. Street light electricity use from CalEEMod output (See Air Quality/GHG Memo).

2. Calculated based on the Project's annual water consumption from Conceptual Landscape Plan and CalEEMod defaults using CalEEMod SCAQMD energy intensity of 0.0111 kWhr per gallon for supply, distribution, and treatment of water and .013021 kWhr per gallon for supply, distribution, and treatment of water and wastewater treatment.

3. Mobile source fuel use based on annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod output for operational year 2022 and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2017 web based data in Riverside County.
1510
1511
41571 Corning Place, Suite 101 ■ Murrieta, California 92562 ■ Telephone 951.304.2300 ■ www.geoconinc.com Project No. T2881-22-02
October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
Eric Hays
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, California 92506
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION

SUN LAKES BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT

SOUTH HIGHLAND HOME ROAD TO SUNSET AVENUE

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hays,
In accordance with the Subconsultant Agreement, dated August 29, 2019, between Albert A. Webb Associates and Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon), we have prepared this report of our geotechnical investigation for the Sun Lakes Boulevard realignment circulation element update project, located in the City of Banning, California. The approximate limits of the project are depicted on the attached Vicinity Map (Figure 1). This report presents a summary of the methods used to explore the subsurface geologic conditions, results of our laboratory testing, and geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed improvements. Based on the results of this study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed roadway improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed.

Geocon should be afforded the opportunity to review the final project design and plans, and to revise this report and provide additional geotechnical recommendations as needed.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
We understand that Sun Lakes Boulevard will be realigned from South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue, along a section of road that currently exists as Westward Avenue, from Sun Lakes Boulevard’s current planned S-curve alignment that extends from South Highland Home Road to West Lincoln Street.

The City of Banning will update their General Plan Circulation Element to reflect the proposed alignment change. The site currently exists as a dirt roadway in most areas with a few utility substations along the south side of the road. Multiple utilities are located within and adjacent to the roadway. A locked gate was observed at the South Highland Home Road intersection with Sunset Avenue. Smith Creek crosses the western portion of the road near a utility substation and Montgomery Creek crosses the eastern portion of the road. Corrugated steel pipe culverts exist at the creek crossings and are buried in cemented riprap consisting of boulders and demolished construction debris. The creek crossings are paved over the culverts and riprap. Two white pipes were observed daylighting through the western and eastern hillsides on the south side of the road at the Smith Creek crossing. 1512
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 2 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
Project plans were not available for our review at the time of our field investigation; project information provided in May 2024 indicates the proposed improvements will consist of a new conventional asphalt concrete paved roadway and new box culverts at three drainage crossings. Additional site improvements are expected to include concrete flatwork and storm water catch basins and piping. We expect site earthwork to consist of cuts and fills of up to 10 feet to meet finish grade elevations, with approximately 10 feet of fill placed over the proposed box culverts. The proposed roadway alignment will be immediately north of the dirt road extending through the site.

Based on project -specific topographic information, the elevation at the west end of the proposed roadway is approximately 2,499 feet and at the east end approximately 2,436 feet. Low elevations at the proposed culvert locations are approximately 2,451 feet at the I Line, 2,452 feet at the J Line, and 2,412 feet at the K Line. Site topography at the culvert locations is shown on Figures 2-1 and 2-2, Site Maps.

The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during this investigation and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. If project details vary significantly from those described herein, Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The general purpose of this investigation was to drill eight geotechnical borings to observe and document the subsurface geologic conditions, collect soil samples for laboratory testing, and provide geotechnical recommendations for construction of the proposed improvements. Our scope of services included the following:
• Marking the proposed boring locations and notifying Underground Service Alert (USA) to locate and mark utilities within the proposed investigation area. • Acquiring an encroachment permit from the City of Banning. • Drilling eight geotechnical borings to observe the subsurface geologic conditions, collect relatively undisturbed in-situ and disturbed bulk samples for laboratory testing. • Performing laboratory testing of select soils samples which included maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, soil resistance value (R-value), grain size distribution, in-situ direct shear, and in-situ density and moisture content.
• Preparing this geotechnical pavement report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations as it pertains to the proposed improvements. 1513
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 3 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our subsurface investigation was conducted on September 17, 2019 by drilling eight 8-inch diameter geotechnical borings utilizing a truck mounted CME-75 drilling machine. The borings were drilled to depths of 6½ and 26½ feet below the existing ground surface in areas of the planned improvements to observe the subsurface geologic conditions, and to collect relatively undisturbed in-situ and disturbed bulk samples for laboratory testing. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are depicted on the Geologic Map (Figure 2).

Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation in accordance with current, generally accepted test methods of ASTM International (ASTM). We analyzed selected soil samples for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, soil resistance value (R-value), grain size distribution, in-situ direct shear, and in-situ density and moisture content. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on Figures B-1 through B-8 in Appendix B.

GEOLOGIC SETTING
The project site is located in the San Gorgonio Pass at the northern margin of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges are bounded on the north by the Transverse Ranges (San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains) and on the east by the San Andreas fault. The Peninsular Ranges Province extends southward into Mexico and westward past the Channel Islands. Geologic units within the Peninsular Ranges consist of granitic and metamorphic bedrock highlands and deep and broad alluvial valleys.

Locally, the site lies within the valley between the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains, west of the San Gorgonio River. Active drainages such as Smith Creek and Montgomery Creek flow southeast from the north, through the site, before merging along the base of the San Jacinto Mountains, and continuing east to join the San Gorgonio River. This broad valley is filled with older alluvial fan materials consisting of sand, gravel and granitic detritus shed from the San Jacinto Mountains dissected by active stream channels with sand and gravel deposits.
1514
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 4 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024

GEOLOGIC MATERIALS
Geologic units encountered during our investigation include undocumented fill (afu), Holocene-age alluvium (Qa), and Pleistocene-age Alluvial fan of the San Gorgonio Pass (Qf) deposits. The descriptions of the soil and geologic conditions are shown on the boring logs located in Appendix A and described below in order of increasing age. Geologic nomenclature of this report follows that of Dibblee (2003).

Undocumented Fill (afu)
Undocumented fill was encountered within borings B-7 and B-8 below the surface and asphalt concrete pavement to depths of approximately 5 feet. This unit generally consists of locally derived silty sand and poorly-graded sand with silt that is loose to medium dense, dry to moist, and yellowish brown and olive brown. Rusted metal debris were encountered within B-8 at approximately 4½ of depth.

Alluvium (Qa)
Alluvium was encountered at the surface and below the undocumented fill, near and within the active channel areas where borings B-2 and B-7 were drilled. The alluvium was encountered to depths of approximately 15 feet below the ground surface. The soils consist of silty sand, poorly-graded sand, and poorly-graded sand with silt that is loose to dense, damp to moist, and brown with hues of red, yellow, and olive.

Alluvial Fan of the San Gorgonio Pass (Qf)
Alluvial fan deposits were encountered at the ground surface in the areas of higher elevation outside, and below the alluvium and undocumented fill to the maximum depths explored within the borings. This unit consists of clayey sand, silty sand, poorly-graded sand, poorly-graded sand with silt, well-graded sand, and to a lesser extent sandy clay that is loose to very dense or stiff, dry to wet, and yellowish to reddish brown.

GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered during this investigation. Historic well data acquired from the California Department of Water Resources Water Data Library indicates the shallowest groundwater levels were measured at depths ranging between 243 and 271 feet below the ground surface within observation wells in the immediate vicinity of the site. During the wet weather season, localized perched water conditions may develop above less permeable units that may require special consideration during grading operations. Groundwater elevations and seepage are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, and land use, among other factors, and vary as a result.
1515
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 5 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024

SCOUR EVALUATION
Foundations should be properly protected against the potential scour or extended below the zone affected by scour. We obtained samples at various depths and performed grain size distribution analysis on the samples to provide information for a future scour analysis. The particle size at which 30, 50, and 90 percent is passing (D30, D50, D90) is presented in Table 1 below. Geocon should be contacted for additional parameters if needed.

TABLE 1
SOIL GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION D50 TEST RESULTS
Sample ID
(Boring Number & Sample Depth) D90 (mm) D50 (mm) D30 (mm) B-2 @ 7.5’ 1.2 0.14
B-2 @ 15’ 0.95 0.76 0.34
B-7 @ 10’ 1.3 0.31 0.18
B-7 @ 20’ 2.1 0.17 0.092

SEISMIC EVALUATION
Ground Motion Evaluation
The design response spectrum for the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE), as specified in Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria with October 2019 interim revisions (v2.0), is the probabilistic response spectrum representing the horizontal ground motion at the site with a 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 975 years). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2014 National Seismic Hazard Map is used as the basis to determine the design Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS). The ARS for the site was estimated using Caltrans’ ARS Online web tool (V3.1.0, accessed May 29, 2024). Table 2 summarizes the sitespecific information used for the analysis and the ARS Online results.

TABLE 2

ARS ONLINE SUMMARY
Approx.

Latitude,
°
Approx.

Longitude,
°
Estimated Shear
Wave Velocity
(VS30)1,
feet/second
Design Peak
Ground
Acceleration
(PGA)2,
g
Deaggregated Mean
Earthquake Moment
Magnitude (M)
Mean Site-toSource
Distance (R)3,
miles
Site
Soils
Class4

33.9179 -116.9197 656 0.69 6.84 7.3 S2
Notes:

1. Estimated time-average shear wave velocity for the upper 100 feet of soil at the site.

2. Where “g” represents the acceleration due to gravity.

3. Mean site-to-source distance for 1.0 second period spectral acceleration.

4. Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered within the foundation’s zone of influence and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria Sections 6.1 and 6.2.3 1516
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 6 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
The culverts are not located within a deep sedimentary basin per Caltrans ARS Online. Based on the subsurface materials encountered during our investigation, the site is generally underlain by loose to very dense relatively clean to silty/clayey sand and stiff sandy clay alluvial soils, which most closely reflects a Caltrans Soil Profile Type D. The shear wave velocity, VS30, was calculated from the average shear wave velocity of the four deeper borings along the project alignment using the shear wave correlations provided in Caltrans’ Methodology for Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations.

The recommended design response spectrum is presented as Figure 4 (Recommended Design Response Spectrum).

Fault Rupture
The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the State Geologist around known active faults or within a Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone. Local field reconnaissance revealed no indications of an active fault trace at the site. Review of available literature indicates there are no active fault traces within 1,000 feet of the project location. The USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database maps the nearest active (“Historical” and “Latest Quaternary”) fault as the San Gorgonio Pass Fault Zone located over 1 mile miles northeast of the project location. Given the above, no fault rupture hazard analysis is required for this project per Caltrans’ Memo to Designers 20-10, Fault Rupture.

Embankment Slope Stability
Assuming that new fill slopes and embankments are designed and properly constructed in accordance with Caltrans guidelines, typical slope inclinations 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, and with appropriate slope protection installed, global slope instability should not be a hazard for new embankments on the project. 1517
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 7 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We did not encounter soil or geologic conditions that would preclude the construction of the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during construction.

New Pavements – Conventional Pavement
The final pavement design should be based on R-value testing of soils at the subgrade following grading at the site. Paved areas at the site should be designed in accordance with the City of Banning Street Standards when final Traffic Indices and R-Value test results of subgrade soil are completed. Roadway classifications and traffic indices are based on the County of Riverside Ordinance 461. The civil engineer should evaluate the final traffic indices for the pavements and determine their applicability to the site.

Based on laboratory testing, we used an R-value of 25 for the preliminary pavement design recommendations. Preliminary flexible pavement sections are presented in Table 3 based on the County of Riverside Ordinance 461 and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

TABLE 3

PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Road Classification/Use Traffic Index Subgrade
R-Value
Asphalt
Concrete
(Inches)
Aggregate
Base
Materials
(Inches)
Local Street 5.5
25 4 7
Enhanced Local Street 6.5 4 9
Collector 7.0 5 10
Industrial Collector 8.0 6 11
Secondary Highway 8.5 6 12
The upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content.

The aggregate base materials and asphalt concrete materials should conform to Section 200-2.2 and Section 203-6, respectively, of the Greenbook. Base materials should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content.

Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of 95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D 2726.
1518
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 8 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
A rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in driveway aprons and cross gutters. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330R Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the parameters presented in Table 4.

TABLE 4

RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter Design Value
Modulus of subgrade reaction, k 120 pci
Modulus of rupture for concrete, MR 500 psi
Traffic Category, TC B, C, and D
Average daily truck traffic, ADTT 25, 300, and 700
Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum thickness as presented in Table 5.

TABLE 5

RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Location Portland Cement Concrete (inches)
Light Truck Traffic (TC = C) 6.0
Entrance / Driveway Aprons; Moderate Truck Traffic
(TC = C) 7.5
Entrance / Driveway Aprons; Heavy Truck Traffic (TC
= D) 8.0
The PCC pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture. This pavement section is based on a minimum concrete compressive strength of approximately 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch). Base material will not be required beneath concrete improvements.

A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete slabs subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab thickness or a minimum thickness of 2 inches, whichever results in a thicker edge, and taper back to the recommended slab thickness 4 feet behind the face of the slab (e.g., a 9-inch-thick slab would have an 11-inch-thick edge). Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes except for dowels at construction joints as discussed herein.
1519
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 9 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
In order to control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints (weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab in accordance with the referenced ACI report.

Performance of the pavements is highly dependent on providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of the pavement. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement surfaces will likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. Drainage from landscaped areas should be directed to controlled drainage structures. Landscape areas adjacent to the edge of asphalt pavements are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the underlying permeable aggregate base and cause distress. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, consideration should be given to incorporating measures that will significantly reduce the potential for subsurface water migration into the aggregate base. If planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should extend at least 6 inches below the level of the base materials.

Earthwork
Earthwork for the proposed improvements should be performed in accordance with Caltrans guidelines, the grading ordinances of the City of Banning, and the recommended grading specifications attached.

Prior to commencing earthwork, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the City inspector, City engineer, earthwork contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance.

Special soil handling and/or the improvement plans can be discussed at that time.

Site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious material, debris and vegetation.

The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site.

For grading of new roadways in areas outside of the creek channels, the previously placed undocumented fill (where encountered) and upper portion of alluvial fan material should be removed to expose competent alluvial fan material. Removals within creek channels is addressed in the section titled “Foundation Recommendations for Culverts.” Areas of loose, dry, or compressible soils, if encountered, will require deeper excavation and processing prior to fill placement. Removals should extend at least 3 feet below subgrade and into competent alluvial soils. The engineering geologist should evaluate the actual depth of removal during grading operations. The bottom of excavations should be proof-rolled with heavy equipment to observe yielding of the excavation bottom. The firm, unyielding bottom of the over excavation should then scarified to a depth of at least 1 foot, moisture conditioned at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557.
1520
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 10 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
The site should be brought to finish grade elevations with fill compacted in layers. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density, at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM D1557.

The upper 12 inches of subgrade in areas of vehicular traffic should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density, at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM D1557. Fill materials placed below the recommended moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill.

If perched groundwater, wet, or saturated materials are encountered, extensive drying and mixing with dryer soil will be required. The excavated materials should then be moisture conditioned as necessary to the recommended optimum moisture content prior to placement as compacted fill.

Where relatively loose, soft, or wet soils are encountered in the site excavations, subgrade stabilization may be required prior to placing fill or installing utilities. Where required, subgrade stabilization can be achieved by over excavating the loose or soft materials and replacing with compacted fill, placing 3-inch diameter rock in the soft bottom and working it into soil until it is stabilized, use of aggregate base fill with geogrid interlayers, or placing gravel wrapped in filter fabric at the bottom of the excavation.

Recommendations for stabilizing excavation bottoms should be based on an evaluation in the field by Geocon at the time of construction.

If needed, import fill should consist of granular materials with “low” expansion potential (EI of 50 or less), should not be corrosive, generally free of deleterious material and rock fragments larger than 6 inches, and should be compacted as recommended herein. Geocon should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to evaluate its suitability as fill material.
1521
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 11 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trenches should be properly backfilled in accordance with the requirements of the City of Banning and the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook).

The pipes should be bedded with well-graded crushed rock or clean sand (Sand Equivalent greater than 30) to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. The use of well-graded crushed rock is only acceptable if used in conjunction with filter fabric to prevent the gravel from having direct contact with soil.

The remainder of the trench backfill may be derived from onsite soil or approved import soil. Backfill of utility trenches should not contain rocks greater than 3 inches in diameter. The use of 2-sack slurry and controlled low strength material (CLSM) are also acceptable as backfill. However, consideration should be given to the possibility of differential settlement where the slurry ends and earthen backfill begins. These transitions should be minimized, and additional stabilization should be considered at these transitions.

Trench excavation bottoms must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer, prior to placing bedding materials, fill, gravel, or concrete.

Utility trench backfill should be placed in layers no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Utility backfill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density and moisture conditioned at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. Backfill at the finish subgrade elevation of new pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Backfill materials placed below the recommended moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill.
1522
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 12 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CULVERTS
The following foundation recommendations for culverts are based on the encountered subsurface conditions and our experience with similar projects/structures in similar geotechnical and geological conditions.

The proposed structures are expected to consist of cast-in-place (CIP) reinforced concrete box (RCB) culverts with structure details and loading conditions per Caltrans 2023 Standard Plan D81. Box culvert details are provided in Table 6. Box culvert alignments are shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, Site Map.

TABLE 6

BOX CULVERT INFORMATION
Culvert
ID Culvert Type
Culvert Location
(Sun Lakes Blvd
Stationing)
Culvert
Length, ft
Culvert Normal
Width, ft
Culvert Bottom
Average
Elevation, ft
I Line 7 cell, 10’ high by 14’
span, CIP RCB 69+60.23 140.1 104.3 2,448.8
J Line 6 cell, 10’ high by 14’
span, CIP RCB 66+12.83 269.0 89.6 2,451.3
K Line 7 cell, 10’ high by 14’
span, CIP RCB 97+90.11 119.6 104.3 2,409.6
Some remedial grading in the form of removal and re-compaction below the culvert bottoms should be anticipated to achieve competent and consistent bearing conditions. Previously placed undocumented fill (where encountered) and upper portion of alluvium material should be removed to expose competent alluvium. We anticipate that such remedial grading below the culverts would be on the order of at least 5 feet, and extend laterally 5 feet beyond the foundation footprint, or for a lateral distance equal to the depth of removal, whichever is greater. The engineering geologist will evaluate the limits of remedial grading in the field during grading operations.

Foundation excavations should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated.

Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation subgrade soil should be moisturized to maintain a moist condition prior to placement of concrete.
1523
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 13 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
Our analysis indicates that the soil conditions are suitable to support the proposed box culverts using the provided Standard Plan bearing pressures for a 10-foot earth cover with estimated total settlements ranging from approximately ½ inch to 2 inches. Table 7 summarizes the estimated total settlement for each box culvert structure.

TABLE 7

ESTIMATED BOX CULVERT TOTAL SETTLEMENT
Culvert ID Culvert Type Estimated Total Settlement, in.

I Line 7 cell, 10’ high by 14’ span, CIP RCB 1/2 inch
J Line 6 cell, 10’ high by 14’ span, CIP RCB 2/3 inch
K Line 7 cell, 10’ high by 14’ span, CIP RCB 2 1/4 inches Differential settlement is generally assumed to be approximately ½ the estimated total settlement. Given the generally granular soil conditions, settlement should be generally realized during the construction period. A one-week waiting period should be observed after final fill placement prior to pavement construction.

Headwalls
This section provides geotechnical recommendations for proposed headwalls up to 24 feet in height.

Associated ramp walls that are proposed at Culverts J (southeast headwall) and I (southwest headwall) are governed in design by their respective headwalls.

Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an EI of 50 or less. For walls where backfill materials do not conform to the criteria herein, Geocon should be consulted for additional recommendations.

Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, the walls should be designed for a soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 50 pcf.

Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer. 1524
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 14 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and waterproofed as required by the project architect. The soil immediately adjacent to the backfilled retaining wall should be composed of free draining material completely wrapped in Mirafi 140N (or equivalent) filter fabric for a lateral distance of 1 foot for the bottom two-thirds of the height of the retaining wall. The upper one-third should be backfilled with less permeable compacted fill to reduce water infiltration. Alternatively, a drainage panel, such as a Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, can be placed along the back of the wall. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted backfill (EI of 50 or less) with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are expected or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations.

We understand the CIP RCB culverts will have headwalls per Caltrans 2023 Standard Plan B3-1A. Table 8 summarizes the proposed headwall details.

TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED HEADWALLS
Structure Wall Type Foundation
Type
Bottom of Footing Elevation
(feet)
Length
(feet)
Maximum Design Height
(feet)
I Line NE
Type 1 Spread Footing
2,448.8
23 16
I Line NW 29 16
I Line SE 32 16
I Line SW 33 16
J Line NE
2,451.3
54 16
J Line NW 59 16
J Line SE 18 16
J Line SW 56 16
K Line NE
2,409.6
83 20
K Line NW 45 20
K Line SE 24 24
K Line SW 22 24
Notes:

Type 1 = Retaining Wall Type 1 (Case 1), Caltrans 2023 Standard Plan Sheet B3-1A 1525
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 15 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
Tables 9 through 12 summarize the Service, Strength, and Extreme Limit State analysis results for the headwall structures.

TABLE 9

SERVICE LIMIT STATE FOUNDATION DATA
Structure
Design
Height
(feet)
Bottom of
Footing
Elevation
(feet)
Footing
Width
(feet)
Minimum
Footing
Embedment
Depth
(feet)
Effective Footing
Width for
Service Limit
State
(feet)
Service Limit
State Net
Bearing Stress
(ksf)
Calculated
Settlement at Net
Bearing Pressure
(inches)
Total
Permissible
Settlement
(inches)
I Line NE
16 2,448.8

9.75 3.2 7.1

0.7 < 0.25

1.0 I Line NW
I Line SE
I Line SW
J Line NE
2,451.3 1.0
J Line NW
J Line SE
J Line SW
K Line NE
20 2,409.6

11.67 3.3 8.4 2.2 0.3
K Line NW
K Line SE
24 13.75 3.7 9.7 2.9 0.4
K Line SW
Note: 1) Calculated Net Uniform Bearing Stresses are negative due to overburden soil removed given the existing ground surface elevation, proposed bottom of footing elevations, and the design net bearing stresses provided in the project plans. 1526
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 16 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
TABLE 10

STRENGTH LIMIT STATE FOUNDATION DATA
Structure
Design
Height
(feet)
Bottom of
Footing
Elevation
(feet)
Footing
Width
(feet)
Minimum Footing
Embedment Depth
(feet)
Effective Footing
Width for Strength Ia
Limit State
(feet)
Strength Limit State
Gross Uniform Bearing
Stress
(ksf)
Strength Limit State
Factored Bearing
Resistance
(ksf)
ϕb (qn)
ϕb = 0.45
I Line NE
16 2,448.8

9.75 3.2 3.5 5.2

16.4 I Line NW
I Line SE
I Line SW
J Line NE
2,451.3 7.1
J Line NW
J Line SE
J Line SW
K Line NE
20 2,409.6

11.67 3.3 4.4 5.8 9.2
K Line NW
K Line SE
24 13.75 3.7 5.2 7.0

10.8 K Line SW 10.9
1527
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 17 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
TABLE 11

EXTREME LIMIT STATE FOUNDATION DATA
Structure
Design
Height
(feet)
Bottom of
Footing
Elevation
(feet)
Footing
Width
(feet)
Minimum
Footing
Embedment
Depth
(feet)
Effective
Footing
Width for
Extreme I
Limit State
(feet)
Extreme I
Limit State
Gross
Uniform
Bearing
Stress
(ksf)
Extreme I
Limit State
Factored
Bearing
Resistance
(ksf)
ϕb (qn)
ϕb = 1.0
Effective
Footing
Width for
Extreme II
Limit State
(feet)
Extreme II
Limit State
Gross
Uniform
Bearing
Stress
(ksf)
Extreme II
Limit State
Factored
Bearing
Resistance
(ksf)
ϕb (qn)
ϕb = 0.8
I Line NE
16 2,448.8

9.75 3.2 4.8 5.6

44.2 7.2 3.8

55.0 I Line NW
I Line SE 42.9 54.9
I Line SW
J Line NE
2,451.3

18.3 22.8
J Line NW
J Line SE 18.9 23.0
J Line SW 18.3 22.8
K Line NE
20 2,409.6

11.67 3.3 5.6 6.8 23.0 9.8 4.0

32.3 K Line NW 31.9
K Line SE
24 13.75 3.7 6.3 8.7 26.5 12.4 4.5

37.7 K Line SW 37.6
1528
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 18 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
TABLE 12

SPREAD FOOTING DATA
Structure
Design
Height
(feet)
Service Limit State
Permissible Net
Contact Stress
(ksf)
Strength Factored Gross Nominal
Bearing Resistance for Controlling
Load Case
ϕb = 0.45
(ksf)
Extreme Event Factored Gross
Nominal Bearing Resistance for
Controlling Load Case
ϕb = 0.8
(ksf)
I Line NE
16 20.4

16.4 44.2
I Line NW 18.3
I Line SE 17.4 42.9
I Line SW 17.1
J Line NE

12.9 7.1

18.3 J Line NW
J Line SE 14.6 18.9
J Line SW 12.9 18.3
K Line NE
20 6.6 9.2 23.0
K Line NW
K Line SE
24 7.4 10.8

26.5 K Line SW 7.5 10.9
Based on the results of our analyses and assuming that wall foundations are founded in compacted engineered fill founded on undisturbed native soils as recommended in this report, the spread footing details shown in the project plans are considered appropriate for the support of the proposed headwalls.

Miscellaneous Structures
Within the creek channel areas, foundations for structures such as landscape or retaining walls may be supported on conventional foundations following remedial grading and bearing on a minimum of 4 feet of newly placed engineered fill that extend laterally 4 feet beyond the foundation footprint, or for a lateral distance equal to the depth of removal, whichever is greater. For separate structures outside of creek channel areas, the foundations should bear on a minimum of 2 feet of newly placed engineered fill that extend laterally 2 feet beyond the foundation footprint, or for a lateral distance equal to the depth of removal, whichever is greater. Where excavation and compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, such as adjacent to utilities or property lines, foundations may derive support in the undisturbed alluvium or alluvial fan material found at or below a depth of 5 feet and 3 feet, respectively, and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into undisturbed alluvium or alluvial fan material.

Foundation excavations must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. 1529
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 19 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
Miscellaneous foundations deriving support in newly placed engineered fill may be designed for a bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) and should be a minimum of 18 inches in width, a minimum of 12 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade, and a minimum of 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer.

Lateral Design
Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations, slabs and by passive earth pressure. A passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf with a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 psf should be used for the design of footings or shear keys poured neat against newly compacted fill. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance.

If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between newly compacted fill soil and concrete of 0.35 should be used for design. When combining passive pressure and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third.

Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein assuming the subgrade materials possess an Expansion Index of 50 or less.

Subgrade soils should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction at a moisture content 0 to 2 percent above optimum as determined by ASTM D1557. Slab panels should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and when in excess of 8 feet square should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on in both directions to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the earthwork section prior to concrete placement.

Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be verified prior to placing concrete. Base materials will not be required below concrete improvements.

Even with the incorporation of the recommendations of this report, the exterior concrete flatwork has a potential to experience some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade or differential settlement. 1530
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 20 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
The steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the potential for vertical offsets within flatwork.

The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of exterior slabs as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, concrete slabs will still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction.

Temporary Excavations
The recommendations included herein are provided for stable excavations. It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide a safe excavation during the construction of the proposed project.

Temporary excavations should be made in conformance with OSHA requirements and as directed by the assigned competent person in the field (contractor). In general, special shoring requirements may not be necessary if temporary excavations will be less than 4 feet in height. Temporary excavations greater than 4 feet in height, however, should be sloped back at an appropriate inclination based on the material type, and as determined by the contractor during construction. These excavations should not be allowed to become saturated or to dry out. Surcharge loads should not be permitted to a distance equal to the height of the excavation from the top of the excavation. The top of the excavation should be a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing improvements. Excavations steeper than those recommended or closer than 15 feet from an existing surface improvement should be shored in accordance with applicable OSHA codes and regulations.

Where there is insufficient space for sloped excavations, shoring or trench shields should be used to support excavations. Shoring may also be necessary where sloped excavation could remove vertical or lateral support of existing improvements, including existing utilities and adjacent structures.

Where sloped embankments are utilized, the top of the slope should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the slope.

If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. The contractor’s competent person should inspect the soils exposed in the cut slopes during excavation in accordance with OSHA regulations so that modifications of the slopes can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur. 1531
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 21 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
Proper site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2016 CBC 1804.4 and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices.

Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time.

Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas have the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement’s subgrade and base course. Where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommend construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material.

If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to infiltration areas. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeology study at the site. Down-gradient and adjacent structures may be subjected to seeps, movement of foundations and slabs, or other impacts as a result of water infiltration.
1532
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - 22 - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024
Plan Review
Geocon should be afforded the opportunity review the improvement plans for the project prior to final submittal, to verify that the plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations of this report. Additional analyses may be required after review of the project plans.

Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Very truly yours,
GEOCON WEST, INC.

Andrew Shoashekan
PE 93940
Ronald E. Loutzenhiser
GE 2865
ATS:LAB:REL:hd
Lisa A. Battiato
CEG 2316
Attachments: LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

LIST OF REFERENCES

FIGURES
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figures 2-1 through 2-3, Site Map
Figure 3, Geologic Map
Figure 4, Recommended Design Response Spectrum

APPENDIX A
Figures A-1 through A-8, Logs of Borings

APPENDIX B
Figures B-1 & B-2, Modified Compaction Test of Soils
Figures B-3 & B-4, Direct Shear Test
Figures B-5 through B-8, Grain Size Distribution

APPENDIX C
Recommended Grading Specifications
Distribution: Addressee (Email)
1533
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation.

If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon West, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon West, Inc.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of their representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the engineer and contractor for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.

The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. 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 should not be relied upon after a period of three years.

The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. 1534
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024

REFERENCES

1. Albert A. Webb Associates, 2024, Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension, WO 2020-0126, dated May 29.

2. American Concrete Institute, 2008, Report 330R-08, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots, undated.

3. California Department of Transportation, Geotechnical Services Design Manual, latest versions of the individual modules.

4. California Department of Transportation, 2023, Standard Specifications, undated.

5. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2023, Standard Plan B3-1A and D81.

6. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2020, Highway Design Manual.

7. California Department of Transportation, 2017, Foundation Reports for ERS, month of February.

8. California Department of Transportation, ARS Online (Version 3.1.0), accessed May 29, 2024.

9. Dibblee, Thomas W. Jr., 2003, Geologic Map of the Beaumont 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, Dibblee Foundation Report DF-114.

10. Dokken Engineering, 2024, Storm Drain Improvement, WO 2020-0126, dated March 11.

11. Public Works Standards, Inc., 2015, “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Published by BNI Building News.
1535

BEAUMONT

PROJECT
SITE

BANNING
B ST

MAIN ST
16TH ST
W 5TH S T

W LINCOLN ST
17TH ST
E 2ND ST
N 4TH ST
E 3RD ST
E 5TH S T

JOHN S T
E 9TH ST

MOUNTAIN AVE
E 14TH ST

E LINCOLN ST

E WILLIAMS ST

E NICOLET ST

W GILMAN ST

ELM AVE

E RAMSEY ST

E BARBOUR ST

CHARLES ST

WESLEY ST

EUCLID AVE

VEILE AVE

SUN LAKES B L VD

W GEORGE ST
STATE HWY 79

HILL TOP DR

S HI RLEON DR

WESTWARD AVE

N HARGRAVE ST

B RECKENRI D GE AVE

LINCOLN ST
M I AS
CAN
YON R
D

ORANGE AVE

COU N TR Y C LU B DR

N ALESSANDRO ST
FOU
R

S EAS O N S C IR

MICHIGAN AVE

LONGHORN RD

N S AN GORGONI O
AVE

RIV I ER A
AVE

COUGAR WAY
PALM
AVE
PENNSYLVANIA AVE E 8TH ST
E 6TH ST
E 1ST ST

W WESTWARD AVE

W WILLIAMS ST

W NICOLET ST

STAR L I G H T AVE

MOU N T ED
NA R D

CHERRY AVE

BROOKSIDE AVE
US H WY 243

OAK VAL L EY PKW Y

HI G HLAND

SPR ING S AVE
BEAU
M

ONT AVE

BLUFF S T

W WILSON ST

W RAMS EY S T

SUNSET AVE

OLD ID Y LL WI L DR D

S ILVE R S P U R RT
L
Hath
a
w
ay
Cre e
N
k
oble Creek
San Gorgonio River
Montg
o
m
ery Creek
Smith Creek
Potrero Creek
Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community
GEOCON 5/20/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\T2881-22-01_Sun_Lakes_Blvd\01_ReportMaps\Figure_1_Vicinity_Map.mxd 0 1
Scale in Miles
N
W E S T , I N C .
4157 CORNING PLACE - SUITE 101 - MURRIETA, CA 92562
PHONE 951.304.2300 - FAX 651.304.2392

GE OT E C H N I C A L E N V I R ON M N E T A L M A T E R I A L S T2881-22-02 JUNE 2024 Figure 1

VICNITY MAP
South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue
Banning, California
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment

SACRAMENTO
SAN

FRANCISCO

LOS ANGELES

SAN DIEGO

PROJECT

LOCATION

REDDING

BAKERSFIELD
FRESNO
1536
49+50.9350+00.00 51+00.00 52+00.00 53+00.00 54+00.00 55+00.00 56+00.00 57+00.00 58+00.00 59+00.00
60+00.00 61+00.00 62+00.00 63+00.00 64+00.00 65+00.00 66+00.00 67+00.00 68+00.00 69+00.00 70+00.00 71+00.00 72+00.00 73+00.00 74+00.00 75+00.00 76+00.00 77+00.00 78+00.00 79+00.00 80+00.00 81+00.00 82+00.00 83+00.00 84+00.00 85+00.00 86+00.00 87+00.00 88+00.00 89+00.00 90+00.00 91+00.00 92+00.00 93+00.00 94+00.00 95+00.00 96+00.00 97+00.00 98+00.00 99+00.00 100+00.00 101+00.00
102+00.00 103+00.00 104+00.00 105+00.00 106+00.00 107+00.00 108+00.00 109+00.00109+53.88

PROJECT
SITE 1 PROJECT
SITE 2
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6
B-7
B-8

MOHAWK RD

RAINBOW LN SOBOBA DR SUNSHINE ST

W LINCOLN ST

W JEFFERSON ST
BIG
S
PRI NG
DR
BROOK
L
AW
N
D R

S BAY HILL RD

HIGHLAND HOME RD S HIGHLAND HOME RD

SUNSET AVE

LI NCOLN ST

WESTWARD AVE
0 400
Scale in Feet
Legend
Approximate Boring Location
Approximate Site Boundary
GEOCON 5/21/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\T2881-22-01_Sun_Lakes_Blvd\01_ReportMaps\Figure_2-1_Overall_Site_Map.mxd B-8
W E S T , I N C .
4157 CORNING PLACE - SUITE 101 - MURRIETA, CA 92562
PHONE 951.304.2300 - FAX 651.304.2392

GE OT E C H N I C A L E N V I R ON M N E T A L M A T E R I A L S T2881-22-02 JUNE 2024 Figure 2-1

OVERALL SITE MAP
South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue
Banning, California
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
1537
9+25.00
10+00 .00
11+00 .00
12+00 .00
13+00 .00
14+00 .00
14+41 .78
9+50.00
10+50 .00
11+50 .00
12+50 .00
13+50 .00
9+33.00
10+00 .00 11+00 .00
12+00 .00
12+99 .01
9+50.00
10+50 .00 11+50 .00
12+50 .00
60+00.00 61+00.00 62+00.00 63+00.00 64+00.00 65+00.00 66+00.00 67+00.00 68+00.00 69+00.00 70+00.00 71+00.00 72+00.00 73+00.00 74+00.00 75+00.00 76+00.00

J LINE I LINE
B-2

WESTWARD AVE
B-3
2486
2485
2484
2482
2474
2459
2458
2457
2456
2454
2444
2483
2475
2464
2476
2469
2477
2470
2468
2455
2445
2471
2460
2452
2483
2482
2481
2480
2479
2478
2477
2476
2475
2474
2467
2466
2465
2464
2463
2462
2460
2468
2461
2469
2459
2470
2457
2458
2465
2459
2463
2461
2464
2462
2460
2455
2452
2484
2483
2482
2481
2471
2470
2469
2467
2486
2485
2483
2482
2481
2455
2454
2431
2430
2429
2490
2489
2490
2489
2490
2489
2487
2486
2484
2482
2474
2473
2473
2472
2456
2453
2466
2463
2456
2458
2481
2480
2479
2473
2472
2467
2465
2462
2461
2451
2450
2449
2442
2472
2471
2470
2454
2453
2455
2451
2468
2465
2460
2437
2436
2484
2467
2466
2457
2454
2456
2453
2433
2488
2466
2471
2452
2432
2481
2480
2478
2474
2471
2469
2463
2458
2458
2458
2455
2455
2455
2453
2453
2451
2448
2446
2447
2440
2434
2486
2456
0 100
Scale in Feet
Legend
Approximate Boring Location
1-Foot Elevation Contours
Approximate Site Boundary
GEOCON 5/29/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\T2881-22-01_Sun_Lakes_Blvd\01_ReportMaps\Figure_2-2_Site_Map_1.mxd B-3
W E S T , I N C .
4157 CORNING PLACE - SUITE 101 - MURRIETA, CA 92562
PHONE 951.304.2300 - FAX 651.304.2392

GE OT E C H N I C A L E N V I R ON M N E T A L M A T E R I A L S T2881-22-02 JUNE 2024 Figure 2-2
SITE MAP - AREA 1
South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue
Banning, California
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
1538
9+45.00
10+00 .00
11+00 .00
12+00 .00
12+95 .96
9+50.00
10+50 .00
11+50 .00
12+50 .00
K LINE
B-6
B-7
B-8

WESTWARD AVE
2457
2456
2455
2454
2450
2449
2448
2447
2446
24452444
2443
2442
2441
2436
2435
2440
2439
2438
2437
2434
2433
2432
2419
2418
2417
2437
2436
2435
2434
2433
2432
2431
2430
2429
2422
2419
2428
2427
2426
2425
2408
2407
2406
2415
2405
2404
2436
2435
2433
2432
2440
2439
2437
2434
2431
2424
2423
2420
2461
2460
2459
2440
2439
2437
2436
2435
2416
2415
2445
2444
2424
2423
2439
2438
2429
2425
2453
2452
2451
2431
2430
2428
2427
2426
2424
2422
2421
2420
2438
2424
2423
2421
2420
2414
2413
2403
2412
2429
2458
2454
2432
2418
2446
2441
2438
2437
2434
2435
2434
2431
2431
2428
2423
2421
2418
2414
2409
2413
2411
2405
2402
0 100
Scale in Feet
Legend
Approximate Boring Location
1-Foot Elevation Contours
Approximate Site Boundary
GEOCON 5/29/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\T2881-22-01_Sun_Lakes_Blvd\01_ReportMaps\Figure_2-3_Site_Map_2.mxd B-8
W E S T , I N C .
4157 CORNING PLACE - SUITE 101 - MURRIETA, CA 92562
PHONE 951.304.2300 - FAX 651.304.2392

GE OT E C H N I C A L E N V I R ON M N E T A L M A T E R I A L S T2881-22-02 JUNE 2024 Figure 2-3
SITE MAP - AREA 2
South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue
Banning, California
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
1539
Qf
Qa

PROJECT
SITE 1 PROJECT
SITE 2
Unit Explantion
Geologic Map of the Barumont Quadrangle, Riverside County, California; Thomas W. Dibblee, Jr. and John A. Minch; 2003 Qa Surficial Sediments
Qf Alluvial fan San Gorgonio Pass
0 500
Scale in Feet !(¹N
GEOCON 3/27/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\T2881-22-01_Sun_Lakes_Blvd\01_ReportMaps\Figure_3_Geologic_Map.mxd WEST, INC.
4157 CORNING PLACE - SUITE 101 - MURRIETA, CA 92562
PHONE 951.304.2300 - FAX 651.304.2392

GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMNETAL MATERIALS
T2881-22-01 May 2024 Figure 3

GEOLOGIC MAP
South Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue
Banning, California
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
1540
ARS Data for:

Soil Profile (VS30): 200 m/s
or: 656 ft/s
Rupture Distance: R: 11.8 km
or: 7.3 mi
PGA (HPGA): 0.69 g
T2881-22-01 May 2024 Figure 4
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
-116.919700
Longitude, degrees

33.917900
Latitude, degrees
Period, T
(s)

5.00 4.00

3.00 2.00
Spectral Acceleration,
Sa (g)

1.70 0.69

1.11 0.20

RECOMMENDED DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
California
Banning,
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
The ARS curve was developed based on the USGS 2014
national Seismic Hazard Map for a 975 year return period (Hazard Model/Edition Dynamic Conterminous U.S. 2014
(Update) (V4.2.0) hazard data obtained by using ARS Online v3.1.0). Modifications for basin effects and/or near fault effects were applied, where applicable, per Appendix B of SDC v2.0 with October 2019 Interim Revisions.

SEE Design - Ground Motion Data Sheet
PGA Mean Moment
Magnitude (M) for PGA: 6.84

0.30 0.10

0.00 Seismic Loading Table

1.03 1.59

1.66 1.74

0.72 0.52

0.39 0.50

0.75 1.00

1.47 0.0

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8

1.0 1.2

1.4 1.6

1.8 2.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Spectral Acceleration, Sa(g)
Period (s)
Acceleration Response Spectrum
5% Damping
1541

APPENDIX A
1542
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - A - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024

APPENDIX A

EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS
We performed the field investigation on September 17, 2019. Our subsurface exploration consisted of excavating eight geotechnical borings utilizing a truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drill rig. The borings were drilled to depths of 6½ and 26½ feet below the existing ground surface in areas of the planned improvements. We collected bulk and relatively undisturbed samples from the borings by driving a 3-inch O. D., California Modified Sampler into the “undisturbed” soil mass with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches or a slide hammer. The California Modified Sampler was equipped with 1-inch high by 2 3/8-inch inside diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate removal and testing. Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of soils were transported to our laboratory for testing.

The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logs of the borings are presented on Figures A-1 through A-8. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The approximate locations of the borings are indicated the Geologic Map (Figure 2).
1543

9.3 8.5
SM
SC 75
96 ALLUVIAL FAN OF THE SAN GORGONIO PASS (Qf)
Silty SAND, dense, damp, reddish brown; fine to medium sand with few coarse sand
Clayey SAND, dense, moist, light reddish brown; fine to medium sand; calcium carbonate deposits; porous
- becomes very dense
Total Depth = 6'-6"
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings 9/17/2019
B-1@0-5
[email protected]
B-1@5

IN HAMMER TYPE
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
DRILLER PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.)

DEPTH DATE COMPLETED
SAMPLE

INTERVAL
&

RECOVERY
ENG./GEO. 2R Drilling

HOLLOW STEM

AUGER DRY DENSITY
BORING B-1
9/17/19
A.Shoashekan GROUNDWATER CONTENT (%)
... CHUNK SAMPLE
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 SOIL ELEV. (MSL.) TESTS LITHOLOGY
IN PROGRESS T2881-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 05/29/24
(USCS)

EQUIPMENT
2490.5
Figure A1, Log of Boring, page 1 of 1
(P.C.F.) MOISTURE

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

CLASS ADDITIONAL
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO. T2881-22-01 PROJECT NAME Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Autohammer
1544

6.9 7.5
SP-SM
SM
SP-SM
SM
SP-SM
CL
24 17
17 25
73 66
36 UNDOCUMENTED FILL (afu)
Poorly-graded SAND with silt and some gravel, dense, damp, reddish brown; fine to medium sand with few coarse sand ALLUVIUM (Qa)
Silty SAND, medium dense, moist, brown; fine sand; porous Poorly-graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist,
yellowish brown; fine to medium sand
Silty SAND, medium dense, moist, yellowish brown; fine
sand; porous
-becomes damp; porous; increase in sand content
ALLUVIAL FAN OF THE SAN GORGONIO PASS (Qf)
Poorly-graded SAND with silt and little gravel, dense, wet, yellowish brown; fine to coarse sand
-becomes medium dense
Sandy CLAY, stiff, moist, red; fine to coarse sand; porous; manganese staining
Total Depth = 26'-6"
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings 9/17/2019
[email protected]
B-2@5
[email protected]
B-2@10
B-2@10-15
B-2@15
B-2@20
B-2@25

IN HAMMER TYPE
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
DRILLER PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.)

DEPTH DATE COMPLETED
SAMPLE

INTERVAL
&

RECOVERY
ENG./GEO. 2R Drilling

HOLLOW STEM

AUGER DRY DENSITY
BORING B-2
9/17/19
A.Shoashekan GROUNDWATER CONTENT (%)
... CHUNK SAMPLE
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 SOIL ELEV. (MSL.) TESTS LITHOLOGY
IN PROGRESS T2881-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 05/29/24
(USCS)

EQUIPMENT
2463
Figure A2, Log of Boring, page 1 of 1
(P.C.F.) MOISTURE

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

PROJECT NO. T2881-22-01 PROJECT NAME Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Autohammer
1545

10.3 6.8
SC
SP
SP-SM
SM
SP
50/5"
50/6"
98/11"
64 88/10"
50/6"
95 ALLUVIAL FAN OF THE SAN GORGONIO PASS (Qf)
Clayey SAND, very dense, damp, reddish brown; fine to
medium sand
-becomes moist
Poorly-graded SAND, very dense, moist, olive; fine to medium sand; manganese staining, granitic clast
Poorly-graded SAND with silt, very dense, moist, light olive brown; fine to medium sand; granitic clast
Silty SAND, dense, moist, reddish brown; fine sand
Poorly-graded SAND, very dense, moist, yellowish brown; medium sand; granictic clast
- fine to coarse sand; granitic clast
- becomes olive yellow
Total Depth = 26'-6"
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings 9/17/2019
[email protected]
B-3@5
[email protected]
B-3@10
B-3@15
B-3@20
B-3@25

IN HAMMER TYPE
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
DRILLER PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.)

DEPTH DATE COMPLETED
SAMPLE

INTERVAL
&

RECOVERY
ENG./GEO. 2R Drilling

HOLLOW STEM

AUGER DRY DENSITY
BORING B-3
9/17/19
A.Shoashekan GROUNDWATER CONTENT (%)
... CHUNK SAMPLE
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 SOIL ELEV. (MSL.) TESTS LITHOLOGY
IN PROGRESS T2881-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 05/29/24
(USCS)

EQUIPMENT
2483.5
Figure A3, Log of Boring, page 1 of 1
(P.C.F.) MOISTURE

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

PROJECT NO. T2881-22-01 PROJECT NAME Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Autohammer
1546

6.8 8.5
SM
SC 26
28 ALLUVIAL FAN OF THE SAN GORGONIO PASS (Qf)
Silty SAND with few gravel, medium dense, damp, reddish brown; fine to medium sand
Clayey SAND, medium dense, damp, reddish brown; fine to medium sand; calcium carbonate stringers
-becomes moist
Total Depth = 6'-6"
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings 9/17/2019
B-4@0-5
[email protected]
B-4@5

IN HAMMER TYPE
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
DRILLER PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.)

DEPTH DATE COMPLETED
SAMPLE

INTERVAL
&

RECOVERY
ENG./GEO. 2R Drilling

HOLLOW STEM

AUGER DRY DENSITY
BORING B-4
9/17/19
A.Shoashekan GROUNDWATER CONTENT (%)
... CHUNK SAMPLE
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 SOIL ELEV. (MSL.) TESTS LITHOLOGY
IN PROGRESS T2881-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 05/29/24
(USCS)

EQUIPMENT
2480
Figure A4, Log of Boring, page 1 of 1
(P.C.F.) MOISTURE

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

PROJECT NO. T2881-22-01 PROJECT NAME Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Autohammer
1547

8.0 10.3
SC
SM
38 50
ALLUVIAL FAN OF THE SAN GORGONIO PASS (Qf)
Clayey SAND, dense, damp, brown; fine to medium sand with few coarse sand
-becomes medium dense, moist; calcium carbonate stringers; porous
Silty SAND, dense, moist, yellowish brown; fine to medium sand; porous; trace calcium carbonate stringers
Total Depth = 6'-6"
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings 9/17/2019
B-5@0-5
[email protected]
B-5@5

IN HAMMER TYPE
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
DRILLER PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.)

DEPTH DATE COMPLETED
SAMPLE

INTERVAL
&

RECOVERY
ENG./GEO. 2R Drilling

HOLLOW STEM

AUGER DRY DENSITY
BORING B-5
9/17/19
A.Shoashekan GROUNDWATER CONTENT (%)
... CHUNK SAMPLE
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 SOIL ELEV. (MSL.) TESTS LITHOLOGY
IN PROGRESS T2881-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 05/29/24
(USCS)

EQUIPMENT
2465
Figure A5, Log of Boring, page 1 of 1
(P.C.F.) MOISTURE

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

PROJECT NO. T2881-22-01 PROJECT NAME Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Autohammer
1548

6.0 6.6
SM
SP
SW
SP-SM
15 14
16 20
18 43
29 ALLUVIAL FAN OF THE SAN GORGONIO PASS (Qf)
Silty SAND, loose, dry, light brownish gray; fine sand
-becomes damp; trace porosity
-increase in porosity
-becomes medium dense
Poorly-graded SAND, medium dense, moist, light yellowish brown; fine to coarse sand
Well-graded SAND, medium dense, moist, light yellowish
brown; fine to coarse sand
Poorly-graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist,
yellowish brown; fine sand; trace calcium carbonate stringers Total Depth = 26'-6"
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings 9/17/2019
[email protected]
B-6@5
[email protected]
B-6@10
B-6@15
B-6@20
B-6@25

IN HAMMER TYPE
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
DRILLER PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.)

DEPTH DATE COMPLETED
SAMPLE

INTERVAL
&

RECOVERY
ENG./GEO. 2R Drilling

HOLLOW STEM

AUGER DRY DENSITY
BORING B-6
9/17/19
A.Shoashekan GROUNDWATER CONTENT (%)
... CHUNK SAMPLE
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 SOIL ELEV. (MSL.) TESTS LITHOLOGY
IN PROGRESS T2881-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 05/29/24
(USCS)

EQUIPMENT
2437
Figure A6, Log of Boring, page 1 of 1
(P.C.F.) MOISTURE

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

PROJECT NO. T2881-22-01 PROJECT NAME Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Autohammer
1549

5.3 12.2

3.1 8.3
SP-SM
SM
SP-SM
SM
SP
SP-SM
SM
12 14
28 12
35 31
34 PAVEMENT
4" asphalt concrete section
UNDOCUMENTED FILL (afu)
Poorly-graded SAND with silt, loose, dry, yellowish
brown;fine to coarse sand
Silty SAND, loose, moist, olive brown; fine sand
ALLUVIUM (Qa)
Poorly-graded SAND with silt, loose, moist, olive brown; fine sand
Silty SAND, medium dense, moist, yellowish brown; fine to medium sand with few coarse; trace calcium carbonate
stringers
Poorly-graded SAND, medium dense, moist, yellowish brown; fine to coarse sand
Poorly-graded SAND with silt, loose, damp, yellowish brown; fine to medium sand; trace calcium carbonate stringers; trace porosity
ALLUVIAL FAN OF THE SAN GORGONIO PASS (Qf)
Silty SAND, medium dense, moist, olive brown; fine to
medium sand; trace calcium carbonate stringers; trace porosity -becomes yellowish brown; fine to coarse sand
-fine to medium sand
Total Depth = 26'-6"
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings 9/17/2019
[email protected]
B-7@5
[email protected]
B-7@8-13
B-7@10
B-7@15
B-7@20
B-7@25

IN HAMMER TYPE
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
DRILLER PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.)

DEPTH DATE COMPLETED
SAMPLE

INTERVAL
&

RECOVERY
ENG./GEO. 2R Drilling

HOLLOW STEM

AUGER DRY DENSITY
BORING B-7
9/17/19
A.Shoashekan GROUNDWATER CONTENT (%)
... CHUNK SAMPLE
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 SOIL ELEV. (MSL.) TESTS LITHOLOGY
IN PROGRESS T2881-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 05/29/24
(USCS)

EQUIPMENT
2416
Figure A7, Log of Boring, page 1 of 1
(P.C.F.) MOISTURE

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

PROJECT NO. T2881-22-01 PROJECT NAME Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Autohammer
1550

6.0 5.3
SM
SM
SW
39 12
22 27
31 46
90 UNDOCUMENTED FILL (afu)
Silty SAND, medium dense, dry, light yellowish brown; fine sand with few medium and coarse sand
- becomes damp
- debris
ALLUVIAL FAN OF THE SAN GORGONIO PASS (Qf)
Silty SAND, loose, damp, light yellowish brown; fine to medium sand
- becomes medium dense; porous; calcium carbonate stringers Well-graded SAND, very dense, moist, light yellowish brown; fine to coarse sand
Total Depth = 26' -6"
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings 9/17/2019
B-8@0-5
[email protected]
B-8@5
[email protected]
B-8@10
B-8@15
B-8@20
B-8@25

IN HAMMER TYPE
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
DRILLER PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.)

DEPTH DATE COMPLETED
SAMPLE

INTERVAL
&

RECOVERY
ENG./GEO. 2R Drilling

HOLLOW STEM

AUGER DRY DENSITY
BORING B-8
9/17/19
A.Shoashekan GROUNDWATER CONTENT (%)
... CHUNK SAMPLE
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 SOIL ELEV. (MSL.) TESTS LITHOLOGY
IN PROGRESS T2881-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 05/29/24
(USCS)

EQUIPMENT
2422
Figure A8, Log of Boring, page 1 of 1
(P.C.F.) MOISTURE

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

PROJECT NO. T2881-22-01 PROJECT NAME Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Autohammer
1551

APPENDIX B
1552
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - B - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
We performed laboratory tests in accordance with current generally accepted test methods of ASTM International (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. We analyzed selected soil samples for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, grain size distribution, soil resistance value (R-value), and direct shear strength. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on Figures B-1 through B-8. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.
1553
Sample No:
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(%)
(pcf)
(pcf)
Preparation Method:

Project No.: T2881-22-01
Checked by: ATS

MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF
SOILS Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
South Highland Home Road to Sunset Aveune
Banning, California ASTM D-1557
October 2019 Figure B-1
5 6
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6367 6430 6417 6262
TEST NO. 1 2 3 4
Net Weight of Soil 2085 2148 2135 1980
Weight of Mold 4282 4282 4282 4282
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 733.5 753.1 741.3 744.7
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 760.7 790.2 788.5 763.9
Moisture Content 5.7 7.5 9.8 3.9
Weight of Container 258.2 255.5 258.5 258.1
Wet Density 138.0 142.2 141.3 131.1
B
Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 132.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%) 8.0 B-7@8-13' silty SAND (SM), yellowish brown
Dry Density 130.5 132.3 128.7 126.1
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
S.G. 2.65
S.G. 2.7
S.G. 2.75
1554
Sample No:
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(%)
(pcf)
(pcf)
Preparation Method:

Project No.: T2881-22-01
October 2019 Figure B-2
A
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Bulk Specific Gravity (dry)

8.0 7.0
Corrected Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 7.5
Optimum Moisture Content (%)
Oversized Fraction (%)
Corrected Moisture Content (%)
131.5

2.62 133.5
Dry Density 126.5 130.9 128.2 121.2
Wet Density 133.1 140.4 140.3 125.3
Moisture Content 5.2 7.3 9.4 3.4
Weight of Container 256.9 256.7 255.2 257.6
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 730.7 738.0 713.9 736.3
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 755.4 773.1 757.2 752.7
Net Weight of Soil 2005 2114 2112 1887
Weight of Mold 4282 4282 4282 4282
1 2 3 4
B-4 & B-5 @0-5' MIX clayey SAND (SC), reddish brown
Checked by: ATS

MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF
SOILS Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
South Highland Home Road to Sunset Aveune
Banning, California ASTM D-1557
5 6
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6287 6396 6394 6169
TEST NO.
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
S.G. 2.65
S.G. 2.7
S.G. 2.75
1555
Project No.: T2881-22-01

4.20 Boring No. B-2 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B-2@10' Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.07 2.74

0.05 Depth (ft) 10 Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.90 2.74 3.84 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 silty SAND (SM), yellowish brown
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 10.2 11.5 9.9
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 114.3 99.3 115.2

44.7 57.8
Peak 324 38.0 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf) f (o
) Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 58.0
Ultimate 292 36.3 Final Moisture Content (%) 15.5 20.3
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment South Highland Home Road to Sunset Aveune
Banning, California Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by: ATS

14.3 October 2019 Figure B-3

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
1556
Project No.: T2881-22-01

4.07 Boring No. B-7 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. [email protected] Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.30 2.23

0.05 Depth (ft) 7.5 Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 1.00 2.17 3.56 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Silty SAND (SM), yellowish brown
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 13.0 13.2 10.3
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 115.3 109.8 115.4

66.3 60.4
Peak 455 34.7 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf) f (o
) Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 76.2
Ultimate 320 32.6 Final Moisture Content (%) 16.7 15.6
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment South Highland Home Road to Sunset Aveune
Banning, California Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by: ATS

16.9 October 2019 Figure B-4

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
1557
Project No.: T2881-22-01
Checked by: ATS
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment South Highland Home Road to Sunset Aveune
Banning, California ASTM D-422
October 2019 Figure B-5
D60 D30 D10

0.22 SAMPLE
B-2 @ 7.5

CLASSIFICATION
silty SAND (SM), yellowish brown
3" 1½" ¾" ⅜" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT PASSSING BY WEIGHT
GRAIN DIAMETER, mm
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
GRAVEL

COARSE FINE
SAND

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SILT AND CLAY
1558
Project No.: T2881-22-01
D60 D30 D10

1.2 0.34 0.097
SAMPLE
B-2 @ 15'

CLASSIFICATION
poorly-graded SAND with silt and little gravel (SPSM), yellowish brown Checked by: ATS
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment South Highland Home Road to Sunset Aveune
Banning, California ASTM D-422
October 2019 Figure B-6
3" 1½" ¾" ⅜" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT PASSSING BY WEIGHT
GRAIN DIAMETER, mm
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
GRAVEL

COARSE FINE
SAND

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SILT AND CLAY
1559
Project No.: T2881-22-01
Checked by: ATS
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment South Highland Home Road to Sunset Aveune
Banning, California ASTM D-422
October 2019 Figure B-7
D60 D30 D10

0.41 0.18 0.12
SAMPLE
B-7 @ 10'

CLASSIFICATION
poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), yellowish
brown
3" 1½" ¾" ⅜" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT PASSSING BY WEIGHT
GRAIN DIAMETER, mm
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
GRAVEL

COARSE FINE
SAND

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SILT AND CLAY
1560
Project No.: T2881-22-01
D60 D30 D10

0.25 0.092
SAMPLE
B-7 @ 20'

CLASSIFICATION
silty SAND (SM), yellowish brown
Checked by: ATS
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment South Highland Home Road to Sunset Aveune
Banning, California ASTM D-422
October 2019 Figure B-8
3" 1½" ¾" ⅜" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT PASSSING BY WEIGHT
GRAIN DIAMETER, mm
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
GRAVEL

COARSE FINE
SAND

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SILT AND CLAY
1561

APPENDIX C
1562
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment
Geotechnical Pavement Investigation
Geocon Project No. T2881-22-02 - C - October 14, 2019
REVISED June 5, 2024

APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR

SUN LAKES BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT

SOUTH HIGHLAND HOME ROAD TO SUNSET AVENUE

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. T2881-22-02
1563
GI rev. 07/2015

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

1. GENERAL

1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.

1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.

1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected.

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed.

2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.

2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying asgraded topography.

2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 1564
GI rev. 07/2015

2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications.

2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading.

2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply.

3. MATERIALS

3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below.

3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than ¾ inch in size.

3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches.

3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than ¾ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.

3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills.

3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 1565
GI rev. 07/2015
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.

3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.

This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant.

3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.

3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition

4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED

4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1½ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials.

4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document.
1566
GI rev. 07/2015

4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.

4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration.

TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
No Scale
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant.

4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications.
1567
GI rev. 07/2015

5. COMPACTIONEQUIPMENT

5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content.

5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.

6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL

6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.

6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.

6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified.

6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified.

6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.

Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill.
1568
GI rev. 07/2015

6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.

6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.

6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice.

6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.

6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.

6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment.

6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "openface" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant.
1569
GI rev. 07/2015

6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry.

The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.

6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.

6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.

6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph

6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.

6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection 1570
GI rev. 07/2015
variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two.

6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of “passes” have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and thatspecified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.

6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills.

6.3.6 To reduce the potential for “piping” of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement.

6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant.

7. SUBDRAINS

7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes.
1571
GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL

7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes. 1572
GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL

7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans.

7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric.

Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains. 1573
GI rev. 07/2015

7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe.

TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL

7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure.
1574
GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL

7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an “as-built” map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrainsthat will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains.
1575
GI rev. 07/2015

8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING

8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner’s representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted.

8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.

8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.

8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading.

8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.

8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:

8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:

8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method.
1576
GI rev. 07/2015

8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).

8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18- Inch Drop.

8.6.1.4 Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.

9. PROTECTION OF WORK

9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.

9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant.

10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS

10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.

10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. 1577
1578
133 N. San Gabriel Blvd., Suite 201
Pasadena, CA 91107-3414
O: (626) 578-0119 | F: (626) 204-5500
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS Revised
April 30, 2024
Ms. Stephanie Standerfer
Vice President
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Transmitted via email to [email protected] RE: Paleontological Memorandum: Constraints Analysis for Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California Dear Ms. Standerfer,
At the request of Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) completed a paleontological constraints analysis for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project (Project), City of Banning (City), Riverside County (County), California. The City proposes to extend Sun Lakes Boulevard eastward from its current eastern termination point at South Highland Home Road along the existing Right-ofWay of Westward Avenue to the anticipated connection point at Sunset Avenue.

Written by Æ’s paleontology staff who meet Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP, 2010) qualifications standards, this memo follows guidelines set forth by the County of Riverside (2015a, 2015b). Æ’s scope of work included desktop review of geologic maps, paleontological literature, museum record searches, and preparation of this technical memorandum (memo), and, as such, this memo satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project may impact a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional aquatic feature and/or utilize funds with a federal nexus; and if so, the Project or portions of the Project, may be considered a federal undertaking. The City is the lead agency for compliance with CEQA and the USACE is the lead agency under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Project area is south of Interstate 10 along Westward Avenue in Sections 7 and 18 of Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as shown on the Beaumont, California 7.5' U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps.

The proposed Project is approximately 1 mile long with a direct footprint width of approximately 200- feet and an additional 50 feet of temporary construction disturbance buffer around the footprint for a maximum disturbance width of approximately 300-feet wide. The Project encompasses approximately 20 acres of direct footprint and an additional approximately 9 acres of temporary construction disturbance area. Project staging and stockpiling will occur within the City’s rights-of-way (ROW). Sun Lakes Boulevard will be constructed according to the City’s General Plan Typical Section for an 1579
2 Paleontological Memorandum: Constraints Analysis for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project Arterial Highway. Sun Lakes Boulevard will have two eastbound and two westbound lanes, a raised median, bike lanes, sidewalks, associated road striping, drainage, and street light improvements. The proposed maximum depth of ground disturbance for roadway construction is 8 feet below ground surface (bgs).

REGULATORY CONTEXT
Federal laws and regulations apply only when projects are located on federal lands or federally managed lands, or when they are federally funded. Paleontological resources are protected under numerous federal laws and regulations, including the NEPA of 1969, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Statute 23 USC 305 Archaeological and Paleontological Salvage, and the Antiquities Act of 1906. Additionally, the Paleontological Resources Protection Act (PRPA) was recently enacted as a result of the passage of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009. The PRPA requires federal land management agencies to manage and protect paleontological resources and affirms the authority of existing policies already in place. This Project is also subject to state laws and regulations in addition to local goals and policies. The City follows the County’s regulations and does not have additional citylevel codes that reference paleontological resources. The following sections provide an overview of the laws and regulations relevant to the Project.

State
Paleontological resources are protected under CEQA, which requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project. If a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered.

Specifically, in Section VII(f) of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Environmental Checklist Form, the question is posed, “Will the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” If paleontological resources are identified as being within the proposed project area, the sponsoring agency must take those resources into consideration when evaluating project effects. The level of consideration may vary with the importance of the resource.

Local
There are several policies covering paleontological resources within the County’s General Plan, Multipurpose Open Space (OS) Element (County of Riverside, 2015a:OS-51):
• OS 19.6: Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has high paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS-8, paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) shall be filed with the Riverside County Geologist prior to site grading. The PRIMP shall specify the steps to be taken to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. • OS 19.7: Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has low paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS-8, no direct mitigation is required unless a fossil is encountered during site development. Should a fossil be encountered, the Riverside County Geologist shall be notified and a paleontologist shall be retained by the project proponent.

The paleontologist shall document the extent and potential significance of the paleontological resources on the site and establish appropriate mitigation measures for further site development. 1580
3 Paleontological Memorandum: Constraints Analysis for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project • OS 19.8: Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has undetermined paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS-8, a report shall be filed with the Riverside County Geologist documenting the extent and potential significance of the paleontological resources on site and identifying mitigation measures for the fossil and for impacts to significant paleontological resources prior to approval of that department. • OS 19.9: Whenever paleontological resources are found, the County Geologist shall direct them to a facility within Riverside County for their curation, including the Western Science Center in the City of Hemet.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Most professional paleontologists in California adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP, 2010) to determine the course of paleontological mitigation for a given project unless specific city, county, state, or federal guidelines are available. The County has developed its own guidelines that establish detailed protocols for the assessment of the paleontological sensitivity of a project area and outline measures to follow in order to mitigate adverse impacts to known or unknown fossil resources during project development (County of Riverside, 2015b).

Following the County’s established process, baseline information is used to assign the paleontological sensitivity of a geologic unit(s) (or members thereof) to one of four categories—Low, Undetermined, High A (Ha), and High B (Hb) potential (County of Riverside, 2015b). Geologic units are considered to be “sensitive” for paleontological resources and have a High paleontological resource potential if they are known to contain significant fossils anywhere in their extent, even if outside the Project area. High A (Ha) sensitivity is based on the occurrence of fossils that may be present at the ground surface of the Project area, while High B (Hb) sensitivity is based on the occurrence of fossils at or below 4 feet of depth, which may be impacted during construction activities (County of Riverside, 2015b). A coarsegrained paleontological sensitivity map of Riverside County indicates the sensitivity rankings across the ground surface based on the County’s established process (County of Riverside, 2015a: Figure OS-8, OS-55).

Methodology
Æ’s scope of work required only desktop research and no fieldwork. The desktop investigation began by Æ overlaying the Project area on the County’s (2015a) paleontological sensitivity map, which shows the project area as “Undetermined” and surrounded by areas of “High A (Ha)” ranking. To refine the paleontological sensitivity presented in the countywide map, Æ reviewed published geologic maps and paleontological literature for geologic units exposed at the ground surface and those likely to occur in the subsurface of the Project area. Æ also retained the Western Science Center of Hemet (WSC) to conduct a record search for fossil localities recorded in their collections (Radford, 2019). To augment these results, Æ also conducted searches of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) and the Raymond Alf Paleontological Museum (ALF) online databases.

RESOURCE CONTEXT
The Project area is in the San Gorgonio Pass, an area of semi-arid badlands and alluvial plains (Rewis et al., 2006) at the boundary between the Transverse Ranges and Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Provinces 1581
4 Paleontological Memorandum: Constraints Analysis for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project (California Geological Survey, 2002). A geomorphic province is a region of unique topography and geology that is distinguished from other regions based on its landforms and tectonic history (American Geological Institute, 1976). The San Gorgonio Pass is bordered by the San Bernardino Mountains of the Transverse Ranges to the north, the San Jacinto Mountains of the Peninsular Ranges to the south, the San Timoteo Badlands to the southwest, and the Salton Trough to the east. The Transverse Ranges shape the local topography of roughly east-west trending mountain ranges and basins (Rewis et al., 2006). The San Bernardino Mountains are being displaced south along one trace of the San Andreas Fault in this geomorphic province, resulting in a high rate of uplift and a thickening of the crust (California Geological Survey, 2002).

Extensive previous work was conducted during surveys of the geology of the San Gorgonio Pass, starting with paleontological exploration of the Cenozoic valley fill units by Frick (1921) in the late 1910s to early 1920s, who concentrated on the Timoteo Badlands southwest of the Project area.

Vaughan (1922) was the first to map the Banning Fault, an important trace of the San Andreas just south of the Project area. The most recent extensive geologic mapping was conducted by Dibblee (1982) based on earlier work, with Cenozoic stratigraphy, geochronology, and paleontology most recently updated by Albright (1999).

The entire valley base forming the San Gorgonio Pass is composed of Late Cenozoic sedimentary rocks unconformably overlying crystalline basement rocks (Rewis et al., 2006). The crystalline basement rocks are composed primarily of Mesozoic granites and some older metasedimentary rocks, and are presumed to completely underlie the basin. However, as the Banning Fault runs roughly east-west, many units are only exposed on a single side of the fault zone (Rewis et al., 2006). Previous studies found some parts of the San Gorgonio Pass to have upwards of 4,500 feet of Cenozoic sedimentary fill above the older basement rocks (Langenheim et al., 2005); however, only younger sedimentary sequences play a role in the geology within the City of Banning.

The Cenozoic geologic units can be separated into Late Miocene-Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene deposits (Rewis et al., 2006). These geologic units are all terrestrial, and record local history of uplift along the fault zone, which resulted in erosion of the basins. Ongoing uplift and rotation along the Banning Fault have deformed the Miocene-Pleistocene sedimentary sequences into a broad anticline, plunging gently toward the northwest (Morton, 1999). The structural geology in the area also places the older sedimentary rocks of the Mt. Eden Formation and the San Timoteo beds (Frick, 1921) at a shallow subsurface depth under much of Banning, and exposed at the surface just north of the City on the Banning Shelf (Rewis et al., 2006). Both the Mt. Eden Formation and San Timoteo Formation are fossiliferous (Albright, 1999, 2000; Reynolds and Reeder, 1986).

The younger sedimentary rocks (Qsu, Qsl) are represented by the upper parts of the San Timoteo beds.

Unit Qsl is only exposed farther north on the Banning Shelf; however, unit Qsu is locally exposed throughout much of Banning, with shallow overlying alluvial deposits of Holocene age (Rewis et al., 2006). Many of the younger deposits from the Middle Pleistocene and later are exposed within a onemile-long radius of the Project area, and are capped only by the thinnest of the Holocene deposits (Rewis et al., 2006).

Holocene-age deposits, particularly those less than 5,000 years old, are typically too young for the fossilization process to occur (SVP, 2010). Therefore, the Holocene-age alluvial deposits across the ground surface of the Project area are unlikely to preserve fossils. These deposits are underlain by older 1582
5 Paleontological Memorandum: Constraints Analysis for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project Holocene- and Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits. The older deposits have yielded significant fossils throughout Southern California from the coastal areas to the inland valleys (Reynolds and Reynolds, 1991; Springer et al., 2009).

RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
Radford (2019) reports no fossil localities from the WSC collections within the Project area or within a 1-mile-wide buffer zone. However numerous localities are within 10 miles of the Project area. Such localities include subsurface geologic units likely in the Project area at unknown depths. According to Radford, the subsurface lithology of the Project area likely consists of Middle to Late Pleistocene alluvial deposits with high fossil preservation value. For instance, the El Casco Project, which is within 10 miles of the Project area and mapped with the same surficial geology, produced over 16,000 fossils from numerous localities, demonstrating the high likelihood of fossil preservation in the units underlying the Project area. As such, Radford (2019) notes development for the Project even a few feet in depth may encounter Pleistocene deposits with scientifically significant fossils. The vertebrate taxa represented by fossils from these localities include:
• The genus Equus, widespread in the Pleistocene and extinct by 10,000 years ago. • The scimitar-toothed cat Homotherium sp., possibly extinct by the Middle Pleistocene in the Western Hemisphere.
• One of the largest Pleistocene giant ground sloths, Paramylodon sp., which became extinct about 11,000 years ago.

Æ’s search of the UCMP online paleontological database search resulted in over 2,000 fossil specimen listings in Riverside County. However, there are no specimens or localities listed within 10 miles of the Project area (UCMP, 2019). Likewise, the ALF online database also does not include fossil specimen listings within 10 miles of the Project area, although several hundred are within 25 miles (ALF, 2019).

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Æ used the County’s (2015b) sensitivity criteria to determine the paleontological potential of the Project area. When placed over the County’s (2015a) paleontological sensitivity map, the entire surface area of the Project area is mapped as High A (Ha). Æ’s desktop efforts and the museum record searches support this ranking, as the surficial Holocene-age alluvial deposits overlie very shallow Pleistocene deposits with recorded vertebrate fossils.

Excavations to a maximum depth of 8 feet bgs for the Project, especially at the dry gully crossings, have a high likelihood of encountering these resources in previously undisturbed sediments (i.e., native sediments) of Middle to Late Pleistocene ages. In accordance with the County’s (2015a) guidelines for an area with “Ha” ranking, further paleontological resource management, including construction monitoring and Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, will be required prior to issuance of the grading permits.

It has been a pleasure assisting you with this Project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (541) 852-0150.

Sincerely,
1583
6 Paleontological Memorandum: Constraints Analysis for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project Win McLaughlin
Senior Paleontologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Chris Shi
Paleontology Supervisor
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Edited and Approved By:

Amy Ollendorf, Ph.D., M.S., RPA 12588
Paleontology Program Manager
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Encl. References
1584
7 Paleontological Memorandum: Constraints Analysis for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project

REFERENCES CITED
ALF (Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology). 2019. Unpublished online museum records search.

Claremont, CA. Available at https://alfmuseum.org/search.php. Accessed October 6, 2019.

Albright, L. B. 1999. Magnetostratigraphy and biochronology of the San Timoteo Badlands, southern California, with implications for local Pliocene-Pleistocene tectonic and depositional patterns.

Geological Society of America Bulletin 111:1265–1293.

Albright, L. B. 2000. Biostratigraphy and Vertebrate Paleontology of the San Timoteo Badlands, Southern California. University of California Publications in Geosciences 144. University of California Press, Berkeley, 134 pp.

American Geological Institute. 1976. Dictionary of Geological Terms. Anchor Press, New York, 472 pp.

California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey Note 36. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Note_36.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2019.

County of Riverside. 2015a. Multipurpose Open Space Element, General Plan Revised, December 8, 2015. Riverside County Planning Department. Available at https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_Plan_2017/elements/OCT17/Ch05_MOS E_120815.pdf?ver=2017-10-11-102103-833. Accessed October 7, 2019.

County of Riverside. 2015b. Section 4.9: Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Public Review Draft, February 2015. Riverside County Planning Department.

Available at
https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_plan_2015/DEIR%20521/04- 09_CulturalAndPaleoResrcs.pdf. Accessed October7, 2019.

Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 1982. Geology of the San Bernardino Mountains, southern California, pp. 148-149 in D. L. Fife J. A. Minch (eds.), Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse Ranges:

South Coast Geological Society Guidebook 10 (Mason Hill volume).

Dibblee, T. W., Jr. and J. A. Minch. 2008. Geologic map of the Palm Desert and Coachella 15-Minute Quadrangles, Riverside County, California, U. S. 1:62,500. Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-373.

Frick, C. 1921. Extinct vertebrate fauna of the badlands of Bautista Creek and San Timoteo Canyon, southern California. University of California Department of Geology Bulletin 12(5):277–424.

Langenheim, V. E., R. C. Jachens, J. C. Matti, D. M. Morton, E. Hauksson, A. Christensen. 2005.

Geophysical evidence for wedging in the San Gorgonio Pass structural knot, southern San Andreas Fault zone, southern California. Geological Society of America Bulletin 117:1554– 1572.
1585
8 Paleontological Memorandum: Constraints Analysis for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project Norris, R. M. 1979. Lake Cahuilla High Shorelines; in A. G. Sylvester (ed.), Rifting, Transpression, and Neotectonics in the Central Mecca Hills, Salton Trough, Pacific Section SEPM Fall Field Trip Guidebook 85, September 25-26, 1999.

Radford, D. 2019. Museum collections record search for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project Project in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California. Western Science Center report submitted September 24, 2019 to Applied EarthWorks.

Rewis, D. L., A. H. Christensen, J. C. Matti, J. A. Hevesi, J.A., T. Nishikawa, and P. Martin. 2006.

Geology, groundwater hydrology, geochemistry, and ground-water simulation of the Beaumont and Banning storage units, San Gorgonio Pass area, Riverside County, California. U.S.

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5026,173 pp.

Reynolds, R. E., and W. A. Reeder. 1986. Age and fossil assemblages of San Timoteo Formation, Riverside County, California, pp. 51-56 in M. A. Kooser and R. E. Reynolds (eds.), Geology Around the Margins of the Eastern San Bernardino Mountains: Redlands, California.

Publications of the Inland Geological Society Volume 1.

Reynolds, R. E., and R. L. Reynolds. 1991. The Pleistocene beneath our feet: near-surface Pleistocene fossils in inland southern California basins; pp. 41–43 in M. O. Woodburne, R. E. Reynolds, and D. P. Whistler (eds.), Inland Southern California: the last 70 million years. San Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands, California.

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

Accessed October 7, 2019.

Springer, K., E. Scott, J. C. Sagebiel, and L. K. Murray. 2009. The Diamond Valley Lake local fauna:

Late Pleistocene vertebrates from inland southern California; pp. 217–235 in L. B. I. Albright (ed.), Papers on Geology, Vertebrate Paleontology, and Biostratigraphy in Honor of Michael O.

Woodburne: Flagstaff, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 65.

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2019. Unpublished online museum records search. University of California, Berkeley, CA. Available at https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/.

Accessed October 6, 2019.

Vaughan, F. E. 1922. Geology of the San Bernardino Mountains north of San Gorgonio Pass. California University Publications in Geological Sciences 13:319–411. 1586
1587
200 S. Los Robles Ave., Suite 405| Pasadena, CA 91101 | 626.440.0080 | www.nhcweb.com water resource specialists

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: May 30, 2024
To: Joseph Caldwell, Ranjit Singh, Albert A. Webb Associates From: Hank Fehlman, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants
Subject: High Level Assessment of Potential Sediment Transport Impacts Associated with the Updated Sun Lakes Boulevard Improvement Project
1 INTRODUCTION
The study summarized in this memorandum was conducted to assess the potential sediment transport impacts associated with the improvement of Sun Lakes Boulevard (Westward Avenue) east of the Sun Lakes golf course, near Banning, California. The proposed road improvements involve the addition of several new tributary crossings that are to be constructed upstream of two existing dry weather crossings. The existing dry weather crossings are to remain in place with the proposed re-aligned road improvement plan.

Impacts on sediment transport will be very dependent on the configuration proposed for the new crossings to be located upstream of the existing dry weather crossings. A high-level assessment of potential impacts was completed through comparison of hydraulic characteristics pre- and post-project.

This study is an update of a similar analysis conducted in 2021 for the project site. The proposed crossing configurations at the project site have been recently revised, and this study was conducted to analyze the updated crossing geometries.
2 DATA SOURCES
Albert A. Webb Associates provided: (1) 2D model hydraulic models (HEC-RAS) of existing conditions in the project vicinity and the proposed improvement plan (dated May 22, 2024) to be evaluated, which included flow rates that are being used in design of the proposed crossings; and, (2) a geotechnical report (Ref. 2) that included sediment size distributions of the local bed material on each reach. No information was available regarding the erosion protection measures incorporated in the existing dry weather crossings.

References are listed at the end of this report.
1588
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 2 3 PROJECT LOCATION AND CONDITIONS
The study area is shown in Figure 1. A plan view showing the proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard alignment is shown in Figure 2. Topographic variation and cross-sections of the study streams at the existing dip crossings and at a location immediately downstream of each crossing are shown in Figure 3 and 4 (West crossing) and Figures 5 and 6 (East crossing). As may be noted in Figures 4 and 6, the existing channel cross-sections downstream of the existing crossings are significantly lower that the profile through each dip crossing. The existing crossings act as grade controls in the existing stream reaches. Scour downstream of these structures can occur during high flow events due to sediment trapping upstream of these flow barriers, and due to local scour associated with the grade breaks.

Figure 1. Study area
Interstate 10
West crossing East crossing
Sun Lakes Boulevard
(Westward Ave.)
Sunset Ave.
1589
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 3 Figure 2. Local view of proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard realignment plan Proposed West
crossing
Proposed East
crossing
Sun Lakes Boulevard
Existing dip crossing
Existing dip crossing
1590
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 4 Figure 3. Profile line locations for cross-sectional comparison shown in Figure 4, West crossing Figure 4. Cross-sectional comparison at the West crossing, at the existing dip crossing and immediately downstream
Dip crossing
Downstream of dip crossing
Dip crossing profile line
Downstream of dip crossing profile line
Proposed crossing alignment
1591
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 5 Figure 5. Profile line locations for cross-sectional comparison shown in Figure 6, East crossing Figure 6. Cross-sectional comparison at the East crossing, at the existing dip crossing and immediately downstream
Size distribution of the local bed material of the subject streams is unavailable. Gradation information is available for borings taken along the alignment of the existing Sun Lakes Boulevard, including two Dip crossing
Downstream of dip crossing
Dip crossing profile line
Downstream of dip crossing profile line
Proposed crossing alignment
1592
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 6 located near the west and east channel crossing locations (Samples B-2 and B-7 in Ref. 1, respectively).

For this assessment, it assumed that the available gradations from the boring data represents the size distribution of the sub-surface material in the study area, and any ‘armor’ layer of coarser material present along the study reaches is insufficient to prevent mobilization of bed material during design flood events.

Size distributions from the available boring data are presented in Figure 7. Median grain sizes (D50) of the relevant samples are 0.16 and 0.31 mm (fine to medium sand). Grain sizes in this range are mobilized with flow velocities of less than 1 ft/s.

Figure 7. Grain size distributions in the project vicinity (shallowest samples at B-2 and B-7 from Ref. 2) 4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT POTENTIAL
Flows within alluvial channels typically carry sediment, with concentrations that tend to increase with flow rate. The ability of flow to move sediment as it passes downstream is termed its sediment Sample B-7 at 10’
Sample B-2 at 7’
1593
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 7 transport capacity. Hydraulic properties, particularly flow velocity, and bed material properties, such as median grain size, determine the sediment transport capacity of a given river reach.

The capacity of a flow to transport particles of a given diameter is exponentially related to the flow velocity (above a given incipient or threshold velocity). In channels with similar bed material composition, higher velocities result in increased sediment transport capability. A qualitative assessment of changes in sediment transport potential of a given river reach can be made though comparison of computed flow velocities, pre-and post-project, under a given flow condition. If velocities in the reach upstream of the proposed improvements are relatively unchanged post project, the likelihood is that the project-related impacts to sediment transport (and downstream scour) are minimal.
5 HYDRAULICS
Hydraulic modeling results for existing and with-project conditions were compared for assessment of potential sediment transport impacts associated with the proposed crossing improvement plan. The model configurations, loss assumptions, design flow rates and results are as provided in the HEC-RAS model project delivered by Albert A. Webb via email dated May 22, 2024. The with-project model includes conveyance structures at the West crossing consisting of six 13.9-ft wide openings with 8-inch support piers on the west branch and seven 13.9-ft wide openings with 8-inch support piers on the east branch (middle crossing). The with-project model also includes conveyance structures at the East crossing consisting of seven 13.9-ft wide openings with 8-inch support piers. Flows in the model are 1715 cfs on the west branch of the West crossing, 2540 cfs on the east branch of the West crossing (the Middle crossing), and 2690 cfs in the East crossing.

West Crossing Results:

Pre- and post-project velocity maps for the vicinity of the West crossing are presented in Figure 8. This figure compares computed velocities under design flow conditions. Existing and with-project velocities are sufficient to mobilize the assumed channel bed material in both reaches. 1594
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 8 Figure 8. Existing velocities, ft/s (left) compared to proposed velocities and grading (right), west crossing
Both the west and middle branch velocities upstream of the new crossing locations appear to be only minimally altered with the proposed improvement plan. Computed velocities are contrasted at the west branch location shown in Figure 9 in the plot presented in Figure 10. Computed velocities are contrasted at the east branch location shown in Figure 11 in the plot presented in Figure 12. Velocities across the sections shown are slightly increased with-project along the east branch, and slightly decreased withproject along the middle branch. In both cases, the velocity changes are very local – hydraulic conditions in the with-project conditions upstream of the sections shown are nearly identical to the existing case, as indicated in Figure 8. Locally higher velocities through the crossings themselves (as most clearly indicated for the west crossing in Figure 8) are not of concern, since the crossings are to be lined. Locally higher velocities through the structures will assist in keeping the crossings clear of deposition during flood events.
1595
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 9 Figure 9. Location map for velocity profile comparison shown in Figure 10 Figure 10. Design flow velocity comparison at section location shown in Figure 9, west branch of West crossing
With-project velocity
Existing velocity
Location of velocity
profile shown in Figure 10
1596
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 10 Figure 11. Location map for velocity profile comparison shown in Figure 12 Figure 12. Design flow velocity comparison at section location shown in Figure 11, east branch of West crossing (also termed the Middle crossing)
Location of velocity
profile shown in Figure 12
With-project velocity
Existing velocity
1597
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 11 East Crossing Results:

Pre- and post-project velocity maps for the vicinity of the East crossing are presented in Figure 13. This figure compares computed velocities under design flow conditions. As was the case for the West crossing, existing and with-project velocities are sufficient to mobilize the assumed channel bed material in both reaches.

Figure 13. Existing velocities, ft/s (left) compared to proposed velocities and grading (right), east crossing
Velocities local to the upstream end of the proposed east crossing structure are slightly increased withproject, but not appreciably so. Hydraulic changes are again very local – upstream conditions are nearly identical in both with-project and existing cases, as shown in Figure 13. Computed velocities are contrasted at the East crossing location shown in Figure 14 in the plot presented in Figure 15. The results indicate that sediment transport capacities upstream of the crossing location would be expected to be only minimally affected by the proposed structures. Higher local velocities through the crossing itself (as may be noted in Figure 13) will aid in keeping the crossing clear of deposition during flood events.
1598
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 12 Figure 14. Location map for velocity profile comparison shown in Figure 15 Figure 15. Design flow velocity comparison at the section location shown in Figure 14, East crossing With-project velocity
Existing velocity
Location of velocity
profile shown in Figure 15
1599
Sun Lakes Boulevard – High Level Sediment Transport Assessment 13 6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Minimizing disruption to sediment transport potential is of particular importance at the subject crossings due to the presence of the existing dip crossings, which are to remain downstream of the proposed new culverts. The existing dip crossings act as grade controls within the existing stream profiles. The stability of these existing crossings has not been assessed in this study; however, it can be concluded that reduction of sediment throughput in the project reaches upstream would increase scour potential downstream of these existing structures, which would increase their likelihood of failure. Should failure of these existing crossings occur after completion of the road improvement plan, the stability of the with-project structures would be jeopardized.

Comparison of the provided hydraulic modeling results indicates that there would likely be minimal sediment transport impacts associated with the current crossing improvement plans. Hydraulic conditions upstream of all three of the proposed crossings are very comparable under pre- and postproject scenarios.

Note that the with-project hydraulic simulation results reflect proposed as-built conditions, and assume the crossing openings are clear of accumulations and the support piers are clear of debris at the time of the peak flow event. It is recommended that regular inspections and clearing (as-needed) of the crossings be conducted to maintain these conditions. Maintenance inspections should occur, at minimum, annually prior to flood season and after any significant runoff event. Pier nose extensions (debris fins) or debris sweepers are recommended at the front end of the support piers if vegetative debris loading is of concern, to minimize the impact of pier debris accumulation on upstream hydraulics during flood events.

It is highly recommended that the stability of the existing dip crossings under design flood events be assessed.
7 REFERENCES
(1) Albert A. Webb Associates, 2024. HEC-RAS model of existing conditions and proposed improvements to Sun Lakes Boulevard crossings east of the Sun Lakes golf course, dated 5-22-

24. (2) Geocon West, Inc., 2019. Preliminary Geotechnical Pavement Investigation Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment South Highland Home Road To Sunset Avenue, Banning, California. 1600
1601

NOISE ANALYSIS REPORT

SUN LAKES BOULEVARD

EXTENSION
Banning, CA
April 8, 2022 DRAFT
Prepared for:

Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Prepared by:
dBF Associates, Inc.
3129 Tiger Run Court, Suite 202
Carlsbad, CA 92010
619-609-0712
ã dBF Associates, Inc. 2022
1602
i
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................2

1.0 Project Description..........................................................................................................4

2.0 Environmental Noise Background.................................................................................6

3.0 Regulatory Framework....................................................................................................9

3.1 City of Banning ...................................................................................................................9

3.2 City of Beaumont ..............................................................................................................10

3.3 County of Riverside...........................................................................................................10

4.0 Environmental Setting and Existing Conditions ........................................................11

4.1 Surrounding Land Uses and Environmental Setting .........................................................11

5.0 Potential Noise Impacts ................................................................................................12

6.0 Recommendations.........................................................................................................16

7.0 References .....................................................................................................................17

8.0 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................18 Tables
Table 1. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments.................................................7 Table 2. City of Banning Noise Thresholds..................................................................................................9 Table 3. City of Beaumont Noise Thresholds .............................................................................................10 Table 4. Project Roadways..........................................................................................................................14 Table 5. Noise Levels Along Project Roadways.........................................................................................15 Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................................3 1603
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This analysis evaluates noise associated with the proposed extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue in the City of Banning, California (Figure 1).

The impact of project-generated traffic noise would be less than significant. 1604
1605
4 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to construct an extension to Sun Lakes Boulevard between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue in the City of Banning, California. The proposed roadway segment would connect the existing portion of Sun Lakes Boulevard to align with Westward Avenue at Sunset Avenue. Refer to Figure 2.
1606
1607
6 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE BACKGROUND
Noise is generally defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound typically associated with human activity and that interferes with or disrupts normal activities. The human environment is characterized by a certain consistent noise level which varies with each area. This is called ambient noise.

Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to environmental noise is annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the type of noise, perceived importance of the noise and its appropriateness in the setting, time of day and type of activity during which the noise occurs, and sensitivity of the individual.

Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air, and are sensed by the human ear. Sound is generally characterized by several variables, including frequency and intensity. Frequency describes the sound’s pitch and is measured in cycles per second, or hertz (Hz), whereas intensity describes the sound’s loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Decibels are measured using a logarithmic scale. A sound level of 0 dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet listening conditions. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dB. Sound levels above about 120 dB begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and eventually as pain at still higher levels. Studies have shown that the smallest perceptible change in sound level for a person with normal hearing sensitivity is approximately 3 dBA. A change of at least 5 dBA would be noticeable and would likely evoke a community reaction. A 10-dBA increase is subjectively heard as a doubling in loudness and would cause a community response [Caltrans 2013a].

Sound levels of typical noise sources and environments are provided in Table 2.

Because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted directly and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically. A simple rule is useful, however, in dealing with sound levels. If a sound’s intensity is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound level. Thus, for example, 60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB, and 80 dB + 80 dB = 83 dB. The normal human ear can detect sounds that range in frequency from about 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz.

However, all sounds in this wide range of frequencies are not heard equally well by the human ear, which is most sensitive to frequencies in the range of 1,000 Hz to 4,000 Hz. This frequency dependence can be taken into account by applying a correction to each frequency range to approximate the human ear’s sensitivity within each range. This is called A-weighting and is commonly used in measurements of community environmental noise. The A-weighted sound pressure level (abbreviated as dBA) is the sound level with the “A-weighting” frequency correction. In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA curve. 1608
7 Table 1. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments Noise Source
(at Given Distance) Noise Environment A-WeightedSound Level Human Judgment
of Noise Loudness
(Relative to Reference
Loudness of 70 Decibels*)
Military Jet Takeoff
with Afterburner (50 ft) Carrier Flight Deck 140 Decibels 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren (100 ft) 130 64 times as loud
Commercial Jet Take-off (200 ft) 120 32 times as loud
Threshold of Pain
Pile Driver (50 ft) Rock Music Concert
Inside Subway Station (New York) 110 16 times as loud
Ambulance Siren (100 ft)
Newspaper Press (5 ft)
Gas Lawn Mower (3 ft)
100 8 times as loud
Very Loud
Food Blender (3 ft)
Propeller Plane Flyover (1,000 ft)
Diesel Truck (150 ft)
Boiler Room
Printing Press Plant 90 4 times as loud
Garbage Disposal (3 ft) Noisy Urban Daytime 80 2 times as loud Passenger Car, 65 mph (25 ft)
Living Room Stereo (15 ft)
Vacuum Cleaner (10 ft)
Commercial Areas 70 Reference Loudness
Moderately Loud
Normal Speech (5 ft)
Air Conditioning Unit (100 ft)
Data Processing Center
Department Store 60 1/2 as loud
Light Traffic (100 ft) Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 1/4 as loud
Bird Calls (distant) Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 1/8 as loud Quiet
Soft Whisper (5 ft) Library and Bedroom at Night
Quiet Rural Nighttime 30 1/16 as loud
Broadcast and Recording Studio 20 1/32 as loud
Just Audible
0 1/64 as loud
Threshold of Hearing
Source: Compiled by dBF Associates, Inc.
1609
8 Because community noise fluctuates over time, a single measure called the Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is often used to describe the time-varying character of community noise. The Leq is the energy-averaged A-weighted sound level during a measured time interval, and is equal to the level of a continuous steady sound containing the same total acoustical energy over the averaging time period as the actual timevarying sound. Additionally, it is often desirable to know the acoustic range of the noise source being measured. This is accomplished through the Lmax and Lmin indicators, which represent the root-meansquare maximum and minimum noise levels obtained during the measurement interval. The Lmin value obtained for a particular monitoring location is often called the “acoustic floor” for that location.

To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors L10, L50, and L90 are commonly used. They are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 10, 50, and 90 percent of a stated time, respectively. Sound levels associated with L10 typically describe transient or short-term events, whereas levels associated with L90 describe the steady-state (or most prevalent) noise conditions.

The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a descriptor representing a 24-hour, time-weighted, annual average noise level based on the “A-weighted” decibel. In the calculation process, noise occurring in the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is penalized by adding 5 dB, while noise occurring in the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) is penalized by adding 10 dB. These time periods and decibel increases were selected to reflect a typical person's increased sensitivity to noise during late-night and early morning hours. This descriptor is used by the City of Banning, City of Beaumont, and County of Riverside to evaluate land-use compatibility with regard to noise. 1610
9 3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
To limit exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, state of California, and local governments have established standards and ordinances to control noise and vibration. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains fairly constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas. Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise.

Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources and noise / land use compatibility is left to local agencies.

No federal regulations are applicable to this project.

3.1 City of Banning
The Noise Element of the City of Banning General Plan [2006] indicates land use compatibility for community noise environments. Applicable thresholds are summarized in Table 2. No guidance is provided for undeveloped or vacant land.

Table 2. City of Banning Noise Thresholds
Land Use
Highest
Normally Acceptable
Noise Level
Highest
Conditionally Acceptable
Noise Level
Single-Family Residential 55 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL
Commercial 65 dBA CNEL 72.5 dBA CNEL
School 65 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL
Industrial / Manufacturing 70 dBA CNEL 75 dBA CNEL
1611
10 3.2 City of Beaumont
The Safety Element of the City of Beaumont General Plan [2007] indicates land use compatibility for community noise environments. Applicable thresholds are summarized in Table 3. No guidance is provided for undeveloped or vacant land.

Table 3. City of Beaumont Noise Thresholds
Land Use Desirable Maximum
Noise Level
Maximum Acceptable
Noise Level
Single-Family Residential 55 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL
Commercial 65 dBA CNEL 75 dBA CNEL

3.3 County of Riverside
The Noise Element of the Riverside County General Plan [2013] indicates land use compatibility for community noise environments. Noise levels up to 75 dBA CNEL are Normally Acceptable at industrial land uses, and noise levels up to 80 dBA CNEL are Conditionally Acceptable. No guidance is provided for undeveloped or vacant land.
1612
11 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Noise-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, and some passive recreation areas would each be considered noise-sensitive and may warrant unique measures for protection from intruding noise.

4.1 Surrounding Land Uses and Environmental Setting
The project site is along the unpaved western extension of Westward Avenue, between the eastern end of Sun Lakes Boulevard at its intersection with Highland Home Road to the western end of paved Western Avenue at its intersection with Sunset Avenue. It is access-controlled with gates at both ends, and serves as a service road for the water infrastructure along it.

The primary existing noise source in the vicinity of the project is natural activity and vehicular traffic on nearby roadways. The ambient sound level along the project alignment is approximately 42 dBA Leq [dBFA 2019].
1613
12 5.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS
The project would result in a redistribution of traffic on segments in the existing and future roadway network [WEBB 2022]. Refer to Table 4. To evaluate the effect of the project on noise levels along adjacent land uses, the horizon year (2050) conditions, with and without the project, were compared.

Refer to Table 5.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 was used to estimate traffic noise levels. The modeling effort considered the peak-hour traffic volume, average estimated vehicle speed, and estimated vehicle mix, i.e., percentage of cars, medium trucks, heavy trucks, buses, and motorcycles. The peak hour traffic noise level was considered equivalent to the CNEL [24 CFR §51.106]. Vehicular traffic calculations are summarized in Appendix A.

Sound levels caused by line sources (i.e., variable or moving sound sources such as traffic) generally decrease at a rate of 3 to 4.5 dBA when the distance from the road is doubled, depending on the ground surface hardness between the source and the receiving property [Caltrans 2013]. The model assumed “hard soil” propagation conditions, which corresponds to a drop-off rate of approximately 3 dBA per doubling of distance. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures (walls and buildings), barriers, and topography. The noise attenuating effects of changes in elevation, topography, and intervening structures were not included in the model. Therefore, the modeling effort is considered a worst-case representation of the roadway noise.

The I-10 ramps and segments between were not analyzed, as the noise environment at adjacent land uses is and would continue to be dominated by traffic on I-10. The project would have an inconsequential effect on noise levels in these areas.

Traffic mixes on Sunset Avenue and Sun Lakes Boulevard were obtained from Translutions. Traffic mixed on other roadway segments were assumed to be similar.

The land uses along both sides of the project are expected to be developed with industrial land uses as part of the Sunset Crossroads project.

The City of Banning General Plan indicates that Highland Home Road is planned to extend north, as a 4- or 6-lane Major Highway, from Sun Lakes Boulevard to a new interchange at I-10. Based on the 2050 with-project traffic volumes, it was assumed that it would be 4 lanes. The exact alignment, and distance to the nearby receptors in the Sun Lakes Country Club neighborhood is unknown. It was assumed that all other existing roadway geometry would remain the same in the future.

There are three locations at which two roadways affect the noise level at the receptor closest to the intersection. These were analyzed independently; the results are presented in Table 5.

Along one roadway segment in the City of Banning, the project would result in noise levels increasing from Normally Acceptable to Conditionally Acceptable. Along all other segments, the noise environment descriptor would not change as a result of the project. 1614
13 The City of Banning General Plan states that, at Conditionally Acceptable noise environments, “New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.” Existing construction is not addressed. It is assumed that Conditionally Acceptable noise environments are not incompatible with residential land uses.

The impact of project-generated traffic noise would be less than significant. 1615
14 Table 4. Project Roadways
Roadway Segment Traffic
Mix (%)
Speed
Limit
Traffic Volume
Existing
Without
Project (2050)
With
Project (2050)
East 1st Street West of Highland Springs Avenue 95.5 / 3 / 1.5 45 mph 810 1,645 2,022 Sun Lakes Boulevard
East of Highland Springs Avenue 95.5 / 3 / 1.5 35 mph 570 1,266 2,358 West of Highland Home Road 95.5 / 3 / 1.5 35 mph 30 147 2,721 East of Highland Home Road 95.5 / 3 / 1.5 35 mph * 0 0 2,898 West of Sunset Avenue 95.5 / 3 / 1.5 35 mph * 0 1,712 2,390 Westward Avenue East of Sunset Avenue 97 / 2 / 1 35 mph * 62 340 1,032 Lincoln Street East of Sunset Avenue 97 / 2 / 1 40 mph 131 1,562 1,960 Highland Springs Avenue
South of I-10 Eastbound Ramps 95.5 / 3 / 1.5 30 mph 2,894 4,422 4,364 North of Sun Lakes Boulevard 95.5 / 3 / 1.5 30 mph 1,275 2,688 2,580 South of Sun Lakes Boulevard 95.5 / 3 / 1.5 35 mph 641 1,878 2,159 Highland Home Road
North of Sun Lakes Boulevard 95.5 / 3 / 1.5 45 mph * 0 219 654 South of Sun Lakes Boulevard 97 / 2 / 1 30 mph * 30 136 54 Sunset Avenue
I-10 Eastbound Ramps –
Lincoln Street 94 / 4 / 2 35 mph 272 2,703 1,604
South of Lincoln Street 94 / 4 / 2 35 mph 164 1,641 1,594 North of Westward Avenue 94 / 4 / 2 35 mph 85 1,641 1,595 South of Westward Avenue 97 / 2 / 1 30 mph * 29 87 78
* estimated
1616
15 Table 5. Noise Levels Along Project Roadways
Roadway Segment Closest Adjacent Land Use
Noise Level
Project Effect on
2050 Noise Levels
Noise
Thresholds * Impact / Effect
Existing
Without
Project (2050)
With
Project (2050)
East 1st Street West of Highland Springs Avenue Single-family residential; 57’ from CL, 6’ wall 60.3 63.3 64.0 + 0.7 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL None Sun Lakes Boulevard
East of Highland Springs Avenue Single-family residential; 53’ from CL, 6’ wall 56.5 59.6 62.1 + 2.5 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL None West of Highland Home Road Single-family residential; 53’ from CL, 6’ wall 49.1 51.7 62.7 + 11.0 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL Noise level increases to Conditionally Acceptable
East of Highland Home Road Currently vacant; industrial land use planned N/A N/A 69.4 N/A 70 / 75 dBA CNEL (Banning) 75 / 80 dBA CNEL (Riverside) None
West of Sunset Avenue Currently vacant; industrial land use planned N/A 68.6 70.0 + 1.4 dBA CNEL 70 / 75 dBA CNEL (Banning) 75 / 80 dBA CNEL (Riverside) None
Westward Avenue East of Sunset Avenue Single-family residential; 30’ from CL, 6’ wall 50.5 56.6 60.6 + 4.0 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL None Lincoln Street East of Sunset Avenue Single-family residential; 32’ from CL, 6’ wall 52.8 62.8 63.7 + 0.9 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL None Highland Springs Avenue
South of I-10 Eastbound Ramps Commercial; 80’ from CL 66.5 68.5 68.4 - 0.1 dBA CNEL 65 / 75 dBA CNEL (Beaumont) 65 / 72.5 dBA CNEL (Banning) None
North of Sun Lakes Boulevard Commercial; 75’ from CL 64.6 67.4 67.4 0 dBA CNEL 65 / 75 dBA CNEL (Beaumont) 65 / 72.5 dBA CNEL (Banning) None
South of Sun Lakes Boulevard Single-family residential; 50’ from CL, 6’ wall 57.7 62.0 62.7 + 0.7 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL (Beaumont) 55 / 65 dBA CNEL (Banning) None
Highland Home Road
North of Sun Lakes Boulevard Vehicle storage N/A 62.6 67.6 + 5.0 dBA CNEL N/A None South of Sun Lakes Boulevard Single-family residential; 30’ from CL, 6’ wall 49.3 51.7 54.8 + 3.1 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL (Banning) 75 / 80 dBA CNEL (Riverside) None
Sunset Avenue
I-10 Eastbound Ramps –
Lincoln Street Vacant 60.1 69.9 67.7 - 2.2 dBA CNEL N/A None South of Lincoln Street Single-family residential; 30’ from CL, 6’ wall 54.1 63.7 63.5 - 0.2 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL None North of Westward Avenue Single-family residential; 40’ from CL, 6’ wall 50.1 62.2 61.3 - 0.9 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL None South of Westward Avenue Educational; 70’ from CL 50.9 57.2 58.2 + 1.0 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL (Banning) 75 / 80 dBA CNEL (Riverside) None
802 Bay Hill Road (Sun Lakes Boulevard & Highland Home Road) 49.9 52.9 62.4 + 9.5 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL Noise level increases to Conditionally Acceptable
783 Sunshine Street (Westward Avenue & Sunset Avenue) 51.3 61.4 62.4 + 1.0 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL None 447 Soboba Drive (Lincoln Street & Sunset Avenue) 54.7 64.5 64.6 + 0.1 dBA CNEL 55 / 65 dBA CNEL None At vacant or non-noise sensitive land uses, noise level reported at 50 feet from centerline. * Normally / Conditionally Acceptable or Desirable Maximum / Maximum Acceptable 1617
16 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
No significant impacts were identified. Therefore, no recommendations are required. 1618
17 7.0 REFERENCES
City of Banning. 2006. General Plan. Adopted January 31.

City of Beaumont. 2007. General Plan. Approved March.

Harris, Cyril M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Third Edition.

Acoustical Society of America. Woodbury, NY.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 1996a. ISO 1996/1. Acoustics – Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise – Part 1: Basic Quantities and Procedures. 1996b. ISO 1996-2. Acoustics – Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise – Part 2:

Acquisition of Data Pertinent to Land Use.
1996c. ISO 1996-3. Acoustics – Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise – Part 3:

Application to Noise Limits.

Riverside County. 2015. General Plan. Noise Element. December 8.

Albert A. Webb Associates. 2022. Realignment of Sun Lakes Boulevard – Westward Avenue Transportation Impact Analysis. February 24.
1619
18 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
__________________________________
Steven Fiedler, INCE
Principal, dBF Associates, Inc.
1620
1621
translutions, inc.
17632 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 200,
Tustin, California 92780
Phone (949)656 - 3131 Fax (949)445 - 3131
[email protected]

the transportation solutions company...

June 17, 2022
Mr. Nicholas R. Lowe, MS, PE, Senior Engineer
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street,
Riverside, California 92506
Subject: Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension, City of Banning, California – VMT Screening Analysis Dear Nick:

Translutions, Inc. (Translutions) is pleased to provide this letter discussing the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the proposed Extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard in the City of Banning.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension is proposing to construct the segment of Sun Lakes Boulevard between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. This roadway is part of the City’s General Plan, and as such is consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). The project will include 4-lanes (two lanes in each direction) with required turn lanes, is approximately one-mile long, and also adds a bike lane and sidewalk along the roadway.

VMT DISCUSSION
Background and Guidance. Senate Bill 743 (SB-743), which was codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, was signed by the Governor in 2013 and directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify alternative metrics for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. Pursuant to Section 21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” Recently adopted changes to the CEQA Guidelines in response to Section 21099 include a new section (15064.3) that specifies that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. A separate Technical Advisory issued by OPR provides additional technical details on calculating VMT and assessing transportation impacts for various types of projects. The City of Banning is in the process of preparing and adopting guidelines or thresholds under VMT. Therefore, this analysis is based on the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines For Local Transportation Analysis And Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for the City of Banning.

VMT Analysis Methodology. The Guidelines state that the VMT attributable to the project (including induced demand) needs to be calculated by evaluating no project and with project conditions under the horizon scenario using RIVTAM or RIVCOM.

Impact Threshold. Based on the City’s Guidelines, a net increase in induced VMT will result in a significant impact for a proposed transportation project. The increase in VMT needs to be calculated by comparing the horizon year no‐build VMT with the horizon year build VMT. Model adjustment may be necessary to account for induced growth and potential increases in future land use as a result of the capacity enhancing transportation project.

Model VMT. The Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) was run to evaluate the change in VMT for the project. The model was run for the base and future conditions and for the without and with project conditions. In addition, the socio-economic data for the Sunset Crossroads was included in the Horizon Year model since it is located adjacent to the proposed project. The model runs and data extraction process followed are consistent with standard modeling practice.

Due to the small size of the project, the project effect on VMT was compared at a 5-mile, 10-mile, and Countywide levels. Table A shows the change in VMT due to the project for the three geographic boundaries under Horizon Year (2040) conditions.

Table A: Change in Horizon Year (2040) VMT
No Project With Project Change
5-Mile Radius 3,596,100 3,581,022 (15,078)
10-Mile Radius 8,374,519 8,359,646 (14,873)
Riverside County 92,860,800 92,861,278 478
1622
6/17/2022 (H:\2020\20-0126\Environmental\Technical Studies\Traffic-TIA (WEBB)\VMT Letter 8-18-21.docx) 2 the transportation solutions company...

As seen on Table A, the project substantially reduces VMT within a 5-mile and 10-mile radius from the project. However, as shown on Table A, the model shows that the project is likely to increase Countywide VMT by 0.0005%. This is well within the margin of error for transportation models1, and might not result in a significant impact, and could be a result of rounding at various stages of the modeling process.

To verify if the project would indeed result in an increase in VMT, the base year model was also run to identify if the project related findings are similar. Table B shows the results of the Base Year model runs.

Table B: Change in Base Year (2012) VMT
No Project With Project Change
5-Mile Radius 1,980,031 1,979,158 (872)
10-Mile Radius 4,457,790 4,456,431 (1,359)
Riverside County 53,677,825 53,657,144 (20,681)
As seen on Table B, the project results in decreases in VMT under all analysis geographic limits, validating the argument that the increase in future regional VMT is within the margin of error of the model.

As seen from the above discussion, it is our professional opinion that the project will have a less than significant impact on VMT. We hope you will find this information helpful. Should you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call me at (949) 656-3131.

Sincerely,
translutions, Inc.

Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., T.E., AICP, ENV SP
Principal
1 For example, the SCAG model validation report shows that the change in VMT was in the range of -4% to +5% at a county level (within the 5-county region) for a regional VMT validation of approximately 1.7%. Therefore, the difference of 0.0005% is within acceptable model errors. 1623
Resolution 2024-184

Page 1 of 5 ends

Banning City CouncilNovember 12, 2024

Banning City Council
November 12, 2024