A PHASE I CULTURAL
RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE
VERANO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 677-050-017, -018, -027, -029, and -031 through -034
Project Site Location: Section 5 of Township 4 South, Range 5 East of the Cathedral City, California USGS Quadrangle
Prepared on Behalf of:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92614
Prepared for:
City of Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, California 92234
Prepared by:
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
June 20, 2023; Revised November 16, 2023; Revised January 2, 2024
Fieldwork Performed: June 5 and 6, 2023.
Key Words: 128.34 acres; Phase I survey; negative results; monitoring of initial grading recommended.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Archaeological Report Summary Information
Author: Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA
Prepared by: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company 14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 484-0915
Report Date: June 20, 2023; Revised November 16, 2023; Revised January 2, 2024
Report Title: A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project, City of Cathedral City, Riverside County, California
Prepared on Behalf of: EPD Solutions, Inc.
2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92614
Prepared for: City of Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, California 92234
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: APNs 677-050-017, -018, -027, -029, and -031 through -034
USGS Quadrangle: Section 5, Township 4 South, Range 5 East, of the Cathedral City, California USGS Quadrangle
Study Area: 128.34 acres
Key Words: Archaeological survey; negative; City of Cathedral City; Cathedral City, California USGS Quadrangle; monitoring of initial grading recommended.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ............................................................1.0–1
1.1 Purpose of Investigation ....................................................................................1.0–1
1.2 Major Findings ...................................................................................................1.0–1
1.3 Recommendation Summary ...............................................................................1.0–2
2.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................2.0–1
2.1 Previous Work ...................................................................................................2.0–1
2.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................2.0–5
2.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives .................................................2.0–5
2.3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................2.0–6
2.3.2 Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) ......2.0–7
2.3.3 Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP) ..........................................................................................................2.0–7
2.3.4 Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) ................2.0–10
2.3.5 Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present) .........................2.0–11
2.3.6 Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present) ...................................................2.0–17
2.4 Research Goals...................................................................................................2.0–22
2.5 Applicable Regulations ......................................................................................2.0–23
3.0 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................3.0–1
3.1 Archaeological Records Search .........................................................................3.0–1
3.2 Field Methodology .............................................................................................3.0–1
3.3 Report Preparation and Recordation ..................................................................3.0–1
3.4 Native American Consultation ...........................................................................3.0–1
4.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................4.0–1
4.1 Records Search Results ......................................................................................4.0–1
4.2 Survey Results ...................................................................................................4.0–2
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................5.0–1
5.1 Cultural Resources Monitoring ..........................................................................5.0–1
6.0 CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................6.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................7.0–1
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendices
Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results*
*Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 2.0–1 General Location Map .................................................................................2.0–2 Figure 2.0–2 Project Location Map ...................................................................................2.0–3 Figure 2.0–3 Project Development Map ...........................................................................2.0–4
List of Plates
Plate Page
Plate 4.2–1 Overview of the project, facing east ............................................................4.0–2 Plate 4.2–2 Overview of the project, facing southeast ....................................................4.0–3 Plate 4.2–3 Overview of graded pad, facing southeast ...................................................4.0–3 Plate 4.2–4 Modern block wall and metal fencing, facing southeast ..............................4.0–4 Plate 4.2–5 Pushed rocks, facing southeast ....................................................................4.0–4 Plate 4.2–6 Paved entry road, facing north .....................................................................4.0–5
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 4.1–1 Cultural Resources Recorded Within One Mile of the Verano Residential Project ..........................................................................4.0–1
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–1
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
The following report describe s the results of the cultural resource s survey program conducted by BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA), for the 128.34-acre Verano Residential Project. The project includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers ( APNs) 677-050-017, -018, -027, -029, and -031 through -034 within the city of Cathedral City, Riverside County, California. The subject property is situated between the Whitewater River and Interstate 10 in Cathedral City, Riverside County, California, within Section 5, Township 4 South, Range 5 East, of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian on the U .S. Geological Survey (USGS) (7.5-minute) Cathedral City, California topographic quadrangle map. More specifically, the project is located north of the intersection of Verona Road and Ventura Drive. The applicant proposes to construct a residential development within the parcels along with associated landscaping and infrastructure. In addition, the project includes off-site improvements consisting of the restoration of an existing sand berm along the western boundary and an access road for sand berm maintenance along a portion of the northern boundary of the property.
1.1 Purpose of Investigation
BFSA conducted the archaeological assessment to locate and record any cultural resources present within the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and following City of Cathedral City guidelines. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if any significant cultural resources would be affected by the proposed land development. This study consisted of the processing of a records search of previously recorded archaeological sites on or near the property and the completion of an archaeological survey of the property. The records search was requested from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California , Riverside (UCR). In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search.
1.2 Major Findings
The EIC records search did not identify any recorded resources within the subject property.
However, the search did identify four resources within one mile of the subject property. During the survey, ground visibility was generally characterized as good. The pedestrian survey identified evidence that the property has been previously cleared and disturbe d as supported by aerial photographs between 1996 and 2002. Although it appears areas of the project have previously been graded, the level of these previous impacts is not clear. This characterization of the property as surficially disturbed is relevant to the consideration of cultural resources being present within the project. When parcels are cleared, disked, or otherwise disturbed, evidence of surface artifact scatters is lost. Whether or not cultural resources have ever existed within this property, the current status of the area appears to have affected the potential to discover any evidence of surface artifact scatters.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–2
1.3 Recommendation Summary
Given the uncertainty of the level of prior impacts to the property coupled with the project’s proximity to prehistorically exploited natural resources, such as the Whitewater River and ancient Lake Cahuilla, monitoring of grading is recommended. Consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , as a condition of approval, the project will implement a cultural resources monitoring program conducted by an archaeologist during the initial clearing and grading of the property (first three to five feet). However, the consulting archaeologist shall have the authority to modify and reduce the monitoring program to either periodic spot-checks or suspension of the monitoring program should the potential for cultural resources appear to be less than anticipated.
A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the EIC at UCR. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated at the archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
BFSA was retained by the project applicant to conduct a cultural resources survey for the Verano Residential Project. The archaeological survey was conducted in order to comply with CEQA and C ity of Cathedral City guidelines with regards to potential development-generated impacts to cultural resources. The project is located in an area of low to moderate cultural resource sensitivity, as suggested by the local topography. Sensitivity for cultural resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns which, in Riverside County, are focused around environments with accessible food and water.
The project is situated between the Whitewater River and Interstate 10 in Cathedral City, Riverside County, California , within Section 5, Township 4 South, Range 5 East, of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian on the USGS (7.5- minute) Cathedral City, California topographic quadrangle map (Figures 2.0–1 and 2.0–2). More specifically, the project is located north of the intersection of Verona Road and Ventura Drive and includes APNs 677-050-017, -018, -027, -029, and - 031 through - 034, which total 128.34 acres. The project applicant proposes to construct a residential development within the parcels along with associated landscaping and infrastructure. In addition, the project includes off-site improvements consisting of the restoration of an existing sand berm along the western boundary and an access road for sand berm maintenance along a portion of the northern boundary of the property (Figure 2.0–3).
Principal Investigator Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA, directed the cultural resources study for the project . Staff archaeologist Sabrina Corcoran conducted the pedestrian survey of the project and off-site improvement areas on June 5 and 6, 2023. The surveys were conducted in 15-meter interval transects. The visibility of the natural ground surface was generally good.
Project Archaeologist Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA, prepared the technical report . Emily T.
Soong created the graphics and Shawna M. Kryst ek conducted technical editing and report production. Qualifications of key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
2.1 Previous Work
The records search for the property was requested from the EIC at UCR. The records search did not identify any recorded resources within the subject property. However, the search did identify four resources within one mile of the subject property. The EIC records search also identified 40 previous studies conducted within one mile of the project. However, none of the previous studies included the subject property. In addition, BFSA reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) index, histor ic USGS maps and data, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) Records, and historic aerial photographs (1953 through 2020) for the project area, which did not indicate the presence of any historic or prehistoric cultural resources within the project.
F i g u r e 3
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
p
T
h
e
V
e
r
a
n
o
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
2 .
0 –
4 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–5
2.2 Project Setting
Regionally, the project lies within the Coachella Valley area of the the Salton Trough, a depressed structural block bounded on the west by the San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, and Coyote mountains and on the east by the San Andreas fault zone and Edom Hill, the Indio Hills, and the Mecca Hills (Norris and Webb 1990; Dibblee 2008). Ba sed on mapping and descriptions by Rogers (1965) and Dibblee (2008), the project is within Holocene alluvium and/or dune sands.
More precise mapping by Lancaster et al. (2012) indicates the geology at the surface of most of the project consists of late Ho locene alluvial wash deposits, composed of unconsolidated sands and gravels deposited by recently active channels or streams. Portions of the project’s western parcels are mapped as late Holocene eolian or sand dune deposits, composed of well sorted, wind- blown sand.
Currently the property partially consists of a series of previously graded pads and is generally flat with elevations ranging between approximately 445 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and 450 feet AMSL. The vegetation found within the project consists primarily of creosote bushes, desert plant s, and non-native weeds and grasses. Mammals within the region include mule deer, pronghorn antelopes, bighorn sheep, coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, rabbits, hares, ground squirrels, kangaroo rats, and a variety of other small rodents and lizards . Birds within the region include raptors, quail, mourning doves, geese, ducks, heron, crows, finches, and sparrows.
The project is situated just east of the Whitewater River and just north of the boundaries of the ancient Lake Cahuilla which covered much of the Salton Trough. Ancient Lake Cahuilla was utilized by the prehistoric inhabitants. The lake has also been referred to as Lake LeConte, Agua Grande, and Blake Sea (Jertberg 1981; Wilke 1986). Based upon stratigraphic studies, complemented by radiocarbon (14C) dating, basin flooding and creation of an inland freshwater lake occurred several times during the latter half of the Holocene Epoch. Flooding of the area occurred multiple times during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene subsequent to the blockage of the natural drainage pattern to the Gulf of California by development of the Colorado River fan.
The last versions of the lake existed as late as during the first half of the seventeenth century and during the middle of the eighteenth century (Ross 2020). Coarser -grained fluvial sediments are more prevalent along the basin margins, whereas finer -grained l acustrine sediments (silts and clays), derived from suspended Colorado River sediment, dominate the central areas of the basin.
The thickness of Lake Cahuilla sediments ranges from only a few feet along its margins to as much as approximately 300 feet (90 meters) in deeper parts of the original basin (Norris and Webb 1990).
2.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives
The archaeological perspective seeks to reconstruct past cultures based upon the material remains left behind. This is done using a range of scientific methodologies, almost all of which draw from evolutionary theory as the base framework. Archaeology al lows one to look deeper into history or prehistory to see where the beginnings of ideas manifest via analysis of material A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–6
culture, allowing for the understanding of outside forces that shape social change. Thus, the archaeological perspective allows one to better understand the consequences of the history of a given culture upon modern cultures. Archaeologists seek to understand the effects of past contexts of a given culture on this moment in time, not culture in context in the moment.
Despite this, a distinction exists between “emic” and “etic” ways of understanding material culture, prehistoric lifeways, and cultural phenomena in general (Harris 1991). While “emic” perspectives serve the subjective ways in which things are perceived and interpreted by the participants within a culture, “etic” perspectives are those of an outsider looking in hoping to attain a more scientific or “objective” understanding of the given phenomena. Archaeologists, by definition, will almost always serve an etic perspective as a result of the very nature of their work.
As indicated by Laylander et al. (2014), it has sometimes been suggested that etic understanding, and therefore an archaeological understanding, is an imperfect and potentially ethnocentric attempt to arrive at emic understanding. In contrast to this, however, an etic understanding of material culture, cultural phenomena, and prehistoric lifeways can address significant dimensions of culture that lie entirely beyond the understanding or interest of those solely utilizing an emic perspective.
As Harris (1991:20) appropriately points out, “Etic studies often involve the measurement and juxtaposition of activities and events that native informants find inappropriate or meaningless.” This is als o likely true of archaeological comparisons and juxtapositions of material culture.
However, culture as a whole does not occur in a vacuum and is the result of several millennia of choices and consequences influencing everything from technology to religions, to institutions.
Archaeology allows for the ability to not only see what came before, but to see how those choices, changes, and consequences affect the present. Where possible, archaeology should seek to address both emic and etic understandings to the extent that they may be recoverable from the archaeological record as manifestations of patterned human behavior (Laylander et al. 2014).
To that point, the culture history offered herein is primarily based upon archaeological (etic) and ethnographic (partially emic and partially etic) information. It is understood that the ethnographic record and early archaeological records were incompletely and imperfectly collected.
In addition, in most cases, more than a century of intensive cultural change and cultural evolution had elapsed since the terminus of the prehistoric period. Coupled with the centuries and millennia of prehistoric change se parating the “ethnographic present” from the prehistoric past, this has affected the emic and etic understandings of prehistoric cultural settings. Regardless, there remains a need to present the changing cultural setting within the region under investiga tion. As a result, both archaeological and Native American perspectives are offered when possible.
2.3.1 Introduction
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Takic groups are the three general cultural periods represented in Riverside County. The following discussion of the cultural history of Riverside County references the San Dieguito Complex, Encinitas Tradition, Milling Stone Horizon, La Jolla Complex, Pauma Complex, and San Luis Rey Complex, A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–7
since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component present in the Riverside County area was primarily represented by the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Luiseño Indians.
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this archaeological discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to interchangeably use these terms. Reference will be made to the geological framework that divides the archaeologically- based culture chronology of the area into four segments: the late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), the early Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), the middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and the late Holocene (3,350 to 200 YBP).
2.3.2 Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) Archaeologically, the Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of de ep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands (Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused the glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984; Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 30- meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).
Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation utilizing a variety of resource s including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss and Erlandson 1995).
2.3.3 Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP) Archaeological data indicates that between 9,000 and 8,000 YBP, a widespread complex was established in the southern California region, primarily along the coast (Warren and True 1961). This complex is locally known as the La Jolla Complex (Rogers 1939; M oriarty 1966), which is regionally associated with the Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968) and shares cultural components with the widespread Milling Stone Horizon (Wallace 1955). The coastal expression of this complex appeared in southern California coastal areas and focused upon coastal resources and the development of deeply stratified shell middens that were primarily located around bays and lagoons. The older sites associated with this expression are located at Topanga Canyon, Newport Bay, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and some of the Channel Islands. Radiocarbon dates from sites attributed to this complex span a period of over 7,000 years in this region, beginning over 9,000 YBP.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–8
The Encinitas Tradition is best recognized for its pattern of large coastal sites characterized by shell middens, grinding tools that are closely associated with the marine resources of the area, cobble-based tools, and flexed human burials (Shumway et al. 1961; Smith and Moriarty 1985).
While ground stone tools and scrapers are the most recognized tool types, coastal Encinitas Tradition sites also contain numerous utilized flakes, which may have been used to pry open shellfish. Artifact assemblages at coastal sites indicate a subsistence pattern focused upon shellfish collection and nearshore fishing. This suggests an incipient maritime adaptation with regional similarities to more northern sites of the same period (Koerper et al. 1986). Other artifacts associated with Encinitas Tradition sites include stone bowls, doughnut stones, discoidals, stone balls, and stone, bone, and shell beads.
The coastal lagoons in southern California supported large Milling Stone Horizon populations circa 6,000 YBP, as shown by numerous radiocarbon dates from the many sites adjacent to the lagoons. The ensuing millennia were not stable environmentally and, by 3,000 YBP, many of the coastal sites in central San Diego County had been abandoned (Gallegos 1987, 1992). The abandonment of the area is usually attributed to the sedimentation of coastal lagoons and the resulting deterioration of fish and mollusk habitat. This is a well-documented situation at Batiquitos Lagoon, where over a two -thousand-year period, dominant mollusk species occurring in archaeological middens shift from deep-water mollusks (Argopecten sp.) to species tolerant of tidal flat conditions ( Chione sp.), indicating water depth and temperature changes (Miller 1966; Gallegos 1987).
This situation likely occurred for other small drainages (Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, San Marcos, and Escondido creeks) along the central San Diego coast where low flow rates did not produce sufficient discharge to flush the lagoons they fed (Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos, and San Elijo lagoons) (Byrd 1998). Drainages along the northern and southern San Diego coastline were larger and flushed the coastal hydrological features they fed, keeping them open to the ocean and allowing for continued huma n exploitation (Byrd 1998). Peñasquitos Lagoon exhibits dates as late as 2,355 YBP (Smith and Moriarty 1985) and San Diego Bay showed continuous occupation until the close of the Milling Stone Horizon (Gallegos and Kyle 1988).
Additionally, data from several drainages in Camp Pendleton indicate a continued occupation of shell midden sites until the close of the period, indicating that coastal sites were not entirely abandoned during this time (Byrd 1998).
By 5,000 YBP, an inland expression of the La Jolla Complex is evident in the archaeological record, exhibiting influences from the Campbell Tradition from the north. These inland Milling Stone Horizon sites have been termed “Pauma Complex” (True 1958; Warren et al. 1961; Meighan 1954). By definition, Pauma Complex sites share a predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates), lack mollusk remains, have greater tool variety (including atlatl dart points, quarry- based tools, and crescentics), and seem to express a more sedentary lifestyle with a subsistence economy based upon the use of a broad variety of terrestrial resources.
Although originally viewed as a separate culture from the coastal La Jolla Complex (True 1980), A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–9
it appears that these inland sites may be part of a subsistence and settlement system utilized by the coastal peoples. Evidence from the 4S Ranch Project in inland San Diego County suggests that these inland sites may represent seasonal components within an annual subsistence round by La Jolla Complex populations (Raven-Jennings et al. 1996). Including both coastal and inland sites of this time period in discussions of the Encinitas Tradition, therefore, provides a more complete appraisal of the settlement and subsistence system exhibited by this cultural complex.
More recent work by Sutton has identified a more localized complex known as the Greven Knoll Complex. The Greven Knoll Complex is a redefined northern inland expression of the Encinitas Tradition first put forth by Mark Sutton and Jill Gardener (2010). Sutton and Gardener (2010:25) state that “[t]he early millingstone archaeological record in the northern portion of the interior southern California was not formally named but was often referred to as ‘Inland Millingstone,’ ‘Encinitas,’ or even ‘Topanga.’” Therefore, they proposed that all expressions of the inland Milling Stone in southern California north of San Diego County be grouped together in the Greven Knoll Complex.
The Greven Knoll Complex, as postulated by Sutton and Gardener (2010), is broken into three phases and obtained its name from the type-site Greven Knoll located in Yucaipa, California.
Presently, the Greven Knoll Site is part of the Yukaipa’t Site (SBR-1000) and was combined with the adjacent Simpson Site. Excavations at Greven Knoll recovered manos, metates, projectile points, discoidal cogged stones, and a flexed inhumation with a possible cremation (Kowta 1969:39). It is believed that the Greven Knoll Site was occupied between 5,000 and 3,500 YBP.
The Simpson Site contained mortars, pestles, side -notched points, and stone and shell beads.
Based upon the data recovered at these sites, Kowta (1969:39) suggested that “coastal Milling Stone Complexes ext ended to and interdigitated with the desert Pinto Basin Complex in the vicinity of the Cajon Pass.”
Phase I of the Greven Knoll Complex is generally dominated by the presence of manos and metates, core tools, hammerstones, large dart points, flexed inhumations, and occasional cremations. Mortars and pestles are absent from this early phase, and the subs istence economy emphasized hunting. Sutton and Gardener (2010:26) propose that the similarity of the material culture of Greven Knoll Phase I and that found in the Mojave Desert at Pinto Period sites indicates that the Greven Knoll Complex was influenced by neighbors to the north at that time. Accordingly, Sutton and Gardener (2010) believe that Greven Knoll Phase I may have appeared as early as 9,400 YBP and lasted until about 4,000 YBP.
Greven Knoll Phase II is associated with a period between 4,000 and 3,000 YBP. Artifacts common to Greven Knoll Phase II include manos and metates, Elko points, core tools, and discoidals. Pestles and mortars are present; however, they are only represented in small numbers.
Finally, there is an emphasis upon hunting and gathering for subsistence (Sutton and Gardener 2010:8).
Greven Knoll Phase III includes manos, metates, Elko points, scraper planes, choppers, hammerstones, and discoidals. Again, small numbers of mortars and pestles are present. Greven A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–10
Knoll Phase III spans from approximately 3,000 to 1,000 YBP and shows a reliance upon seeds and yucca. Hunting was still important, but bones seem to have been processed to obtain bone grease more often in this later phase (Sutton and Gardener 2010:8).
The shifts in food processing technologies during each of these phases indicate a change in subsistence strategies; although people were still hunting for large game, plant -based foods eventually became the primary dietary resource (Sutton 2011a). Sutton’s (2011b) argument posits that the development of mortars and pestles during the middle Holocene can be attributed to the year-round exploitation of acorns as a main dietary provision. Additionally, the warmer and drier climate may have been responsible f or groups from the east moving toward coastal populations, which is archaeologically represented by the interchange of coastal and eastern cultural traits (Sutton 2011a).
2.3.4 Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) Many Luiseño hold the world view that , as a population, they were created in southern California. Archaeological and anthropological data, however, proposes a scientific/archaeological perspective suggesting that at approximately 1,350 YBP, Takic-speaking groups from the Great Basin region moved into Riverside County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. An analysis of the Takic expansion by Sutton (2009) indicates that inland southern California was occupied by “proto- Yuman” populations before 1,000 YBP. The comprehensive, multi -phase model offered by Sutton (2009) employs linguistic, ethnographic, archaeological, and biological data to solidify a reasonable argument for population replacement of Takic groups to the north by Penutians ( Laylander 1985). As a result, it is believed that Takic expansion occurred starting around 3,500 YBP moving toward southern California, with the Gabrielino language diffusing south into neighboring Yuman (Hokan) groups around 1,500 to 1,000 YBP, possibly resulting in the Luiseño dialect.
Based upon Sutton’s model, the final Takic expansion would not have occurred until about 1,000 YBP, resulting in Vanyume, Serrano, Cahuilla, and Cupeño dialects. The model suggests that the Luiseño did not simply replace Hokan speakers but were rather a northern San Diego County/southern Riverside County Yuman population who adopted the Takic language. This period is characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell -bead currency, and the appearance of more labor -intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far-reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–11
2.3.5 Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present) Ethnohistorical and ethnographic evidence indicates that three Shoshonean-speaking groups occupied portions of Riverside County during the Protohistoric period, including the Cahuilla, the Gabrielino, and the Luiseño. The geographic boundaries between these groups in pre- and proto-historic times are difficult to place.
The project itself is within the Coachella Valley. This region is known to be associated with numerous habitation sites of the Desert Cahuilla (Barrows 1900; Hooper 1920; Kroeber 1976; Curtis 1926; Strong 1929; Bean and Saubel 1972; Bean 1978). The Desert Cahuilla are identified as one of three distinct Cahuilla populations associated with the Coachella Valley. Wilke (1978) suggests the Cahuilla migrated into the upland areas after the last desiccation of Lake Cahuilla, and finally returned to the desert floor once the area began to grow again. The population that returned to the valley evolved into the Desert Cahuilla as indicated by ethnographic research.
Cahuilla: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective At the time of Spanish contact in the sixteenth century, the Cahuilla occupied territory that included the San Bernardino Mountains, Orocopia Mountain, and the Chocolate Mountains to the west, Salton Sea and Borrego Springs to the south, Palomar Mountain a nd Lake Mathews to the west, and the Santa Ana River to the north. The Cahuilla are a Takic -speaking people closely related to their Gabrielino and Luiseño neighbors, although relations with the Gabrielino were more intense than with the Luiseño. They differ from the Luiseño and Gabrielino in that their religion is more similar to the Mohave tribes of the eastern deserts than the Chingichngish religious group of the Luiseño and Gabrielino. The following is a summary of ethnographic data regarding this group (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Subsistence and Settlement
Cahuilla villages were typically permanent and located on low terraces within canyons in proximity to water sources. These locations proved to be rich in food resources and also afforded protection from prevailing winds. Villages had areas that were publicly owned and areas that were privately owned by clans, families, or individuals. Each village was associated with a particular lineage and series of sacred sites that included unique petroglyphs and pictographs. Villages were occupied throughout the year; however, during a several-week period in the fall, most of the village members relocated to mountain oak groves to take part in acorn harvesting (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The Cahuilla’s use of plant resources is well documented. Plant foods harvested by the Cahuilla included valley oak acorns and single -leaf pinyon pine nuts. Other important plant species included bean and screw mesquite, agave, Mohave yucca, cacti, palm, chia, quail brush, yellowray goldfield, goosefoot, manzanita, catsclaw, desert lily, mariposa lily, and a number of other species such as grass seed. A number of agricultural domesticates were acquired from the Colorado River tribes including corn, bean, squash, and melon grown in limited amounts. Animal A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–12
species taken included deer, bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, rabbit, hare, rat, quail, dove, duck, roadrunner, and a variety of rodents, reptiles, fish, and insects (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Social Organization
The Cahuilla was not a political nation, but rather a cultural nationality with a common language. Two non-political, non-territorial patrimoieties were recognized: the Wildcats (túktem) and the Coyotes (?ístam). Lineage and kinship were memorized at a y oung age among the Cahuilla, providing a backdrop for political relationships. Clans were comprised of three to 10 lineages; each lineage owned a village site and specific resource areas. Lineages within a clan cooperated in subsistence activities, defense, and rituals (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
A system of ceremonial hierarchy operated within each lineage. The hierarchy included the lineage leader, who was responsible for leading subsistence activities, guarding the sacred bundle, and negotiating with other lineage leaders in matters concerning land use, boundary disputes, marriage arrangements, trade, warfare, and ceremonies. The ceremonial assistant to the lineage leader was responsible for organizing ceremonies. A ceremonial singer possessed and performed songs at rituals and trained assistant singers. The shaman cured illnesses through supernatural powers, controlled natural phenomena, and was the guardian of ceremonies, keeping evil spirits away. The diviner was responsible for finding lost objects, telling future events, and locating game and other food resources. Doctors were usually older women who cured various ailments and illnesses with their knowledge of medicinal herbs. Finally, certain Cahuilla specialized as traders, who ranged as far west as Santa Catalina and as far east as the Gila River (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Marriages were arranged by parents from opposite moieties. When a child was born, an alliance formed between the families, which included frequent reciprocal exchanges. The Cahuilla kinship system extended to relatives within five generations. Important economic decisions, primarily the distribution of goods, operated within this kinship system (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Material Culture
Cahuilla houses were dome -shaped or rectangular, thatched structures. The home of the lineage leader was the largest, located near the ceremonial house with the best access to water.
Other structures within the village included the men’s sweathouse and granaries (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Cahuilla clothing, like other groups in the area, was minimal. Men typically wore a loincloth and sandals; women wore skirts made from mesquite bark, animal skin, or tules. Babies wore mesquite bark diapers. Rabbit skin cloaks were worn in cold weather (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Hunting implements included the bow and arrow, throwing sticks, and clubs. Grinding tools used in food processing included manos, metates, and wood mortars. The Cahuilla were A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–13
known to use long grinding implements made from wood to process mesquite beans; the mortar was typically a hollowed log buried in the ground. Other tools included steatite arrow shaft straighteners (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbrush. Different species and leaves were chosen for different colors in the basket design. Coiled- ware baskets were either flat (for plates, trays, or winnowing), bowl-shaped (for food serving), deep, inverted, and cone-shaped (for transporting), or rounded and flat -bottomed for storing utensils and personal items (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Cahuilla pottery was made from thin, red-colored ceramic ware that was often painted and incised. Four basic vessel types are known for the Cahuilla: small -mouthed jars, cooking pots, bowls, and dishes. Additionally, smoking pipes and flutes were fashioned from ceramic (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Luiseño: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective When contacted by the Spanish in the sixteenth century, the Luiseño occupied a territory bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Peninsular Ranges mountains at San Jacinto (including Palomar Mountain to the south and Santiago Peak to the north), on the south by Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and on the north by Aliso Creek in present-day San Juan Capistrano. The Luiseño were a Takic-speaking people more closely related linguistically and ethnographically to the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Cupeño to the north and east rather than the Kumeyaay who occupied territory to the south. The Luiseño differed from their neighboring Takic speakers in having an extensive proliferation of social statuses, a system of ruling families that provided ethnic cohesion within the territory, a distinct worldview that stemmed from the use of datura (a hallucinogen), and an elaborate religion that included the creation of sacred sand paintings depicting the deity Chingichngish (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Subsistence and Settlement
The Luiseño occupied sedentary villages most often located in sheltered areas in valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near mountain ranges. Villages were located near water sources to facilitate acorn leaching and in areas that offered thermal and defensive protection. Villages were comprised of areas that were publicly and privately (by family) owned.
Publicly owned areas included trails, temporary campsites, hunting areas, and quarry sites. Inland groups had fishing and gathering sites along the coast that were intensively used from January to March when inland food resources were scarce. During October and November, most of the village would relocate to mountain oak groves to harvest acorns. The Luiseño remained at village sites for the remainder of the year, where food resources were within a day’s travel (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The most important food source for the Luiseño was the acorn, six different species of which were used (Quercus californica, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus dumosa, A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–14
Quercus engelmannii, and Quercus wislizenii). Seeds, particularly of grasses, flowering plants, and mints, were also heavily exploited. Seed-bearing species were encouraged through controlled burns, which were conducted at least every third year. A variety of other stems, leaves, shoots, bulbs, roots, and fruits were also collected. Hunting augmented this vegetal diet. Animal species taken included deer, rabbit, hare, woodrat, ground squirrel, antelope, quail, duck, freshwater fish from mountain streams, marine mammals, and other sea creatures such as fish, crustaceans, and mollusks (particularly abalone, or Haliotis sp.). In addition, a variety of snakes, small birds, and rodents were eaten (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Social Organization
Social groups within the Luiseño nation consisted of patrilinear families or clans, which were politically and economically autonomous. Several clans comprised a religious party, or nota, which was headed by a chief who organized ceremonies and controlled economics and warfare.
The chief had assistants who specialized in particular aspects of ceremonial or environmental knowledge and who, with the chief, were part of a religion-based social group with special access to supernatural power, particularly tha t of Chingichngish. The positions of chief and assistants were hereditary, and the complexity and multiplicity of these specialists’ roles likely increased in coastal and larger inland villages (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976; Strong 1929).
Marriages were arranged by the parents, often made to forge alliances between lineages.
Useful alliances included those between groups of differing ecological niches and those that resulted in territorial expansion. Residence was patrilocal (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Women were primarily responsible for plant gathering and men principally hunted but , at times, particularly during acorn and marine mollusk harvests, there was no division of labor. Elderly women cared for children and elderly men participated in rituals, ceremonies, and political affairs.
They were also responsible for manufacturing hunting and ritual implements. Children were taught subsistence skills at the earliest age possible (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Material Culture
House structures were conical, partially subterranean, and thatched with reeds, brush, or bark. Ramadas were rectangular, protected workplaces for domestic chores such as cooking.
Ceremonial sweathouses were important in purification rituals; these were round and partially subterranean thatched structures covered with a layer of mud. Another ceremonial structure was the wámkis (located in the center of the village, serving as the place of rituals), where sand paintings and other rituals associated with t he Chingichngish religious group were performed (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Clothing was minimal; women wore a cedar-bark and netted twine double apron and men wore a waist cord. In cold weather, cloaks or robes of rabbit fur, deerskin, or sea otter fur were worn by both sexes. Footwear included deerskin moccasins and sandals fashioned from yucca fibers. Adornments included bead necklaces and pendants made of bone, clay, stone, shell, bear A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–15
claw, mica, deer hooves, and abalone shell. Men wore ear and nose piercings made from cane or bone, which were sometimes decorated with beads. Other adornments were commonly decorated with semiprecious stones including quartz, topaz, garnet, opal, opalite, agate, and jasper (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Hunting implements included the bow and arrow. Arrows were tipped with either a carved, fire-hardened wood tip or a lithic point, usually fashioned from locally available metavolcanic material or quartz. Throwing sticks fashioned from wood were used in hunting small game, while deer head decoys were used during deer hunts. Coastal groups fashioned dugout canoes for nearshore fishing and harvested fish with seines, nets, traps, and hooks made of bone or abalone shell (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The Luiseño had a well -developed basket industry. Baskets were used in resource gathering, food preparation, storage, and food serving. Ceramic containers were shaped by paddle and anvil and fired in shallow, open pits to be used for food storage, cooking, and serving. Other utensils included wood implements, steatite bowls, and ground stone manos, metates, mortars, and pestles (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Additional tools such as knives, scrapers, choppers, awls, and drills were also used. Shamanistic items include soapstone or clay smoking pipes and crystals made of quartz or tourmaline (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Gabrielino: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present -day Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River, the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina I sland, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island.
Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Subsistence and Settlement
The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and occupied smaller resource-gathering camps at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, while smaller, seasonal camp s typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams and in sheltered A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–16
areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and included tuna, swordfish, ray and shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin and porpoise, various waterfow l species, numerous fish species, purple sea urchin, and mollusks, such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare, rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and numerous snake species (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Social Organization
Little is known about the social structure of the Gabrielino; however, there appears to have been at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family; 2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long- established lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society.
Villages were politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.
Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion, leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s) under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was legitimized by his safekeepi ng of the sacred bundle, a representation of the link between the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Material Culture
Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth - A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–17
covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Clothing was minimal; men and children most often went naked, while women wore deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact) cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain, yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs.
Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hooks and line, and nets. A variety of other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial items (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
2.3.6 Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present)
Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to 1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these phases can be referred to together as t he Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents, oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis.
European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an expedition under Sebastián Vizcaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track, Vizcaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–18
use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”; 60 years later, Vi zcaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial, long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey (San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), which began colonization the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921).
Up until this time, the only known way to feasibly travel from Sonora to Alta California was by sea. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain at Tubac, requested and was given permission by the governor of the Mexican State of Sonora to establish a n overland route from Sonora to Monterey (Chapman 1921). In doing so, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman 1921). In 1797, Father Fermín Lasuén (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Juan Norberto de Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California.
Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became increasingly vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California m issions began to expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked on a formal expedition in 1806 to find potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla, at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino County.
These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente (circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey who, in turn, established a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–19
were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976).
Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824.
As a result, both Baja and Alta California became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832.
These same missions were also l ocated on some of the most fertile land in California and, as a result, were considered highly valuable. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered expansive portions of California and, by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963). A review of Rive rside County place names quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present -day locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo (Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments within western Riverside County.
The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos, most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve suffering at the hands of the rancheros:
We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you … to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev.
Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21)
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources, A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–20
and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook 1976).
By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war (Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to t he United States. Once California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines, business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had beco me a state and was eventually divided into 27 separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry that was established during the earlier rancho period. However, by 1859, the first United States Post Office in what would eventually become Riverside County was set up at John Magee’s store on the Temecula Rancho (Gunther 1984).
During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County, including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998).
With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx brought farmers, land speculators, and pr ospective developers to the region. As the Jurupa area became more and more populated, circa 1870, Judge John Wesley North and a group of associates founded the city of Riverside on part of the former rancho.
Although the first orange trees were planted in Riverside County circa 1871, it was not until a few years later when a small number of Brazilian navel orange trees were established that the citrus industry truly began in the region (Patterson 1971). The Brazilian navel orange was well suited to the climate of Riverside County and thrived with assistance from several extensive irrigation projects. At the close of 1882, an estimated half a million citrus trees were present in California. It is estimated that nearly half of that population was in Riverside County. Population growth and 1880s tax revenue from the booming citrus industry prompted the official formation of Riverside County in 1893 out of portions of what was once San Bernardino County (Patters on 1971).
Shortly thereafter, with the start of World War I, the United States began to develop a military presence in Riverside County with the construction of March Air Reserve Base. During A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–21
World War II, Camp Haan and Camp Anza were constructed near the city of Riverside. In the decades that followed, populations spread throughout the county into Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, Murrieta, and Wildomar (Patterson 1971). However, a significant portion of the county remained largely agricultural well into the 1970s. Following the 1970s, Riverside saw a period of dramatic population increase as the result of new development, more than doubling the population of the county to a population of over 1.3 million residents.
General History of the Cathedral City Area
The earliest residents of the Coachella Valley, where Cathedral City is located, were the Cahuilla Indians, who settled in the palm-lined mountain canyons around the valley in the summers and moved to thatched shelters near the mineral hot springs during the winters. The Cahuilla name for the region is “Sec -he,” which means “boiling water,” in reference to the mineral hot springs that are located in what is currently the Palm Springs business district, southwest of the project .
In the early 1860s, the Bradshaw stagecoach line, Bradshaw Trail, passed through the region as it traveled between Banning, California, and the Arizona territories; during this time, the area was referred to as “Agua Caliente” (hot water). The Bradshaw Trail was the primary access route between Los Angels and Arizona until the Southern Pacific Railroad was completed in 1877.
Today, Highway 111 closely follows the original Bradshaw Trail (Kaplan 2017).
Traditionally, farming was the dominant economic basis in the Coachella Valley, due in part to the development of groundwater resources. The “main agricultural staple in the Coachella Valley was the date palm, which was first introduced around the turn of the century. By the late 1910s, the date palm industry had firmly established itself” (City of Cathedral City 2009).
The City of Cathedral was founded in 1925 by John Grove, George Allen, Glenn Plumley, and M.V. Van Fleet. With its name derived from nearby Cathedral Canyon, the town was created to provide affordable housing and was often referred to as the “blue -collar neighbor” of Palm Springs. The 1927 upgrading of Highway 111 allowed for the construction of motels and restaurants along the highway effectively creating the c ity’s downtown commercial district.
During the 1930s, Cathedral City pulled visitors from Palm Springs when two gambling casinos, the Dune Club and 139 Club, were opened (City of Cathedral City 2009).
The 1940s and the early 1950s marked a period of relatively rapid growth for Cathedral City. During World War II, the town served as a bedroom community to the military installations established in the vicinity as a part of the war effort. By the mid-l950s, residential development had expanded from the original townsite southward into the cove area, westward along Highway 111, and northward to the Ramon Road corridor. The rural northern portion of the planning area also saw significant growth in the early- and mid-1950s. In this area, five -acre parcels were patented by the U.S. government under the so -called “Baby Homestead Act, ” to A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–22
residents of the Los Angeles basin who were looking for weekend retreats in southern California’s desert.
During the post -WWII era, Cathedral City and the other cities along Highway 111 became the fastest growing communities in the Coachella Valley, and began to play an increasingly important role in the regional economy. In 1981, Cathedral City was incorporated as the 18
th city in Riverside County. With a population over 42,000, it is currently (2001) the third largest city in the Coachella Valley. (City of Cathedral City 2009)
2.4 Research Goals
The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which humans have used the land and resources within the project area through time, as well as to aid in the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the area under investigation is the central portion of Riverside County. The scope of work for the archaeological program conducted for the Verano Residential Project included the survey of the 128.34-acre property and off-site improvement areas. Given the area involved and the narrow focus of the cultural resources study, the research design for this project was necessarily limited and general in nature. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of the identified resources.
Although survey-level investigations are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources. The following research questions take into account the size and location of the project.
Research Questions:
• Can located cultural resources be situated with a specific time period, population, or individual?
• Do the types of located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site function? What resources were exploited? • How do the located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted in the area?
• How do the located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for valley environments of the region?
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–23
Data Needs
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project area occupants. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research were undertaken with these primary research goals in mind:
1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project; 2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the deposit, and chronological placement of each cultural resource identified; 3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and 4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each of the cultural resources identified.
2.5 Applicable Regulations
Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of Riverside County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are used in demonstrating resource importance. Expressly, criteria outlined in CEQA provide the guidance for making such a determination. The following sections detail the specific CEQA criteria that a resource must meet in order to be determined important.
California Environmental Quality Act
According to CEQA (§ 15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the C alifornia Register of Historical R esources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR [California Code of Regulations] .
Section 4850 et seq.).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey, meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, m ilitary, A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–24
or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1[g] of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
According to CEQA (§ 15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materiall y impaired.
2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR; or b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–25
Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or, c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). 2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Publ ic Resources Code do not apply.
3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (c -f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. 4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or EIR, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.
Section 15064.5(d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains.
Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–26
1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5).
2) The requirement of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
Local Guidelines – City of Cathedral City 2040 General Plan The City of Cathedral City includes the following goal and policy related to cultural, historical, and archaeological resources in their General Plan (City of Cathedral City 2021).
Goal 1: Identification, preservation, and revitalization of significant cultural, historical, and archaeological resources that are valuable to the City of Cathedral City ’s heritage.
Policy 1: The City will ensure that sites in archaeologically and historically sensitive areas are surveyed prior to development.
In order to implement the above General Plan goal and policy, the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (City of Cathedral City 2021) includes the following Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure CUL-4 Pre-Construction Surveys.
The City shall require intensive -level cultural resources surveys by qualified archaeologists, historians, and/or architectural historians, where deemed necessary and especially in areas of high sensitivity for cultural resources, as shown on Exhibit 2.6-1. Studies should include in- depth records search at the EIC, historic background research, intensive -level field survey, and consultation with the Cathedral City Historical Society, Native American representatives, and/or other relevant parties, as well as impact evaluation and mitigation programs, as needed.
The City shall monitor and enforce recommended mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure CUL-5 Archaeological and/or Tribal Resource Procurement and Documentation.
Should unknown archeological or tribal cultural resource materials become unearthed, the area of potential resources shall be cordoned off and protected from further disturbance until a qualified archeologist can investigate the discovery. The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a findings report summarizing the methods and results of the investigation, including an itemized inventory and detailed analysis of recovered artifacts upon completion of field and laboratory work. The report shall include an i nterpretation of the cultural activities represented by the A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–27
artifacts and a discussion of the significance of all archaeological or tribal finds.
The submittal of the report to the City and Tribal representative, as appropriate, along with final curation of the recovered artifacts, will signify completion of the monitoring program and, barring unexpected findings of extraordinary significance, the mitigation of potential project impacts on cultural and tribal resources.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–1
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The archaeological program for the Verano Residential Project consisted of institutional records searches, an intensive pedestrian survey of the project and off-site improvement areas by a qualified archaeologist, and preparation of this report . This archaeological study conformed to City of Cathedral City requirements and the statutory requirements of CEQA , Section 15064.5.
Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995).
3.1 Archaeological Records Search
The records search for the property was requested from the EIC at UCR. The records search results are discussed in Section 4.1. BFSA reviewed the NRHP index, historic USGS data, and historic aerial photographs. In addition, land patent records, held by the BLM and accessible through the BLM GLO website, were reviewed for pertinent project information, and the BFSA research library was consulted for any relevant historical information.
3.2 Field Methodology
The archaeological survey s of the project were conducted on June 5 and 6, 2023, and consisted of a series of parallel transects spaced at approximately 15-meter intervals covering the entire project and off-site areas. Photographs were taken to document project conditions during the surveys (see Section 4.2) . Ground visibility throughout the property was generally good.
Rodent spoil piles and patches of turned soil were closely inspected for evidence of subsurface archaeological materials.
3.3 Report Preparation and Recordation
This report contains statutory requirements for the project, a brief description of the setting, research methods employed, and the overall results of the survey. The report includes all appropriate illustrations and tabular information needed to make a complete and comprehensive presentation of these activities, including the methodologies employed and the personnel involved.
A copy of the final technical report will be placed at the EIC at UCR. Any newly recorded sites or sites requiring updated information will be recorded on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms, which will be filed with the EIC.
3.4 Native American Consultation
BFSA requested a review of the SLF by the NAHC on June 6, 2023, to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within the project vicinity.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–1
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Records Search Results
An archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area within a one - mile radius was requested from the EIC at UCR. The records search did not identify any recorded resources within the subject property. However, the search did identify four resources within one mile of the subject property (Table 4.1–1 ). The resources consist of a rock ring, a historic commercial building, a historic transmission line segment, and a historic isolate.
Table 4.1–1
Cultural Resources Recorded Within One Mile of the
Verano Residential Project
The EIC records search also identified 40 previous studies conducted within one mile of the project. However, none of the previous studies included the subject property.
BFSA also reviewed the following sources to help facilitate a better understanding of the historical use of the property:
• The NRHP index
• BLM GLO records (patents and maps)
• Historic USGS maps
o 1941 Edorn and 1958 Thousand Palms (15-minute) quadrangle maps o 1958, 1960, 1964, and 1973 Cathedral City (7.5-minute) quadrangle maps • Historic aerial photographs (1953 through 2020)
No properties listed on the NRHP were identified within the subject property. The BLM GLO records list a 1905 patent for the property to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company. This was a large land grant encompassing 109,318.23 acres and the associated plat maps (1856 and 1914) do not show any potential historic features within the property. Likewise, the historic USGS maps and aerial photographs do not show any historic development within the property. Rather , the project appears as vacant desert land. Sometime between 1999 and 2002, the property appears to have been graded as graded pads are visible on the latter photograph.
Site Description
P- 33-002171 Isolated rock ring (temporal period not assigned) P-33-006381 Historic commercial building
P-33-015035 Historic transmission line segment
P-33-024688 Historic isolate
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–2
BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC. The NAHC SLF results were negative for any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the project vicinity. All correspondence is provided in Appendix C.
4.2 Survey Results
Staff archaeologist Sabrina Corcoran conducted the archaeological surveys of the project on June 5 and 6, 2023. Vegetation across the landscape was dominated by creosote bushes and other desert plants as well as non -native weeds and grasses ( Plates 4.2–1 and 4.2–2) . The archaeological surveys of the property and off -site areas consisted of a series of parallel survey transects spaced at 15- meter intervals. Consistent with the aerial photographs , the survey found areas of the project had been previously impacted by clearing and grading. Evidence of grading was found throughout much of the project as pads, which were first visible on the 2002 aerial photograph, and were noted within the northwestern and norther portion of the project (Plate 4.2– 3). Other noted impacts to the property included a large, pushed stockpile of soil in the western side of the property, pushed rocks throughout , metal and wood fencing bisecting and lining the property, a modern block wall located along the northern portion of the project, paved entry roads, and modern trash which had been dumped in multiple locations (Plates 4.2–4 through 4.2–6). The survey did not result in the identification of any historic or prehistoric cultural resources.
Plate 4.2–1: Overview of the project, facing east.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–3
Plate 4.2–2: Overview of the project, facing southeast.
Plate 4.2–3: Overview of graded pad, facing southeast.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–4
Plate 4.2–4: Modern block wall and metal fencing, facing southeast.
Plate 4.2–5: Pushed rocks, facing southeast.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–5
Plate 4.2–6: Paved entry road, facing north.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–1
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Phase I archaeological assessment for the Verano Residential Project was negative for the presence of cultural resources. However, the pedestrian survey did find that the property has been previously cleared and disturbed. This is supported by evidence from aerial photographs illustrating grading on the property between 1996 and 2002. Although it appears area s of the project have previously been graded, the level of these impacts is not clear. This characterization of the property as surficially disturbed is relevant to the consideration of cultural resources being present within the project. When parcels are cleared, disked, or otherwise disturbed, evi dence of surface artifact scatters is lost. Whether or not cultural resources have ever existed within this property, the current status of the area appears to have affected the potential to discover any surface scatters of artifacts.
Given the uncertainty of the level of prior impacts to the property coupled with the project’s proximity to prehistorically available natural resources, such as the Whitewater River and ancient Lake Cahuilla, monitoring of grading is recommended. Consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR, as a condition of approval, the project will implement a cultural resources monitoring program conducted by an archaeologist during the initial clearing and grading of the property (first three to five feet). The consulting archaeologist shall have the authority to modify and reduce the monitoring program to either periodic spot-checks or suspension of the monitoring program should the potential for cultural resources appear to be less than anticipated.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–1
6.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
January 2, 2024
Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA Date
Project Archaeologist
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES
Barrows, David P.
1900 The Ethno- botany of the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Chicago Press. (Reprinted by the Malki Museum Press, 1976).
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 8), California, edited by R.F.
Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians , Vol 8. California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indians Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.
Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie
1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland, California.
Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History . Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas, California.
Byrd, Brian F.
1998 Harvesting the Littoral Landscape During the Late Holocene: New Perspectives from Northern San Diego County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(2):195–218.
Caughey, John W.
1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History . Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–2
City of Cathedral City
2009 City of Cathedral City Comprehensive General Plan. Prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., Palm Springs, California. Document on file with the Cit y of Cathedral City, California.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization . University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Curtis, E.S.
1926 The North American Indian, Volume 15. The University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr.
2008 Geologic map of the Palm Desert and Coachella 15 -minute quadrangles, Riverside County, California. Dibblee Foundation Map DF -373, J.A. Minch, ed. Dibblee Geological Foundation, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions . James M. Barry Company, San Francisco, California.
Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Early H olocene Sites on the California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 101–111. Perspectives in California Archaeology 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Fagan, B.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent . Thames and Hudson.
London.
Gallegos, Dennis
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Editor. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper 1.
1992 Patterns and Implications of Coastal Settlement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300 Years Ago. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Terry Jones.
Center for Archaeological Research, Davis, California.
Gallegos, Dennis R. and Carolyn E. Kyle
1988 Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164) San Diego, California. Unpublished r eport on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–3
Gunther, Jane D.
1984 Riverside Co unty, California, Place Names. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside, California.
Harris, Marvin
1991 Cultural Anthropology. HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York, New York.
Hooper, Lucille
1920 The Cahuilla Indians. In Studies in Cahuilla Culture, pp. 41–106. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.
Jertberg, Patricia R.
1981 Archaeological Salvage Investigation of CA -RIV-1180, Locus II on Dune La Quinta Parcel. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California.
Kaplan, Dave and Pam O’Connor
2017 Historic Resource Context and Historic Resource Program, Cathedral City, California.
Prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, Santa Monica, California. Document on file with the City of Cathedral City, California.
Koerper, Henry, C., Jonathan E. Ericson, Christopher E. Drover, and Paul E. Langenwalter, II 1986 Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22(1):33–69.
Kowta, M.
1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6.
Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Lancaster, J.T., Hayhurst, C.A., and Bedrossian, T.L.
2012 Preliminary Geologic Map of Quaternary S urficial Deposits in Southern California:
Palm Springs 30' x 60' Quadrangle. California Geological Survey Special Report 217, pl. 24.
Laylander, Don (editor)
1985 Some Linguistic Approaches to Southern California’s Prehistory. San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1):14–58.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–4
Laylander, Don, Jerry Schaefer, Nick Doose, Jessica Hennessey, and Ian Scharlotta 2014 A Regional Synthesis of Prehistoric Archaeological Landscapes in the Jacumba/McCain Valley Region, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California.
Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management and San Diego Gas & Electric by ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.
Martin, P.S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause , edited by P.
Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press, New Haven.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969–974.
Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern California. In: Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C.
Flemming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London.
Meighan, Clement W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2).
Miller, J.
1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis. University of California, San Diego.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Moriarty, James R., III
1966 Culture Phase Divisions Suggested by Topological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. Anthropological Journal of Canada 4(4):20–30.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1–
46. Norris, R.M. and R.W. Webb
1990 Geology of California. Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Pp. i -xiii + 1-541, illustrated.
Patterson, Tom
1971 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Press-Enterprise, Riverside, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–5
Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells . The History of San Diego Volume 2. Union- Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California.
1963 The Silver Dons . The History of San Diego Volume 3. Union- Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California.
Raven-Jennings, Shelly, Brian F. Smith and Johnna L. Buysse 1996 The Results of a Cultural Resource Study at the 4S Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, County of San Diego. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. In San Diego Museum Papers (No. 3 – 1989 printing). San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, California.
Rogers, Thomas H.
1965 Geologic Map of California: Santa Ana Sheet: California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250,000.
Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
Ross, J.E.
2020 Formation of California’s Salton Sea in 1905-07 was not “accidental,” in, Miller, D.M., ed., Changing facies. The 2020 Desert Symposium field guide and proceedings, p. 217-230. Published by Desert Symposium, Inc.
Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty, III 1961 Scripps Estate Site, San Diego, California: A La Jollan Site Dated 5,460- 7,370 Years Before the Present. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 93(3).
Smith, Brian F. and James R. Moriarty, III
1985 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of San Diego Motor Racing Park, Otay Mesa, San Diego. Unpublished report on file at the City of San Diego, Environmental Analysis Division, San Diego, California.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources . Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1).
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–6
Sutton, Mark Q.
2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2&3):33–93.
2011a The Palomar Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(4):1–74.
2011b A Prehistory of North America. Routledge, New York.
Sutton, Mark Q. and Jill K. Gardener
2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1–64.
True, Delbert L.
1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3).
1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County. The Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1–39
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230.
Warren, Claude N. (editor)
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Coast . In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C.I. Williams, editor. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1–14.
Warren, Claude N. and D.L. True
1961 The San Dieguito Complex and its Place in California Prehistory, In Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960- 1961. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California.
Warren, Claude N., D.L. True, and Ardith A. Eudey
1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960- 1961.
University of California, Los Angeles.
Wilke, Philip J.
1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California.
University of California Archaeological Research Facility Contributions No. 38, Berkeley, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–7
1986 Archaeological Investigations at La Quinta, Salton Basin, Southe astern California:
Chapter 1. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
Andrew J. Garrison, M .A., RPA
Project Archaeologist
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: [email protected]
Education
Master of Arts, Public History, University of California, Riverside 2009 Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2005 Bachelor of Arts, History, University of California, Riverside 2005 Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
California Council for the Promotion of History
Society of Primitive Technology
Lithic Studies Society
California Preservation Foundation
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Experience
Project Archaeologist June 2017–Present BFSA Environmental Serives, A Perennial Company Poway, California Project management of all phases of archaeological investigations for loca l, state, and federal agencies including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) level projects interacting with clients, sub-consultants, and lead agencies. Supervise and perform fieldwork including archaeological survey, monitoring, site testing, comprehensive site records checks, and historic building assessments. Perform and oversee technological analysis of prehistoric lithic assemblages. Author or co-author cultural resource management reports submitted to private clients and lead agencies.
Senior Archaeologist and GIS Specialist 2009–2017 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Ora nge, California Served as Project Archaeologist or Principal Investigator on multiple projects, including archaeological monitoring, cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and historic building assessments. Directed projects from start to finish, including budget and personnel hours proposals, field and laboratory direction, report writing, technical editing, Native American consultation, and final report submittal.
Oversaw all GIS projects including data collection, spatial analysis, and map creation.
Preservation Researcher 2009 City of Riverside Modernism Survey Riverside, California Completed DPR Primary, District, and Building, Structure and Object Forms for five sites for a grant - funded project to survey designated modern architectural resources within the City of Riverside.
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 2
Information Officer 2005, 2008–2009 Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside Riverside, California Processed and catalogued restricted and unrestricted archaeological and historical site record forms.
Conducted research projects and records searches for government agencies and private cultural resource firms.
Reports/Papers
2019 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tuscany Valley (TM 33725) Project National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the County Road and East End Avenue Project, City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 818 Project, City of San Diego. Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Stone Residence Project, 1525 Buckingham Drive, La Jolla, California 92037. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Seaton Commerce Center Project, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marbell a Villa Project, City of Desert Hot Springs, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for TTM 37109, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Winchester Dollar General Store Project, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2016 John Wayne Airport Jet Fuel Pipeline and Tank Farm Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Scient ific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the County of Orange, California.
2016 Historic Resource Assessment for 220 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868 Assessor’s Parcel Number 041-064-4. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to the City of Orange as part of Mills Act application.
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 3
2015 Historic Resource Report: 807-813 Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2015 Exploring a Traditional Rock Cairn: Test Excavation at CA-SDI-13/RBLI-26: The Rincon Indian Reservation, San Diego County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
2014 Archaeological Monitoring Results: The New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Scie ntific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Volume 7, Technological Analysis of Stone Tools, Lithic Technology at Bolsa Chica: Reduction Maintenance and Experimentation. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
Presentations
2017 “Repair and Replace: Lithic Production Behavior as Indicated by the Debitage Assemblage from CA-MRP-283 the Hackney Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Fish Camp, California.
2016 “Bones, Stones, and Shell at Bolsa Chica: A Ceremonial Relationship?” P resented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Markers of Time: Exploring Transitions in the Bolsa Chica Assemblage.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Dating Duress: Understanding Prehistoric Climate Change at Bolsa Chica.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2014 “New Discoveries from an Old Collection: Comparing Recently Identified OGR Beads to Those Previously Analyzed from the Encino Village Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Visalia, California.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeology: Part Seven: Culture and Chronology. Lithic demonstration of experimental manufacturing techniques at the April meeting of The Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Irvine, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
DRAFT
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION –
DUE DILIGENCE/UPDATE
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT –
VERANO
CATHEDRAL CITY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For NCP VERANO, LLC
C/O NORTHLIGHT CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC
55 SAUGATUCK AVE., 1ST FLOOR
WESTPORT, CT 06880
Prepared By LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
41945 BOARDWALK, SUITE V
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
Project Number 13678.002
November 8, 2022
DRAFT
November 8, 2022
Project No. 13678.002
NCP Verano, LLC
c/o Northlight Capital Partners LLC
55 Saugatuck Ave., 1st Floor
Westport, CT 06880
Atte
ntion: Mr. Ben Gerig
Subj
ect: Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update Proposed Residential Development – Verano
Cathedral City, California
In ac
cordance with your request and authorization, we are pleased to present herewith the results of our geotechnical exploration for the subject site located northwest of the intersection of Verano Road and Landau Boulevard, in the City of Cathedral City , California. This report summarizes our findingsand conclusions and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site development. Based on the results of this evaluation, the site appears suitable for the intended use provided our recommendations included herein are properly incorporated during design and construction phases of development. However, it should be noted that additional geotechnical evaluations or review might be needed as site development and/or grading plans become available.
If
you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project.
Res
pectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Bashir S. Saiid, PE
Senior Project Engineer
Ext 8927 [email protected]
Robert F. Riha, CEG
President / Sr. Principal Geologist
Ext 8914 [email protected]
Distribution: (1) A ddressee
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Site Location and Description ............................................................................. 1
1.3 Proposed Development....................................................................................... 2
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ....................................... 3
2.1 Previous Studies ................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Field Exploration .................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................. 3
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS .................................................... 5
3.1 Regional Geology ................................................................................................ 5
3.2 Site Specific Geology .......................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Map symbol Af) ..............................................................................5
3.2.2 Quaternary Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal) .............................................................5
3.3 Groundwater and Surface Water ........................................................................ 6
3.4 Faulting and Fissuring ......................................................................................... 6
3.5 Ground Shaking .................................................................................................. 6
3.6 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and Dry Settlement) ..................................... 7
3.7 Flooding ............................................................................................................... 8
3.8 Seiche and Tsunami ........................................................................................... 8
3.9 Expansive/Collapsible Soils ................................................................................ 8
3.10 Slope Stability and Landslides ............................................................................ 8
4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................. 9
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 10
5.1 General .............................................................................................................. 10
5.2 Earthwork Considerations ................................................................................. 10
5.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading ...........................................................10
5.2.2 Cut/Fill Transition Lots ......................................................................................11
5.2.3 Structural Fills ...................................................................................................11
5.2.4 Shrinkage and Subsidence ..............................................................................12
5.2.5 Import Soils .......................................................................................................12
5.2.6 Utility Trenches .................................................................................................12
5.2.7 Drainage ...........................................................................................................13
5.2.8 Slope Design and Construction ........................................................................14
5.3 Foundation Design ............................................................................................ 14
5.3.1 Bearing and Lateral Pressures .........................................................................14
5.3.2 Settlement ........................................................................................................15
5.3.3 Vapor Retarder .................................................................................................15 DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
ii
5.4 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................. 16
5.5 Geochemical Characteristics ............................................................................ 17
5.6 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters ....................................................... 17
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ................................................ 19
7.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................... 20 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 21
Accompanying Tables, Figures and Appendices (end of text)
Tables
Table 1. 2019 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients ................................................... 7 Table 2. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) ............................... 16 Table 3. Preliminary Pavement Design ........................................................................ 17
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Boring Location Plan
Figure 3 – Regional Geology Map
Figure 4 – Regional Fault Map
Appendices
Appendix A – Field Exploration / Geotechnical Borings
Appendix B – Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Appendix C – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix D – GBA Important Information about this Geotechnical Engineering Report
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This geotechnical report is for the proposed “Verano” project located in the city of Cathedral City, California (see Figure 1). Our scope of services for this exploration included the following:
Review of provided previous geotechnical explorations ( Sladden, 1999 and 2003) and other available geologic information and relevant publications listed in the references at the end of this report.
A site geologic reconnaissance and visual observations of surface conditions. Excavation, sampling and logging of 7 exploratory geotechnical hollow stem auger borings throughout the site. Logs of test borings are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface exploration program. A brief description of laboratory testing procedures and laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.
Geotechnical engineering analyses performed or as directed by a California registered Professional Engineer ( PE) including preliminary foundation and seismic design parameters based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC).
A California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) performed engineering geology review of site geologic hazards.
Preparation of this report which present s the results of our exploration and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the proposed residential development. It should be noted that geotechnical reviews and/or additional subsurface investigation and evaluation may be recommended based on future site development plans.
This report is not in tended to be used as an environmental assessment (Phase I or other), and foundation and/or a rough grading plan review.
1.2 Site Location and Description
The project site is located on twelve (12) contiguous undeveloped parcels, totaling approximately 145-acres, located northwest of the intersection of Verano Road and Landau Boulevard, City of Cathedral City, California. The approximate limits of the site are shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The property is bounded on the north and west by vacant land, Rio Vista Elementary School and existing DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
2 residences to the east , and Verona Road to the south. A perimeter wall exists along the northern boundary of the site . The Riverside County Assessor designates the site as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 677-050-015 through - 018, -023, -027, -029, -031 thru -034, and -039.
Topographically, the site and surrounding area slopes to the south and southeast.
Site elevations range from high point elevation of approximately 480 feet above mean sea level (msl ) near the northwestern corner to a low point elevation of approximately 428 (msl) near the sou theast corner of the property. The site is currently vacant with sand dune topography along the northern boundary.
1.3 Proposed Development
Plans for site development are not available at this time but are assumed herein to include typical single family detached homes with 1 to 2- story wood frame construction. The foundation loads are not expected to exceed 2,500 pounds per lineal foot (plf) for continuous footings.
We anticipate that site grading will include typical cut and fill grading to create level pads, access streets and 2:1 slopes. The maximum proposed cut and fill thickness is unknown at this time but we estimate it could be on the order of 5 to 15 feet. If site development significantly differs from the assumptions made herein, the recommendations included in this report should be subject to further review and evaluation.
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
3 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AN D LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 Previous Studies
Based on our review of si te-specific geotechnical reports (Sladden, 2003), partial rough-grading of the site started in October, 2001, and consisted of over - excavation of native surface soils and placement of engineering fill to construct present grade. Although no documentation was available for our review to confirm the extent of remedial grading, the project soils report (Sladden, 1999) recommended removal of 3 feet below existing grade or 2 feet below the bottom of footings , whichever is deeper. Remedial grading for pavement and exterior flatwork consisted of scarifying and/or removing the upper 12 inches and re- compacting to 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM 1557. Groundwater was not encountered within the explored depth of 50 feet and “the potential for liquefaction affecting the site is considered negligible.” According to the project soils report, “the soils underlying the site consist primarily of fine-grained to coarse blown and alluvial sands.” The expansion potential is expected to be very low.
2.2 Field Exploration
Our field exploration program consisted of 7 hollow-stem auger borings excavated at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). During excavation, bulk samples and relatively “undisturbed” Ring samples were collected from the exploration borings for further laboratory testing and evaluation. The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained utilizing a modified California drive sampler (2⅜-inch inside diameter and 3-inch outside diameter) driven 18 inches in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3550. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed using a 2- inch outside diameter (1⅜-inch inside diameter) sampler driven 18 inches in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1586.
The number of blows to drive the samplers are recorded on the boring logs for each 6-inch increment (unless encountering refusal or >50 blows per 6 inches).
Sampling was conducted by a staff geologist from our firm. After logging and sampling, the excavations were loosely backfilled with spoils generated during excavation. The logs of exploratory test borings are presented in Appendix A.
2.3 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk and undisturbed drive samples to provide a basis for development of remedial e arthwork and geotechnical design parameters. Selected samples were tested for the following DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
4 parameters: insitu moisture and density, maximum dry density (Proctor), R-Value, gradation, collapse , soluble sulfate, pH, resistivity and chloride content. The results of our laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B.
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
5 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS
3.1 Regional Geology
The site is located in the Coachella Valley in the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province of California. The San Bernardino Mountains of the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province are to the north and the San Jacinto Mountains of the Peninsular Range are to the south. The dominant structural feature in this region is the active San Andreas transform system that consists of several major northwest-trending right lateral strike slip faults that extend through the San Gorgonio pass along the southern foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, and along the northeast margin of the Coachella Valley. The San Andreas Fault Zone is composed of a series of fault zones of which the Garnet Hill and south branch of the San Andreas are located in the immediate site vicinity north of the site.
Figure 3, Regional Geology Map, shows the region as unconsolidated Holocene sediments (alluvium and other deposits). The site itself is underlain by wind-blown (aeolian) sand deposits as well as alluvial soil eroded from the nearby mountains and deposited in the site vicinity.
3.2 Site Specific Geology
Based on the results of our field exploration and review of rele vant geologic data for this area (see References), the site subsurface materials consist of dune sands over alluvium to the depths explored . These units are discussed in the following sections in order of increasing age and further described on the logs o f geotechnical borings in Appendix A.
3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Map symbol Af)
Based on the soil types described in previous report s and our field exploration, artificial fill generally consisted of poorly -graded sand to silty sand with gravel/cobbles . It is estimated that the artificial fill generally extends to a depth varying of 5 to 6 feet below ground surface (BGS).
Based on the results of our laboratory testing, these materials are expected to possess a very low expansion potential (EI<21).
3.2.2 Quaternary Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal)
Quaternary-aged alluvial deposits were encountered in all of our borings to the maximum depth explored. As encountered, the alluvium typically consists of light brown to brownish gray, medium dense to very dense, poorly-graded fine sand to silty sand. The alluvium is expected to generally possess very low expansion potential (EI<21).
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
6 3.3 Groundwater and Surface Water
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the boring s and no standing water was observed on the ground surface during the time of the investigation.
According to Department of water Resources, Southern District, Well 338628N1165236W001 (local well 9) located west of the site, groundwater depths may be betwe en 250 and 335 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on this data, it appears that shallow groundwater has not been present recently, or historically. As such, groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to development of the site. However, it should be noted that local perched water conditions may exist intermittently and may fluctuate seasonally, depending on rainfall and irrigation conditions . S urface runoff from the adjacent elevated portions of the site should be anticipated.
3.4 Faulting and Fissuring
This site is not located within a currently designated Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or County of Riverside Fault Zone. No active , inactive fault traces or fissuring are known to traverse the planned development portions (Bryant and Hart 2007) and no evidence of onsite faulting was observed during our investigation.
As defined by the California Geologic Survey, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years).
The closest known active fault zone is the San Gorgonio Pass-Garnet Hill Segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone. The San Gorgonio Pass-Garnet Hill Segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately, 1.5 miles (2.4 km) northwest of the site (USGS, 2022). The San Gorgonio Pass-Garnet Hill Segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone is considered to be the source of the design earthquake.
3.5 Ground Shaking
Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes in this general region. This is common to virtually all of Southern California. Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics. Based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and using the USGS Ground Motion Parameter Calculator , the seismic coefficients for this site are provided in the following table:
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
7 Table 1. 2019 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients CBC Categorization/Coefficient Design Value (g)
Site Longitude (-116.4834) Site Latitude (33.8589)
Site Class Definition D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss 2.29 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, S1 0.97 Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.00
Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, Fv 1.70
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 2.29 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM1 1.65 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 1.53 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SD1 1.10 * g- Gravity acceleration
The seismic coefficients for Site Class D follow Exception (2) in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 that assumes a fundamental period of vibration less than 0.5s for the proposed structures. The project structural engineer should confirm such assumption or else a site–specific ground motion analysis will be required. Based on this analysis, the Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PGA) is 0.98g and the site modified Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PGAm) is 1.08g.
3.6 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and Dry Settlement) Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils below a near -surface groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. Due to the absence of shallow groundwater, the liquefaction-induced settlement is considered very low on this site.
However, during a strong seismic event, seismically -induced settlement can still occur within loose to moderately dense, dry or saturated granular soils. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often non- uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. Based on the proposed remedial grading recommendations in areas of planned development, the potential total settlement resulting from ground shaking is considered minimal or less than 1 inch in the upper 50 feet of soils.
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
8 3.7 Flooding
The site is not within a flood plain and potential for flooding is considered very low for this site.
3.8 Seiche and Tsunami
Due to the sites elevated location and lack of nearby open bodies of water, the possibility of the affects due to seiches or tsunami is considered nil.
3.9 Expansive/Collapsible Soils
Limited laboratory testing indicated that onsite soils possess a very low expansion potential (EI<21). Based on the remedial grading recommendations in areas of planned development, the potential impact due to collapsible s oils, if they exist onsite, is considered nil.
3.10 Slope Stability and Landslides
Significant slopes are not located on or near the site. As such, slope instability is not considered an issue at this site. The site is not considered susceptible to seismically induced landslides.
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
9 4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this exploration, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical /geologic standpoint. The following is a summary of the main geotechnical findings or factors that may affect development of the site. The depth of compacted fill appears to range from approximately 5 to 6 feet below existing pads elevation. The tested fill appears to be medium dense to dense based on the results of the field Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs). The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable for reuse as fill during proposed grading provided they are relatively free of organic material and debris. Undocumented fill soils, topsoil, and loose dune sand are considered to be potentially compressible. These materials should be removed and recompacted in areas of planned development.
Based on our subsurface explorations, it is our opinion that the onsite earth materials in most areas can be excavated with heavy -duty conventional grading equipment in good working condition.
Evidence of active faulting was not identified within the planned development area of the subject site. S trong ground shaking may occur at this site due to local earthquake activity.
Perched groundwater was not encountered, however, may develop in areas of soils with contrasting permeabilities possibly resulting in saturated fills or seepage from slopes. This condition is often a result of individual homeowners’ water use and irrigation practices.
Based on preliminary laboratory results and field observations, onsite earth materials are expected to possess a very low expansion potential and negligible sulfate exposure to concrete. Additional testing should be performed during site grading to verify these observations.
Cut slopes greater than 3 feet in height are recommended to be constructed as replacement fill slopes.
Fill slopes are anticipated to be less than 20 feet in height and are expected to be grossly and surficially stable.
Unprotected pads and slope faces will be susceptible to erosion. This risk can be reduced by planting the slopes as soon as possible after grading, and by maintaining proper erosion control measures
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
10 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
Based on the results of this preliminary exploration, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical viewpoint.
Grading of the site should be in accordance with our recommendations included in this re port and future recommendations based on additional site-specific development plans and evaluations made during construction by the geotechnical consultant.
5.2 Earthwork Considerations
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix C as well as the following recommendations.
The recommendations contained in Appendix C, are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects and some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations c ontained in the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix C.
The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the fill properly in accordance with the recommendations of this report , and applicable County Grading Ordinances, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant during construction.
5.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading
Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all structural fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) of the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, heavy vegetation and boulders. Roots and debris should be disposed of offsite. Septic Tanks or seepage pits, if encountered, should be abandoned in accordance with the County of Riverside Department of Health Services guidelines.
The near surface soils (undocumented artificial fill, blown sand dunes, debris, etc.) are potentially compressible in their present state and may settle under the surcharge of fills or foundation loading. As such, these materials should be removed (over-excavated) and re-compacted in all settlement-sensitive areas in accordance with the criteria presented below. In addition, weathering of the surficial soils, local disturbance and vegetative growth has resulted in some surface loosening and drying. As such, the following is a summary of our recommendations:
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
11 For the previously graded and partially graded pads (“Af”, See Figure 2), we recommend that the upper 12 inches of surface soils within the building pad envelope (and 2 feet beyond all structural components) be removed. The removal bottom should then be thoroughly scarified 12- inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).
For the previously non-graded areas (“Qa”, See Figure 2), we recommend that the upper 3 feet of alluvium or 2 feet below bottom of footings, whichever is deeper, should be remo ved/over-excavated and recompacted prior to foundation construction or placement of any additional fill. This remedial grading may be reduced to the upper 2 feet of alluvium or 1 foot below soil subgrade for paved and hardscaped areas.
The scarification, moisture conditioning and compaction should result in subgrade soils possessing near optimum moisture content and a minimum 90 percent relative density per ASTM D1557.
Acceptability of all removal bottoms should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant a nd documented in the as -graded geotechnical report. The removal limit should be established by a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) projection from the edge of fill soils supporting settlement -sensitive structures downward and outward to competent material identified by the geotechnical consultant. Removal will also include benching into competent material as the fills rise. Areas adjacent to existing structures or property limits may require special considerations and monitoring. Steeper temporary slopes in these areas may be considered.
5.2.2 Cut/Fill Transition Lots
In order to mitigate the impact of underlying cut/fill transition conditions, we recommend over -excavation of the cut portion of transition lots. Over - excavation should extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below the bottom of the proposed footings or one- half of the maximum fill thickness on the lot, whichever is deeper (not to exceed 10 feet). This overexcavation does not include scarification or preprocessing prior to placement of fill.
5.2.3 Structural Fills
The onsite soils are generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill provided they are free of debris, organic matter and oversize rock. Areas to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, conditioned to at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted. Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557) and near or above optimum moisture content. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
12 size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and not contain rocks greater than 12-inches in maximum dimension.
Fill slope keyways will be necessary at the toe of all fill slopes and cut slope replacement fills. Keyway schematics, including dimensions and subdrain recommendations, are provided in Appendix D . All keyways should be excavated into dense bedrock or dense alluvium as determined by the geotechnical engineer. The cut portions of all slope and keyway excavations should be geologically mapped and approved by a geologist prior to fill placement.
Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical) should be benched into dense soils (see Appendix D for benching detail). Benching should be of sufficient depth to remove all loose material. A minimum bench height of 2 feet into approved material should be maintained at all times.
5.2.4 Shrinkage and Subsidence
The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon compaction is expected to vary with materials, volume of roots and deleterious materials, density, insitu moisture content, location, and compaction effort. The in- place and compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust import quantities to accommodate some variation. Based on our experience with similar materials, we anticipate 12 to 15 percent shrinkage in the upper 5 to 10 feet of dune sand/alluvium.
Subsidence due solely to scarification, moisture conditioning and recompaction of the exposed bottom of overexcavation, is expected to be on the order of 0.10 foot. This should be added to the above shrinkage value for the recompacted fill zone, to calculate overall recompaction subsidence.
5.2.5 Import Soils
Import soils and/or borrow sites, if needed, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to import. Import soils should be uncontaminated, granular in nature, free of organic material (loss on ignition less-than 2 percent), have a very low expansion potential (with an Expansion Index less than 21 ) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements.
5.2.6 Utility Trenches
Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306- 1.2 and 306- 1.3 of the Standard Specifications for Public DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
13 Works Construction, (“Greenbook”), 2021 Edition (or most recent) . Fill material above the pipe zone should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) by mechanical means only.
Site soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided these soils are screened of rocks over 1½ inches in diameter and organic matter. If imported sand is used as backfill, the upper 3 feet in building and pavement areas should be compacted to 95 percent. The upper 6 inches of backfill in all pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
Where granular backfill is used in utility trenches adjacent moisture sensitive subgrades and foundation soils, we recommend that a cut -off “plug” of impermeable material be placed in these trenches at the perimeter of buildings, and at pavement edges adjacent to irrigated landscaped areas.
A “plug” can consist of a 5-foot long section of clayey soils with more than 35-percent passing the No. 200 sieve, or a Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) consisting of one sack of Portlan d-cement plus one sack of bentonite per cubic -yard of sand. CLSM should generally conform to Section 201-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (“Greenbook”), 2021 Edition. This is intended to reduce the likelihood of water permeating trenches from landscaped areas, then seeping along permeable trench backfill into the building and pavement subgrades, resulting in wetting of moisture sensitive subgrade earth materials under buildings and pavements.
Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications and the California Construction Safety Orders (Current Edition). The contractor should be responsible for providing a "competent person" as defined in Article 6 of the California Cons truction Safety Orders. Contractors should be advised that sandy soils (such as fills generated from the onsite alluvium) could make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not properly implemented. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles from the excavation(s) and construction equipment should be kept away from the sides of the trenches. Leight on does not consult in the area of safety engineering.
5.2.7 Drainage
All drainage should be directed away from structures , slopes and pavements by means of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices.
Adequate storm drainage of any proposed pad should be provided to avoid wetting of foundation soils. Irrigation adjacent to buildings should be DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
14 avoided when possible. As an option, sealed -bottom planter boxes and/or drought resistant vegetation should be used within 5-feet of buildings.
5.2.8 Slope Design and Construction
Based on our understanding and planning purposes, all fill and cut slopes will be designed and constructed at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) . These slopes are considered grossly stable for static and pseudostatic conditions . For planning purposes, cut slopes exceeding 5 feet in height should be constructed as replacement fill slopes due to the highly erosive nature of site soils. Future grading plans should be subject to further review and evaluation.
The outer portion of fill slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet (minimum) and trimmed back to the finished slope configuration or compacted in vertical increments of 5 feet (maximum) by a weighted sheepsfoot roller as the fill is placed. The slope face should then be tr ack-walked by dozers of appropriate weight to achieve the final slope configuration and compaction to the slope face.
Slope faces are inherently subject to erosion, particularly if exposed to wind, rainfall and irrigation. Landscaping and slope maintenance should be conducted as soon as possible in order to increase long -term surficial stability. Berms should be provided at the top of fill slopes. Drainage should be directed such that surface runoff on the slope face is minimized
5.3 Foundation Design
5.3.1 Bearing and Lateral Pressures
Based on our analysis, the proposed residential/ and retail/commercial structures may be founded on conventional foundation systems based on the design parameters provided below . The proposed foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with the structural consultants’ design, the minimum geotechnical recommendations presented herein, and the 2019 CBC. In utilizing the minimum geotechnical foundation recommendations, the structural consultant should design the foundation system to acceptable deflection criteria as determined by the architect.
Foundation footings may be designed with the following geotechnical design parameters:
Bearing Capacity: A net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), or a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci may be used for design of footings founded entirely into compacted fill. The footings should extend a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade. A minimum base width of 18 inches for continuous footings and a minimum bearing area of 3 square feet (1.75 ft by 1.75 ft) for pad DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
15 foundations should be used. Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short -term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind).
Passive Pressures: The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 3 00 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab- on-grade thickness should be designed by the structural cons ultant based on recommendations and soil characteristics indicated herein and the most recently adopted edition of the CBC.
5.3.2 Settlement
The project civil engineer, structural engineer, and architect should consider the potential effects of both static sett lement and dynamic settlement presented below.
Static Settlement: Most of the static settlement of onsite soils is expected to be immediate or within 30 days following fill placement. A differential static settlement of 0.5 inch over a 40-foot span may be considered for design purposes. Additional settlement will also occur in the future if sites grades are raised or due to specific or large footing/foundation loads.
Dynamic Settlement: Based on our analysis , we estimate that total dynamic settlement is expected to be less than 1 inch. D ifferential settlement is expected to be minimal or less than 0.5 inches over a 40- foot horizontal span.
5.3.3 Vapor Retarder
It has been a standard of care to install a moisture retarder underneath all slabs where moisture condensation is undesirable. Moisture vapor retarders may retard but not totally eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. Leighton does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person/firm be engaged/consulted with to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. This person/firm should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure as deemed appropriate.
The slab subgrade soils should be well wetted prior to placing concrete.
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
16 5.4 Retaining Walls
Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear strength of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Retaining walls backfilled with non- expansive soils should be designed using the following equivalent fluid pressures:
Table 2. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) Loading
Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)
Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill
Active 35 50
At-Rest 50 80
Passive* 300 150 (2:1, sloping down)
* This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the duration of the project, not to exceed 3,000 psf at depth. If sloping down (2:1) grades exist in front of walls, then they should be designed using passive values reduced to ½ of level backfill passive resistance values.
Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active equivalent-fluid weight value provided above for very low to low expansive soils that are free draining. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding) such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest equivalent fluid weight value should be used. Total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be measured as the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding calculations. Should a sloping backfill other than a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a backfill is loaded by an adjacent surcharge load), the equivalent fluid weight values provided above should be re- evaluated on an individual case basis by us. Non- standard wall designs should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to check that the proper soil parameters have been incorporated into the wall design.
All retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in Appendix E, Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail. Wall backfill should be non-expansive (EI ≤ 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
17 minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Clayey site soils should not be used as wall backfill. Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the 28- day compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer that the wall is structurally capable of supporting backfill.
Lightweight compaction equipment should be used, unless otherwise approved by the Structural Engineer.
5.5 Geochemical Characteristics
Limited laboratory testing indicated a negligible concentration of soluble sulfates in onsite soils for representative samples. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.
Additional corrosion testing should be performed on representative finish grade soils at the completion of rough grading. Concrete foundations in contact with site soils should be designed in accordance with 201 9 CBC. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted to review the results of laboratory tests and coordinate additional testing if corrosion sensitive materials are to be used.
5.6 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters
In order to provide the following recommendations, we have assumed an R-value of 74 based on our laboratory testing and the granular nature of the onsite soils and results of our laboratory testing . For the final pavement design, appropriate traffic indices should be selected by the project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant and representative samples of actual subgrade materials should be tested for R-value.
Table 3. Preliminary Pavement Design
Street Type
Loading
Conditions
TI
AC Pavement Section Thickness
Asphaltic-Concrete
(AC) Thickness (inch)
Aggregate Base (AB)
Thickness (inch)
Parking Stalls 5 3.0 4.0
Local Street 6 3.0 6.0
Heavy Traffic
Driveways/trucks 7 4.0 6.0
The subgrade soils in the upper 6 inches should be properly compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be moisture- conditioned to near optimum and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed. Proof -rolling subgrade to identify localized areas of yielding DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
18 subgrade (if any) should be performed prior to placement of aggregate base and under the observation of the geotechnical consultant.
Minimum relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Base rock should conform to the "Standard Specif ications for Public Works Construction" (green book) current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R -value of 78. Asphaltic concrete should be placed on compacted aggregate base and compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction
The preliminary pavement sections provided in this section are meant as minimum, if thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed.
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
19 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. Poor performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton be provided the opportunity to review the grading plan and foundation plan(s).
Reasonably-continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construct ion. Geotechnical conclusions and preliminary recommendations should be reviewed and verified by Leighton during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided:
After completion of site demolition and clearing,
During ground preparation, fill slope key excavations, overexcavation of surface soils and subdrain placement as described herein,
During compaction of all fill materials,
After excavation of all footings, and prior to placement of concrete, During utility trench backfilling and compaction, and When any unusual conditions are encountered.
Additional geotechnical exploration and analysis may be required based on final development plans, for reasons such as significant changes in proposed structure locations/footprints. We should review grading (civil) and foundation (structural) plans, and comment further on geotechnical aspects of this project.
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
20 7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations.
Such information is necessarily incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. This investigation was performed with the understanding that the subject site is proposed for residential and commercial development. The client is referred to Appendix D regarding important information provided by the G eoprofessional Business Association (G BA) on geotechnical engineering studies and reports and their applicability.
This report was prepared for NCP Verano, LLC, based on its n eeds, directions, and requirements at the time of our investigation. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except NCP Verano, LLC, and its successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom Leighton and Associates, Inc. has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton and Associates, Inc. from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates, Inc.
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
21 REFERENCES
ASCE, 2016, ASCE Standard 7- 16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures by Structural Engineering Institute, ISBN 0- 7844-0809-2, Second Printing, Published in 2016.
Blake, T. F., 2000a, EQSEARCH, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs, Users Manual, 94pp., with update data, 2006.
Bryant, W. A. and Hart, E. W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, Special Publication 42. Interim Revision.
California Building Code, (CBC) 2019, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2.
California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) 2022, Water Data Library, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/index.cfm, Data viewed August 10.
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2012, Landslide Inventory Maps, www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/LSIM/lsim_maps
.
Civil Tech Corporation, 2005, LIQUEFYPRO Version 5.2, A Computer Program for Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis, Civil Tech Software, 2005.
Morton, D. M., et al., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’X 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, USGS Open-File Report 99-172.
OSHPD, 2022, Seismic Design Maps, an interactive computer program on OSHPD website to calculate Seismic Response and Design Parameters based on ASCE 7-16 seismic procedures, https://seismicmaps.org/
Public Works Standard, Inc., 2021, Greenbook, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Building News, Anaheim, California.
Riverside County, 2003, Riverside County General Plan Safety Element and Appendix H, Adopted October 7, 2003, Geotechnical Report (Technical Background Document).
Riverside County Information Technology, 2022 , Map My County (website), http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_Public.
Sladden Engineering, Inc., 1999, Geotechnical Investigation, Rio Vista Village, Tentative Tract 28639, Cathedral City, California, Project No. 544-9137, dated August 24.
Scale:1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 13678.002 Eng/Geol: BSS/RFR
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\13678\002\Maps\13678-002_F01_SLM_2022-10-28.mxd on 11/2/2022 11:12:04 AM Author: (mmurphy)
Date: November 2022
SITE LOCATION MAP
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
FIGURE 1
Verano Recovery
Residential Development
Verano Road, Cathedral City, California
Reference: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation ©
2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus
Legend
Approximate Site Boundaries
³
0 500 1,000
Feet
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\13678\002\Maps\13678-002_F02_BLM_2022-11-01.mxd on 11/8/2022 10:02:47 AM
BORING LOCATION MAP
Verano Recovery
Residential Development
Verano Road, Cathedral City, California
Scale:
Base Map: Bing Maps, 2016 2022
1 " = 500 '
Project: 13678.002 Eng/Geol: BSS/RFR
Author: (mmurphy)
Date: November 2022
FIGURE 2
Legend
&< Approximate Location of Boring
Approximate Limit of Existing Artificial Fill
Approximate Site Boundaries
Geologic Units
Artificial Fill (Sladden, 2001)
Quaternary Alluvium
LB-7
Af
Qa
!"`$
Qg
Qg
Qs
Qa Qa
Qa
Qo
Qs
Qa
Scale:1 " = 2,000 '
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\13678\002\Maps\13678-002_F03_RGM_2022-11-01.mxd on 11/2/2022 12:12:56 PM Base Map: Geologic Map of the Thousand Palms &
Lost Horse Mountain 15 Minute Quadrangles by
Thomas W. Dibblee Jr., 2006.
Date: November 2022
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Verano Recovery
Residential Development
Verano Road, Cathedral City, California
Base Map: Geologic Map of the Thousand
Palms & Lost Horse Mountain 15 Minute
SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS
Alluvial sand and gravel of major creeks and stream washes Alluvial sand and gravel of valley areas
Loose fine sand deposited by prevailing winds as dunes
OCOTILLO FORMATION
Fanglomerate of mostly gray conglomerate, sandstone, silts and tuff; some vertebrate fossil fragments
Qs
Qa
Qg
Qo
Legend
Approximate Site Boundaries
Project: 13678.002 Eng/Geol: BSS/RFR
REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
FIGURE 3
Scale:1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 13678.002 Eng/Geol: BSS/RFR
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\13678\002\Maps\13678-002_F04_RFM_2022-11-01.mxd on 11/2/2022 12:29:03 PM Reference: Reference: Riverside County Mapping
Portal, 9/9/2019.
Date: November 2022
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
FIGURE 1
Verano Recovery
Residential Development
Verano Road, Cathedral City, California
Base Map: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation ©
2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus
Legend
Approximate Fault Location (Riverside County)
Approximate Location of Fault Zone
(Riverside County)
Approximate Site Boundaries
DRAFT
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration – Due Diligence/Update November 8, 2022 Proposed Residential Development – Verano Project No. 13678.002
22 Sladden Engineering, Inc., 2003, Report of Observation and Testing During Rough Grading, Rio Vista Village, Tentative Tract 28639, 29751, 29752, and 29753, Cathedral City, California, Project No. 522-9137, dated July 1.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, Cathedral City 7.5- Minute Quadrangle Topographic Maps. (Printed from TOPO, website, http://www.topo.com).
United States Geological Survey, (USGS), 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’x60’ quadrangles, California, Version 1.0, Open File Report 2006- 1217.
Youd, T.L. and I.M. Idriss (Co-Chair), 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils , Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10, publis hed October 2001.
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION /
GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS
104
116
113
SW
SM
GW
B1
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
1 1
1 Quaternary Alluvium (Qal)Well graded SAND, yellow, moist, fine to coarse sand, somegravelMD = 125.5 @ 6.0, FINES 10% GRAVEL 2% medium dense
stiff, gray to yellow
SILTY SAND, dense, gray to yellow, moist, fine to coarse sand,some silt, smaller gravel > 4" no recovery
GRAVEL, dense, fine to coarse sand, 4 cm rock in sample
MD, SA,CR
121725
12196
222739
50/6"
183550/3"
SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches
'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST MJMHollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
10-12-22
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co. Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Boring Location MapUrban West - Verano13678.002Drilling Method8" Sample No.
FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged ByDate DrilledMJM
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUC 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 119 SW
SP
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
1 no recovery
Well graded gravelly SAND, dense, yellow to gray, dry, gravel upto 3 cm 20% gravel; -200 = 3 white to pale yellow, more gravel
yellow, moist
Poorly graded SAND, yellow, moist, medium sand, few gravelTotal Depth 51.4'No Groundwater EncounteredBackfilled 10/12/2022 -200
4250/4"
3250/5"
4250/3"
202850/5"
202750/4"
SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches
'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST MJMHollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
10-12-22
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co. Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Boring Location MapUrban West - Verano13678.002Drilling Method8" Sample No.
FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged ByDate DrilledMJM
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUC 30 35
40 45
50 55
60 124
112110105
SM
SM
B1R1
R2R3R4
R5
R6
2 122
Artifical Fill (Af)SILTY SAND, brown, moist, fine to medium sand, few gravel,some mica; RV = 24dense, few gravelmedium to coarse sandQuaternary Alluvium (Qal)SILTY SAND, medium dense, some micamedium dense, light brown, moist, fine to medium sand, lessmica, some gravel (5%) same as above
same as aboveTotal Depth 21.5'No Groundwater EncounteredBackfilled 10/12/2022 RV3628452350/6"7101491013
91216
131621
SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches
'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST MJMHollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
10-12-22
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co. Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Boring Location MapUrban West - Verano13678.002Drilling Method8" Sample No.
FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged ByDate DrilledMJM
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUC 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 108
111114112
SM
SM
B1R1
R2R3R4
R5
R6
1 111
Artificial Fill (Af)SILTY SAND, yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium sand,some gravel; MD = 123.9 @ 8.2medium dense, fine to coarse sandclay lensesQuaternary Alluvium (Qal)SILTY SAND with gravel, dense, yellowish brown, drydry, more gravel more gravel
same as aboveTotal Depth 21.5'No Groundwater EncounteredBackfilled 10/12/2022 MD183033181221183350/6"4550/6"
192145
253050/5"
SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches
'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST MJMHollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
10-12-22
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co. Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Boring Location MapUrban West - Verano13678.002Drilling Method8" Sample No.
FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged ByDate DrilledMJM
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUC 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 100
118
SM
SM
R1
R2B1R2R4
R5
0 1
Artificial Fill (Af)SILTY SAND, dense, gray to yellow, moist, fine to medium sand,some mica dense, fine to coarse sand, some gravelFINES 5% GRAVEL 2%Quaternary Alluvium (Qal)SILTY SAND, medium dense, pale brown to pale yellow, dry,fine to coarse sand, some gravelmedium dense, pale brown to pale yellow, less gravel same as aboveTotal Depth 16.5'No Groundwater EncounteredBackfilled 10/12/2022 SA, CR
2350/5"
203340172228101725
203550
SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches
'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST MJMHollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
10-12-22
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co. Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Boring Location MapUrban West - Verano13678.002Drilling Method8" Sample No.
FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged ByDate DrilledMJM
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUC 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 115
119114116
108
SMB1R1
R2R3R4
R5
R6
1 121
3 Quaternary Alluvium (Qal)SILTY SAND, yellow to gray, moist, fine to coarse sand, 10%graveldensemedium densebrown, fine to medium sand, micayellow to gray, fine to coarse sand, gravelly loose, light brown, moist, fine to medium sand, some mica medium denseTotal Depth 21.5'No Groundwater EncounteredBackfilled 10/12/2022 142050121715161316101513
10710
102123
SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches
'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST MJMHollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
10-12-22
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co. Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Boring Location MapUrban West - Verano13678.002Drilling Method8" Sample No.
FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged ByDate DrilledMJM
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUC 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 106
119
SMB1R1
R2R3R4
R5
1 1
Quaternary Alluvium (Qal)no recovery
SILTY SAND, medium dense, yellowish brown, moist, fine tomedium sand, mica, >5% gravelno recovery20% gravel dense, yellow to gray, no gravelTotal Depth 16.5'No Groundwater EncounteredBackfilled 10/12/2022 50/5"
111416771291828
172327
SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches
'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST MJMHollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
10-12-22
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co. Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Boring Location MapUrban West - Verano13678.002Drilling Method8" Sample No.
FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged ByDate DrilledMJM
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUC 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 106
107
105
106
SMB1R1
R2R3R4
R5
R6
1 1
1 1
Quaternary Alluvium (Qal)SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, fine to medium sand, no gravelEI = 0same as abovesame as above, lots of coarse grainssame as above, 5% gravel-200 = 11same as above, no gravel same as above
same as above, clay lensesTotal Depth 21.5'No Groundwater EncounteredBackfilled 10/12/2022 EI
-200
9161171116101323161321
91422
182124
SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches
'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST MJMHollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
10-12-22
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co. Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Boring Location MapUrban West - Verano13678.002Drilling Method8" Sample No.
FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged ByDate DrilledMJM
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUC 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 DRAFT
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF GEOTECHNI CAL LABORATORY TESTI NG
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
13678.002
SAND
SILT FINE
HYDROMETER
Verano DD/Update
Project No.:
LB-1 Sample No.:
Soil Type :
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Well-Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM), Grayish Brown.
SW-SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:
Depth (feet): 0 - 5.0
Project Name:
B-1
Oct-222 : 88 : 10
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve; LB-1, B-1 (10-12-22)
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
13678.002
SAND
SILT FINE
HYDROMETER
Verano DD/Update
Project No.:
LB-4 Sample No.:
Soil Type :
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM), Grayish Brown.
SP-SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:
Depth (feet): 5.0 - 10.0
Project Name:
B-1
Oct-222 : 93 : 5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve; LB-4, B-1 (10-12-22)
200 Wash (10-12-22)
LB-1 LB-7
R-7 R-3
35.0 7.0
RING RING
10 10
1150.8 710.1
1142.9 705.5
279.7 279.9
0.9 1.1
MA 20
1142.9 705.5
279.7 279.9
863.2 425.6
MA 20
1117.6 659.4
279.7 279.9
837.9 379.5
3 11
97 89
Project Name:
Project No.:
Client Name:
Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 10/26/22
Verano DD/Update
13678.002
NCP Verano, LLC
Boring No.
Sample No.
Container No.:
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (gm.)
Container No.:
Weight of Sample + Container (gm.)
Sample Dry Weight Determination
Depth (ft.)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (gm.)
Moisture Correction
Sample Type
Soil Classification
Soak Time (min)
After Wash
% Retained No. 200 Sieve
Dry Weight of Sample (gm)
Dry Weight of Sample + Container (gm)
Weight of Container (gm)
Weight of Container (gm)
Moisture Content (%)
Weight of Container (gm.)
Weight of Dry Sample (gm.)
% Passing No. 200 Sieve
(SW)g
PERCENT PASSING
No. 200 SIEVE
ASTM D 1140
SP-SM
Compaction; LB-1, B-1 (10-12-22)
Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 10/27/22
Input By: M. Vinet Date: 10/27/22
LB-1 Depth (ft.): 0 - 5.0
X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³) 0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5486 5556 5576 5542
3528 3528 3528 3528
1958 2028 2048 2014
760.3 754.0 836.0 788.2
743.2 724.1 786.8 731.2
278.0 279.4 278.3 280.2
3.7 6.7 9.7 12.6
129.2 133.9 135.2 132.9
124.7 125.4 123.3 118.0
125.5 6.0
PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
2:88:10
GR:SA:FI
Atterberg Limits:
LL,PL,PI
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:
Boring No.:
Verano DD/UpdateProject Name:
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Preparation Method:
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
13678.002
TEST NO.
Soil Identification:
Sample No.:
Well-Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM), Grayish Brown.
Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.65
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
XX
Compaction; LB-3, B-1 (10-12-22)
Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 10/27/22
Input By: M. Vinet Date: 10/27/22
LB-3 Depth (ft.): 0 - 5.0
X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³) 0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5412 5516 5580 5582
3528 3528 3528 3528
1884 1988 2052 2054
803.2 749.0 765.8 838.0
785.0 720.4 723.2 775.3
277.6 279.8 279.9 278.0
3.6 6.5 9.6 12.6
124.4 131.2 135.4 135.6
120.0 123.2 123.6 120.4
123.9 8.2
PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
GR:SA:FI
Atterberg Limits:
LL,PL,PI
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:
Boring No.:
Verano DD/UpdateProject Name:
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Preparation Method:
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
13678.002
TEST NO.
Soil Identification:
Sample No.:
Well-Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM), Grayish Brown.
Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.65
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
XX
Project Name: Date: 10/26/22
Project Number: 13678.002 Technician: F. Mina
Boring Number: LB-2 Depth (ft.): 0 - 5.0
Sample Number: B-1
Sample Description:
TEST SPECIMEN A B C
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 7.5 8.0 8.5
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.55 2.49 2.55
DRY DENSITY, pcf 116.5 116.5 115.0
COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psi 350 350 350
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 758 388 141
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 0 0 0
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 15 19 25
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.50 4.62 5.00
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 84 80 73
R-VALUE CORRECTED 84 80 73
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.25 0.32 0.43
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 24
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 17
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 17
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844
Verano DD/Update
Well-Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM), Brown. N/ASample Location:
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in
feet
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in
feet
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
0100200300400500600700800
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
Project Name: Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 10/26/22
Project No. : Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 10/27/22
Boring No.: Depth: 0 - 5.0
Sample No. : Location:
Sample Description:
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wt. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h.
Rev. 03-08
SPECIMEN INUNDATION
68.7 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
9.0 350.5
325.7
0.497
50.5 178.0
600.2
127.6
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
71.448.9
Pressure
(psi)
0.332Total Porosity
2.70 373.4
178.0
13.1 0.331
68.3 EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM), Yellowish Brown.
MOLDED SPECIMEN
4.01 1.0000
7Container No.
Specimen Diameter (in.)
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.)
178.0
N/A
Verano DD/Update
13678.002
LB-7
B-1
ASTM D 4829
98.6 4.01
2.70 2939.7
0.0 585.0
2939.7
40.7 0.9982
600.2
After TestBefore Test
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
7 0.494
Dry Density (pcf)
Wet Density (pcf)
Specific Gravity (Assumed)
Specimen Height (in.)
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
10/26/22
112.6
Moisture Content (%)
Date
8:00
Void Ratio
Pore Volume (cc)
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]
122.8
Time
10/27/22 9:00
1.0 1.0
8:10 1.010/26/22
1.0 0 Expansion Index ( Report ) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
Wt. of Container (gm.)
112.8
0.5000
10 0.5000
0.498210/27/22
0 1430
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 8:00
1490 0.4982
-1.8
Project Name: Tested By : M. Vinet Date:
Project No. : Data Input By: M. Vinet Date:
Boring No.: Depth (ft.) :
Sample No. :
Soil Identification:*
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.
Wt. of Container (g)10.00 30000
0.00 100.00
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Specimen
No.
1 2
Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
50 Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
30000
1.000
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)
29.80 Moisture Content Sulfate Content
5 Min. Resistivity
DOT CA Test 643DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422
(%) (ppm) (ppm)
DOT CA Test 643
4 83
116
149
A
500.003 1500023.20
17000
15000 23.2 152 20 7.30 21.0
SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
Temp. (°C)pH
Soil pH
17000
15000
100.00
0.00 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
Verano DD/Update 10/26/22
10/27/22
0 - 5.0
13678.002
LB-1
B-1
Container No.
Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
Box Constant16000 16000
Well-Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM)
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)
16.60 Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Moisture Content (%)
Minimum resistivity
read here
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
EARTHWORK AND GRADIN G SPECIFICATIONS
-i-
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 GENERAL 1
1.1 Intent 1
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record 1
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor 2
2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 2
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2
2.2 Processing 3
2.3 Overexcavation 3
2.4 Benching 3
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas 3
3 .0 FILL MATERIAL 4
3.1 General 4
3.2 Oversize 4
3.3 Import 4
4 .0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 4
4.1 Fill Layers 4
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning 5
4.3 Compaction of Fill 5
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes 5
4.5 Compaction Testing 5
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing 5
4.7 Compaction Test Locations 6
5 .0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 6
6 .0 EXCAVATION 6
7 .0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 6
7.1 Safety 6
7.2 Bedding & Backfill 7
7.3 Lift Thickness 7
7.4 Observation and Testing 7
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-1-
1.0 General
1.1 Intent
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required.
Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-2-
and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished.
The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-3-
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.
2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation
In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-4-
2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.
Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
3.3 Import
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-5-
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-6-
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557).
4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant.
Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.
4.5 Compaction Testing
Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-7-
testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 Safety
The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-8-
7.2 Bedding and Backfill
All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.3 Lift Thickness
Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
7.4 Observation and Testing
The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
DRAFT
APPENDIX D
GBA - IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly
a client representative – interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as
possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered
exposure to problems associated with subsurface
conditions at project sites and development of
them that, for decades, have been a principal cause
of construction delays, cost overruns, claims,
and disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed herein,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for
everyone involved with a construction project.
Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services
Provided for this Report
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.
The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.
Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed
for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects,
and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.
Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical- engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project or purpose;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
About Change
Y our geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:
• the site’s size or shape;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.
Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report
Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.
This Report’s Recommendations Are
Confirmation-Dependent
The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Y our geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:
• confer with other design-team members;
• help develop specifications;
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.
Y ou should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- phase observations.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations, ” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.
Y our geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with
Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.
Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.
Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA ’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.
Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Telephone: 301/565-2733
e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org
PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR
THE VERANO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CATHEDRAL CITY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 677-050-017, -018, -027, -029, and -031 through -034
Prepared on Behalf of:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92614
Prepared for:
City of Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, California 92234
Prepared by:
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
June 20, 2023; Revised January 2, 2024
Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Paleontological Database Information
Author: Todd A. Wirths, M.S., Senior Paleontologist, California Professional Geologist No. 7588
Consulting Firm: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company 14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
Report Date: June 20, 2023; Revised January 2, 2024
Report Title: Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project, Cathedral City, Riverside County, California
Prepared for: EPD Solutions, Inc.
2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92614
Submitted to: City of Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, California 92234
USGS Quadrangle: Section 5, Township 4 South, Range 5 East, of the Cathedral City, California USGS quadrangle
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 677-050-017, -018, -027, -029, and -031 through -034
Study Area: 128.34 acres
Key Words: Low paleontological resource sensitivity; Holocene alluvial deposits; no monitoring recommended.
Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION .......................................................................1 II. REGULATORY SETTING .......................................................................................1 State of California ......................................................................................................1 County of Riverside Guidelines ..................................................................................5 City of Cathedral City Guidelines...............................................................................6 III. GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................6 IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................6 Definition ....................................................................................................................6 Fossil Locality Search.................................................................................................8 Project Survey .............................................................................................................8 V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ....................................................................8 Overview .....................................................................................................................8 Professional Standards ...............................................................................................9 Riverside County Sensitivity .......................................................................................9 VI. C ONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................9 VII. CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................10 VIII. REFERENCES .........................................................................................................10
Appendix
Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 General Location Map .................................................................................3 Figure 2 Project Location Map ...................................................................................4 Figure 3 Geologic Map...............................................................................................7
Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION
This paleontological resource assessment report has been completed for the Verano Residential Project, located between Interstate 10 and Vista Chino in the northern portion of the city of Cathedral City in Riverside County, California (Figure 1) . More specifically, the project is situated north of the intersection of Verona Road and Ventura Drive and includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 677-050-017, -018, -027, -029, and - 031 through -034, which total 128.34 acres. In a ddition, there is an existing sand berm to the west of the project which is planned to be “reformed” as part of an off -site improvement that is attached to the project. An access road for sand berm maintenance will also be constructed as an off-site improvement along a portion of the northern project boundary. The subject property is within Section 5, Township 4 South, Range 5 East of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as shown on the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) (7.5-minute) Cathedral City, California topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2). The project proposes to clear the project parcels for the construction of a residential subdivision.
As the lead agency, the City of Cathedral City has required the preparation of a paleontological assessment to evaluate the project’s potential to yield paleontological resources.
The paleontological assessment of the project included a review of paleontological literature and fossil locality records for a previous project in the area , a review of the underlying geology , and recommendations to mitigate impacts to potential paleontological resources, if necessary.
II. REGULATORY SETTING
The California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), which is patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act, is the overriding environmental regulation that sets the requirement for protecting California’s paleontological resources. CEQA mandates that governing permitting agencies (lead agencies) set their own guidelines for the protection of nonrenewable paleontological resources under their jurisdiction.
State of California
Under “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,” as amended in December 2018 (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq.), procedures define the types of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. Section 15063 of the CCR provides a process by which a lead agency may review a project’s potential impact to the environment, whether the impacts are significant, and provide recommendations, if necessary.
In CEQA’s Environmental Checklist Form, one of the questions to answer is, “Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” (Appendix G, Section VII, Part f). This is to ensure compliance with California Public Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 Resources Code Section 5097.5, the law by which protects nonrenewable resources including fossils, which is paraphrased below:
3 F i g u r e 2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
T
h
e
V
e
r
a
n
o
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
U
S
G
S
C
a
t
h
e
d
r
a
l
C
i
t
y
Q
u
a
d
r
a
n
g
l
e
(
7 .
5 -
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
r
i
e
s
)
4 Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5 a) A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.
b) As used in this section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.
c) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
County of Riverside Guidelines
For Riverside County, policies concerning paleontological resources are addressed under the 2015 Multipurpose Open Space Element of the Riverside County General Plan and are as follows:
OS 19.6 Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has high paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS-8, a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) shall be filed with the 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 [in the General Plan] , no direct mitigation is required unless a fossil is encountered during site development. Should a fossil be encountered, the County Geologist shall be notified and a paleontologist shall be retained by the project proponent. The paleontologist shall document the extent and potential significance of the paleontological resources on the site and establish appropriate mitigation measures for further site development.
OS 19.8 Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has undetermined paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS -8 [in the General Plan] , a report shall be filed with the 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 Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6 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 [WSC] in the City of Hemet. (County of Riverside 2015a)
A comprehensive review of paleontological resources, including regulatory background, permitting conditions, significance thresholds, and procedures for the treatment of discovered resources, can be found in the County’s D raft Environmental I mpact Report (County of Riverside 2015b).
City of Cathedral City Guidelines
The Cathedral City General Plan does not address paleontological resources (City of Cathedral City 2009).
III. GEOLOGY
Regionally, the project lies within the Salton Trough, a depressed structural block bounded on the west by the San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, and Coyote m ountains and on the east by the San Andreas fault zone and Edom Hill, the Indio Hills, and the Mecca Hills ( Norris and Webb 1990; Dibblee 2008). Based on mapping and descriptions by Rogers (1965) and Dibblee (2008), the project is within Holocene alluvium and/or dune sands. More precise mapping by Lancaster et al. (2012) indicate s the geology at the surface of most of the project consists of late Holocene alluvial wash deposits, composed of unconsolidated sands and gravels deposited by recently active channels or streams (gray areas labeled “Qw” on Figure 3). Portions of the project’s western parcels are mapped as late Holocene eolian or sand dune deposits, composed of well sorted, wind-blown sand (pale green, dotted areas labeled “Qe” on Figure 3).
IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Definition
Paleontological resources are the remains of prehistoric life that have been preserved in geologic strata. These remains are called fossils and include bones, shells, teeth, and plant remains (including their impressions, casts, and molds) in the sedimentary matrix, as well as trace fossils such as footprints and burrows. Fossils are considered older than 5,000 years of age (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010) but may include younger remains (subfossils) when viewed in the context of local extinction of the organism or habitat, for example. Fossils are considered a non-renewable resource under state and local guidelines (Section II of this report).
F i g u r e 3
G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
M
a
p
T
h
e
V
e
r
a
n
o
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
G
e
o
l
o
g
y
a
f
t
e
r
L
a
n
c
a
s
t
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
2 0
1 2
)
7 Q v o f
Q y f
Q e
Q w
L a t e H o l o c e n e
E o l i a n a n d d u n e d e p o s i t s
A l l u v i a l w a s h d e p o s i t s
H o l o c e n e t o l a t e P l e i s t o c e n e
Y o u n g a l l u v i a l f a n d e p o s i t s
Y o u n g a l l u v i a l v a l l e y d e p o s i t s M i d d l e t o e a r l y P l e i s t o c e n e
V e r y o l d a l l u v i a l f a n d e p o s i t s G e o l o g i c U n i t s
L e g e n d
Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 Fossil Locality Search
A paleontological literature review and collections and locality records search was conducted for the project using data from prior, nearby projects performed by BFSA. Sources for past record searches include the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) and WSC. The nearest fossil localities held by the SBCM are several miles away to the south from the Pleistocene-aged Ocotillo Formation and consist of bone and tooth fragments of Equus sp., Mammut pacificus, and Mammuthus columbi (Kottcamp 2023). The WSC does not have fossil localities within this area of Coachella Valley (Stoneburg 2022).
According to published literature, the nearest fossil localities occur at Garnet Hill, approximately five miles northwest of the project, along the south side of I nterstate 10. Garnet Hill mostly consists of an outcrop of the upper Miocene -aged Imperial Formation, documenting an early incursion of marine flooding of the proto- Gulf of California. A diverse fauna of late Miocene-aged invertebrates, mostly bivalve mollusks with some echinoderm remains (sand dollars and urchins), have been documented there since the 1930s . These specimens are held by the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley (Powell 1995).
Project Survey
On June 5 and 6, 2023, BFSA staff, under the supervision of Principal Investigator Todd A. Wirths, conducted an intuitive review of the property to determine if any paleontological resources were visible. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey transects set approximately 15 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface. All potentially sensitive areas where paleontological resources might be located were closely inspected. The project was observed as previously graded, with housing pads and streets laid out. Stockpiles of sand and rock were present, as well as a cinder block wall. Paved roads from developed properties from the southeast extended into the project. Active deposits of wind- blown sand were present throughout the surfaces of the project. No bedrock outcrops were exposed that might suggest the presence of fossils. No paleontological resources, or evidence of paleontological resources, were observed during the survey.
V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
Overview
The degree of paleontological sensitivity of any particular area is based on a number of factors, including the documented presence of fossiliferous resources on a site or in nearby areas, the presence of documented fossils within a particular geologic formation or lithostratigraphic unit, and whether or not the original depositional environment of the sediments is one that might have been conducive to the accumulation of organic remains that m ay have become fossilized over time. Holocene alluvium is generally considered to be geologically too young to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources ( i.e., fossils) and thus is typically assigned a low paleontological sensitivity. Pleistocene (more than 11,700-year-old) alluvial and alluvial fan Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 deposits in western Riverside County, however, often yield important Ice Age terrestrial vertebrate fossils, such as extinct mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, extinct species of horse, bison, camel, saber -toothed cats, and o thers (Jefferson 1991 ). These Pleistocene sediments are thus accorded a high paleontological resource sensitivity.
Professional Standards
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010) has drafted guidelines that include four categories of paleontological sensitivity for geologic units (formations) that might be impacted by a proposed project, as listed below:
• High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered.
• U ndetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment, and that further study is needed to determine the potential of the rock unit. • L
ow Potential: Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections or based upon a general scientific consensus that only preserve fossils in rare circumstances.
• N
o Potential: Rock units that have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources, such as high-grade metamorphic rocks and plutonic igneous rocks.
Using these criteria, the Holocene deposits mapped at the project may be considered to have a low potential to yield significant paleontological resources.
Riverside County Sensitivity
The County of Riverside Land Information System ranks the Holocene alluvium at the project properties as having a “Low” paleontological sensitivity (County of Riverside Land Information System 2023) . The category “ Low” indicates that fossils are unlikely to be encountered during excavation activities and, therefore, there is a low potential for significant paleontological resources that could be adversely impacted.
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the young age of the alluvium at the project, a low potential for the occurrence of paleontological resources within the young alluvium, and the lack of known paleontological localities in the area of the project, paleontological monitoring during earth disturbance activities at the project is not recommended. A paleontological resource impact mitigation program for the project is not warranted.
Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11 Kottcamp, S. 2023. Paleontology Records Review for site of First Industrial 18th and Indian Canyon project, North Palm Springs, Riverside County, California. Unpublished letter report for BFSA Environmental Services, Poway, California, by the San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California.
Lancaster, J.T., Hayhurst, C.A., and Bedrossian, T.L. 2012. Preliminary geologic map of Quaternary surficial deposits in southern California: Palm Springs 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle.
California Geological Survey Special Report 217, pl. 24.
Powell, C.L. 1995. Paleontology and Significance of the Imperial Formation at Garnet Hill, Riverside County, California. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-489.
Rogers, T.H. 1965. Geologic map of California: Santa Ana sheet. California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento. Map scale 1:250,000.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard procedures for the a ssessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources; by the SVP Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf.
Stoneburg, B.E. 2022. Paleontological r ecord search letter for the Palm Springs Self Storage Project, Palm Springs, Riverside County, California . For Brian F. Smith and Associates, Poway, California, by the Western Science Center, Hemet, California.
Paleontological Assessment for the Verano Residential Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
Todd A. Wirths, MS, PG No. 7588
Senior Paleontologist
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: [email protected]
Education
Master of Science, Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, California 1995 Bachelor of Arts, Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz 1992 Professional Certifications
California Professional Geologist #7588, 2003
Riverside County Approved Paleontologist
San Diego County Qualified Paleontologist
Orange County Certified Paleontologist
OSHA HAZWOPER 40-hour trained; current 8-hour annual refresher Professional Memberships
Board member, San Diego Geological Society
San Diego Association of Geologists; past President (2012) and Vice President (2011) South Coast Geological Society
Southern California Paleontological Society
Experience
Mr. Wirths has more than a dozen years of professional experience as a senior-level paleontologist throughout southern California. He is also a certified California Professional Geologist. At BFSA, Mr.
Wirths conducts on-site paleontological monitoring, trains and supervises junior staff, and performs all research and reporting duties for locations throughout Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Mr. Wirths was formerly a senior project manager conducting environmental investigations and remediation projects for petroleum hydrocarbon - impacted sites across southern California.
Selected Recent Reports
2019 Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California . Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2019 Paleontological Assessment for the MorningStar Marguerite Project, Mission Viejo, Ora nge County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 2
2019 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Nimitz Crossing Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Voltaire 24, LP. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2019 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Prepared for JRT BP 1, LLC.
Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Oce anside Beachfront Resort Project, Oceanside, San California. Prepared for S.D. Malkin Properties. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Nakase Project, Lake Forest, Orange County, San California. Prepared for Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc . Report on file at Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Sunset Crossroads Project, Banning, Riverside County. Prepared for NP Banning Industrial, LLC. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Assessment for the Ortega Plaza Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County .
Prepared for Empire Design Group . Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Record Search Update for the Green River Ranch III Project, Green River Ranch Specific Plan SP00 -001, City of Corona, California . Prepared for Western Realco. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Assessment for the Cypress/Slover Industrial Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Imperi al Landfill Expansion Project (Phase VI, Segment C-2), Imperial County, California. Prepared for Republic Services, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Manitou Court Logi stics Center Project, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Link Industrial. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2021 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Del Oro (T ract 36852) Project, Menifee, Riverside County . Prepared for D.R. Horton . Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Alessandro Corporate Center Project (Planning Case PR-2020- 000519), City of Riverside, Riverside County, California . Prepared for OZI Alessandro, LLC .
Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2021 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Boardwalk Project, La Jolla, Cit y of San Diego .
Prepared for Project Management Advisors, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
Northlight Capital Partners Verano LLC
55 Saugatuck Avenue, 1st Floor
Westport, CT 06880
File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
Report of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment
Verano Development
APNs 677‐050‐015, ‐016, ‐017, ‐018, ‐023,
‐027, ‐029, ‐031, ‐032, ‐033, & ‐034
W of Landau Boulevard & N of Verona Road
Cathedral City, Riverside County, California
May 15, 2023
Submitted By:
Earth Systems Pacific
79811B Country Club Drive
Bermuda Dunes, California 92203
©2023 Earth Systems Pacific
Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Earth Systems Pacific.
EARTH SYSTEMS
79‐811B Country Club Drive | Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203‐1244 | (760) 345‐1588 | www.earthsystems.com May 15, 2023 File No. 305289‐001
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
Northlight Capital Partners Verano LLC
55 Saugatuck Avenue, 1st Floor
Westport, CT 06880
Attention: Mr. Ben Gerig, CEO
Subject: Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Project: Verano Development
APNs 677‐050‐015, ‐016, ‐017, ‐018, ‐023,
‐027, ‐029, ‐031, ‐032, ‐033, & ‐034
W of Landau Boulevard & N of Verona Road
Cathedral City, Riverside County, California
As you requested, Earth Systems Pacific [Earth Systems] has completed this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [ESA] of the site referenced above. This report was prepared for your exclusive use. It was prepared to stand as a whole, and no part should be excerpted or used in exclusion of any other part. This ESA is a requirement for the existing CEQA planning document for the full build‐out of the (Verano Development) community . The project was conducted in accordance with our proposal dated April 19, 2023. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questio ns regarding this report, or t he information contained herein, please contact this office at your convenience.
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 40 CFR 312.10. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history and setting of the subject site. I have endeavored to perform this project in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR 312.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Alexander Schriener, Jr., PG 7198
Associate Geologist
ESA/asj/jt/klm/cgj
Distribution: 6/Northern Capital Partners Verano LLC
1/BER
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Report of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment
Verano Development
APNs 677‐050‐015, ‐016, ‐017, ‐018, ‐023,
‐027, ‐029, ‐031, ‐032, ‐033, & ‐034
W of Landau Boulevard & N of Verona Road
Cathedral City, Riverside County, California
May 15, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Information ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work .................................................................................. 1
1.3 Definitions ............................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Qualifications ......................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Exclusions and Data Gaps ...................................................................................... 3
1.6 Limitations and Reliance ........................................................................................ 4
2.0 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 5
2.1 Size, Location, and Name ....................................................................................... 5
2.2 Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) .................................................................................. 5
2.3 Township, Range, Section ...................................................................................... 6
2.4 Site Boundaries ...................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Current Development and Access ......................................................................... 6
2.6 Zoning/Land Use Records ...................................................................................... 6
2.7 Site Topography ............................................... ..................................................... 6
2.8 Surface Water Bodies ............................................................................................ 6
2.9 Geology and Hydrogeology ...................................... ............................................. 7
3.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Onsite Observations .............................................................................................. 7
3.1.1 Overall site conditions ............................................................................... 8
3.1.2 Individual APNs .......................................................................................... 8
3.2 Site Vicinity Observations ...................................................................................... 9
4.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................ 10
4.1 Prior Reports ................................................. ...................................................... 10
4.2 Additional Historical Information ........................................................................ 11
5.0 RECORDS REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Agency Database Search Report .......................................................................... 11
5.2 California EPA, State Water Resources Control Board ......................................... 13
5.3 California Department of Toxic Substances Control ............................................ 13
5.4 Vapor Encroachment ........................................................................................... 13
5.5 Tribal Records ...................................................................................................... 13
5.6 Engineering and Institutional Controls ................................................................ 13
5.7 Environmental Cleanup Liens .............................................................................. 14
5.8 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued ii
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
6.0 INTERVIEWS, GENERAL RESEARCH, AND PRIOR REPORTS .......................................... 14
6.1 Current Owners/Occupants/Operators ............................................................... 14
6.2 Past Owners/Occupants/Operators ..................................................................... 14
6.3 Owners/Occupants of Neighboring Properties .................................................... 14
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 14
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Photographs
Appendix C Agency Database Search Report
Appendix D Additional Documentation
Appendix E Qualifications Statement
Appendix F Reliance Form
May 15, 2023 ‐ 1 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Information
This report presents the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [ESA] conducted by Earth Systems Pacific [Earth Systems] for the Verano Develop ment, located west of Landau Boulevard and north of Verona Road in Cathedral City, Riverside County, California [the site]. This project was conducted for Northern Capital Partners Verano LLC in accordance with our proposal dated April 19, 2023. In 2022, Earth Systems conducted an ESA for property, which included the site, and summarized previous ESAs for the property. We unders tand the site plan is for residential development. This pr oject has been performed at th e request of the client for due diligence purposes. We are not aware of special requirements for this ESA.
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work
T h e p u r p o s e o f a n E S A i s t o e v a l uate the potential for the presence of soil or groundwater contamination that may be present because of the past use, hand ling, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or petroleum products on or near the proper ty. The scope of work for this evaluation is based on the United States Environmental Protecti on Agency Final All Appropriate Inquiry Rule (2006) [US EPA AAI]; and, the ASTM Standard E1527‐13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, and consisted of the tasks listed below.
Site Reconnaissance: This involved a visual reconnaissance of the site, noting physical evidence of potential contamination or possible sources of cont amination; and observation of adjacent properties to identify readily observable visual ev idence of possible impacts to the subject site. Figures depicting the site location and layo ut are presented in Appendix A.
Significant onsite features were photographed to document current conditions. Selected site photographs are presented in Appendix B.
Records Review: Records regarding the regulatory status and hi s t o r y o f t h e s i t e w e r e evaluated regarding the possible presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions [REC].
Regulatory agency records were reviewed by obtaining a report li s t i n g k n o w n s i t e s t h a t generate, store, use, and/or have released hazardous materials from a firm that specializes in maintaining a database of this type of information. A copy of the agency database search report is presented in Appendix C and is discussed in Section 5 .1. The search radius for the agency database search was in accordance with the US EPA AAI an d ASTM standard E1527‐ 13 as measured from the site boundary. Other sources of information are listed in the references section of this report and may include the following c a t e g o r i e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n (note that each category is utilized at the discretion of Environmental Professional [EP] until, in the EP’s opinion, sufficient data has been obtained):
Historical aerial photographs
Topographic maps
California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources maps Fire insurance maps
Land title information
May 15, 2023 ‐ 2 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Local street directories
Zoning/land use records
Engineering and institutional controls, such as deed restrictions and restrictive zoning to a radius of ¼ mile, if contained in publicly available lists/registries Tribal records of subject property and adjoining properties (if tribal land) Local government records such as building department files Environmental cleanup liens
Prior reports
If the property was not previously developed, sources such as b uilding department files and s t r e e t d i r e c t o r i e s w e r e n o t r e v i e w e d . R e l e v a n t supporting documents are provided in Appendix D.
Interviews: Persons familiar with the site were interviewed (i f possible) regarding the potential presence of RECs on the site or in a position to affe ct the site, including the site owner/operator/occupant, former s ite owners/operators/occupants ( i f r e a s o n a b l y accessible), neighboring property occupants (if the site is aba ndoned), and selected government personnel likely to ha ve information regarding envir onmental conditions at or n e a r t h e s i t e . I n f o r m a t i o n f r o m p e r s o n s w h o w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y contacted is presented in Section 6.
Report Preparation: This report was prepared to present our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
1.3 Definitions
ASTM E1527‐13 provides definitions for 102 terms and 27 acronym s used in the ESA process.
Earth Systems endeavors to use these terms and acronyms within the meaning provided by ASTM E1527‐13. The majority of these terms are either obvious in their meaning or are seldom used in this report, but a few are significant enough to warrant defining here, as follows:
Site: The term “site” is used in place of the term “property” a s defined by ASTM E1527‐13 and is the physical location that is the subject of the assessm ent. The site can include more than one parcel of land, or only a portion of a parcel of land, depending on the needs of the client. ESAs focus primarily on activities that occur within the boundaries of the site, or that could potentially affect conditions and activities within the b oundaries of the site. RECs on offsite properties that are not likely to affect the site are n ot considered to be RECs for the subject site.
Recognized Environmental Condition [REC]: the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: due t o a r e l e a s e t o t h e environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the en vironment; or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The term does not include de minimis conditions.
May 15, 2023 ‐ 3 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition [CREC]: An REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been add ressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum projects allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.
Historical Recognized Environmental Condition [HREC]: A past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory a u t h o r i t y o r m e e t i n g unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority , without subjecting the property to any required controls (such as use restriction). H RECs are no longer RECs for a site.
De minimus: A condition that generally does not present a threa t to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.
Environmental Professional [EP]: An EP is defined by US EPA AAI as “a person who possesses sufficient specific education, training, and experience necessar y t o e x e r c i s e p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment to develop opinions and conclusions regarding conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases (of hazardous substances) on, at, in, or to a property, sufficient to meet the objectives and performance factors (of the rule).” Specific minimum credentials are required by US EPA AAI and ASTM E1527‐13 to be identified as an EP.
User: The “user” of the report is defined by ASTM Practice E152 7‐13 as the party for whom the assessment is being conducted (the “client”), not the EP.
1.4 Qualifications
Work on this project was performed under the direct supervision o f a n E n v i r o n m e n t a l P rofes s ional [ EP ] , in acc ordanc e with the U S EPA AAI and ASTM E1527‐13 requirements. Mr.
Alexander Schriener, Jr. (PG) was the lead EP, the project mana ger, and provided senior review.
Mr. Josh Thomas, Field Services Supervisor, and Mr. Schriener conducted the site reconnaissance.
Ms. Kirsten Murch, Project Geologist, conducted historical aeri al photograph review, other historical review, and agency database review. A qualification s statement regarding the personnel who performed this evaluation is presented in Appendix E.
1.5 Exclusions and Data Gaps
T h e s c o p e o f w o r k f o r t h i s E S A d i d n o t i n c l u d e t e s t i n g t h e a i r , groundwater, soil, or building materials for the presence of hazardous constituents.
The US EPA AAI and ASTM E1527‐13 require that gaps in the data used in evaluating the site be identified. Data gaps encountered in this project, and their significance to the project, are summarized below.
May 15, 2023 ‐ 4 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
As stated in the proposal, land ti tle information would only be reviewed if furnished by the Client. Land title information was not provided to Earth S ystems, and therefore was not reviewed. Because of the availability of other data source s (e.g., aerial photographs and prior reports), the lack of title information is not considered to be significant. Prior owners, operators, or employees of the site or owners, op erators, or employees of adjacent properties could not be contacted to be interviewed. This data gap is not considered significant given the availability of other sources of information; and the existing development having been limited to residential grading and street development.
City building department records were not requested because str uctures were not built on the site since the prior evaluation.
Historical street directories were not requested since a street address is needed for that research. This data gap is not considered significant due to t he site’s essentially vacant nature and residential or undeveloped status of the vicinity. S a n b o r n m a p s w e r e n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e s i t e . T h i s d a t a g a p i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o b e significant since the site and much of the vicinity is undevelo ped and developed properties nearby are residential.
Further investigations regarding the data gaps do not appear warranted.
1.6 Limitations and Reliance
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Northern C a p i t a l P a r t n e r s L L C . O t h e r parties participating in the transaction for which this project was conducted may also use the information presented in this report, provided said parties agr ee that Earth Systems shall have no additional liability arising from such use than described in the contract under which this project was conducted. Any other use of or reliance on the information and opinions contained in this report without the written authorization of Earth Systems is at the sole risk of the user (to apply for written authorization to rely on this report, please complete and submit the application provided in Appendix F).
Note that the conclusions and recommendations rendered in this report are opinions based on readily available information obtained to date within the scope of the work authorized by the client and apply only to site conditions as of the date of the site visit. The scope of work for this project was developed to address t h e n e e d s o f t h e c l i e n t a s p a rt o f a p r o p e r t y t r a n s a c t i o n (purchase, sale, refinance, etc.) and may not meet the needs of other users.
It should be noted that any level of assessment cannot ascertai n that a property is completely free of chemical or toxic substances. We believe the scope of work has been appropriate to allow the client to make an informed business decision. According to US EPA AAI and ASTM E1527‐13:
the “shelf life” of an ESA report is six months; an “Update” ca n be provided to the client within the first year of the report’s publication (at an additional cost); and if the report is older than one year, the ESA should be re‐conducted. Changes in site conditions can render this report obsolete w i t h i n a s ho r t e r p e r i o d o f t i m e . U s e o f t h i s r e p o r t o u t s i d e o f t h e s e t i m e f r a m e s o r a f t e r s i t e May 15, 2023 ‐ 5 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
conditions have changed is at the sole risk of the user and without liability and legal exposure to Earth Systems.
The results contained in this report are based upon the informa tion acquired during the assessment, including information obtained from third parties. Earth Systems makes no claim as to the accuracy of the information obtained from others. In addition, it is possible that variations exist beyond or between points evaluated during this assessment, and that changes in conditions can occur in the future due to the works of man, contaminant migration, variations in rainfall or temperature, a broadening of knowledge, changes in regulatory standards, and/or other factors not apparent at the time of the field investigation. It should also be noted that in blow‐sand areas, sand can accumulate quickly behind windbreaks. Conseque ntly, materials can be buried out of view by natural wind‐blown sand in a relatively short period of time under favorable conditions.
The services performed by Earth Systems have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the site vicinity. No warranty, express or implied, is offered.
2.0 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
2.1 Size, Location, and Name
The site consists of eleven legal parcels totaling approximately 141 acres located west of Landau Boulevard and north of Verona Road in Cathedral City, Riverside County, California. The site is known as Verano Development. The site location is depicted in Figure 1. The site layout is depicted in Figure 2.
2.2 Assessor’s Parcel Number(s)
The site is identified as the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] (for ease of reference to Earth Systems’ 2022 ESA, Parcel letters assigned to each APN fo r that report are included in the table):
APN 2022 ESA
Parcel Letter APN 2022 ESA
Parcel Letter
677‐050‐015 C3 677‐050‐027 E
677‐050‐016 D 677‐050‐029 I
677‐050‐017 C2 677‐050‐031 F1
677‐050‐018 C1 677‐050‐032 F2
677‐050‐023 B 677‐050‐033 F3
677‐050‐034 F4
The included parcels are detailed in Exhibit A attachment provi ded by the client (Appendix D).
Copies of the Assessor’s Parcel Maps and of the reports from the Riverside County Assessor‐ County Clerk‐Recorder website are included in Appendix D.
May 15, 2023 ‐ 6 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
2.3 Township, Range, Section
The site is located in the north half of Section 5, Township 4 South, Range 5 East.
2.4 Site Boundaries
Portions of the property boundaries are defined by paved or graded roadways, and the west boundary of the site is defined by a levee. Otherwise, boundaries were estimated based on the RCIT map with aerial photo, which depicts APN boundaries.
2.5 Current Development and Access
The site is currently rough gra ded or undevelope d land accessed via locked gates from Verona Road parallel to the south boundary, and Rio Pecos Drive roughly parallel to the southeast boundary.
2.6 Zoning/Land Use Records
Zoning/Land Use information was obtained from the City of Cathedral City Planning Department website, which indicated that the property usage is designated as shown below:
APN Zoning Designation/Land Use Type
677‐050‐015 Planned Community Commercial [PCC] 677‐050‐016 677‐050‐017 Multiple Family Residence [R3] 677‐050‐018 677‐050‐023
Residential Estate [RE]
677‐050‐027
677‐050‐031
677‐050‐032
677‐050‐033
677‐050‐034
677‐050‐029 Vacant land ‐ Predominate Residential Use
2.7 Site Topography
The surface of the site slopes to the southeast at a slight ang le. The elevation of the site ranges from about 437 feet above mean sea level in the southeast corner (Rio Pecos Drive) to about 488 feet above mean sea level in the northwest corner.
2.8 Surface Water Bodies
Surface water bodies are not present on the site, either as lak es or streams. A portion of the Morongo Wash once crossed the si te in the north half of Section 5 but a levee was constructed across the northwest end of the Wash to divert surface water southward to the main Whitewater River channel approximately 1 mile southwest of the subject site. Rainwater appears to infiltrate May 15, 2023 ‐ 7 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
within the site. Water bodies are not located in a position to transport contaminants onto the site or be readily affected by contaminants released at the site.
2.9 Geology and Hydrogeology
The site is located in the Coachella Valley of Southern Califor nia. The Coachella Valley is part of the tectonically active Salton Trough, which is a closed, inter nally draining basin bound by the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest; the San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest; and the Little San Bernardino and Orocopia Mountains to the northeast and east.
These mountain ranges, and the basement rock underlying the Coa chella Valley, are primarily composed of granitic and metamorphic rock. Within the Coachella Valley, the basement complex i s o v e r l a i n b y a s e r i e s o f u n c o nsolidated and semi‐consolidated c o n t i n e n t a l c l a s t i c s e d i m e n t s eroded from the surrounding mountain ranges; lacustrine deposits of ancient Lake Cahuilla; and wind‐blown sand deposited in the active blow‐sand area of River side County (DWR, 1964). The site is located on continental clastic sediments (overlain by a eolian deposits) eroded from the mountains north and northeast of the site.
The northwest trending San Andreas fault zone is the major geol ogic feature of the Coachella Valley. The Banning, Mission Creek, and Garnet Hill faults, wh ich are part of the San Andreas fault system, divide the Coachella Valley into four distinct hy drogeologic subbasins. Each subbasin is further divided into subareas, based on either the type of water‐bearing formation, water quality, areas of confined groundwater, forebay areas, groundwater divides, or surface water divides. The site is located within the Palm Springs sub area of the Indio subbasin. This subarea is bounded by the Garnet Hill fault to the northeast, the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains to the west and south, and the adjacent Thermal subarea of the Indio subbasin to the east. Groundwater in this subarea generally flows in a southeasterly direction toward the Salton Sea from the main recharge areas along the base of the San Jacinto Mountains and near the San Gorgonio Pass. The alluvial materials within this subarea are primarily heterogeneous alluvial fan deposits exhibiting little sorting and with a low percentage of fine‐grained material. The transmissivity (a measure of the capability of an aquifer to tr ansmit water) of the aquifer in the Indio subbasin was calculated in two wells to be 60,000 to 250,000 gallons per day per foot‐width of aquifer, which is relatively high (DWR, 1964).
The depth to groundwater at the site was evaluated via data available on the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring System [CASGEM] database. Groundwater elevation in a CASGEM well (ID: 49816) located ap proximately 2.5 miles west‐no rthwest of the site and at a ground surface elevation of 550 feet, was ‐314.97 feet on October 11, 2021; and ‐306.13 feet on April 22, 2022.
3.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
3.1 Onsite Observations
Earth Systems personnel visited the site on May 2, 2023, to obs erve current site conditions and adjacent land use. Photographs o f selected onsite features are presented in Appendix B.
Observations from the site visit are as follows:
May 15, 2023 ‐ 8 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
3.1.1 Overall site conditions
Site conditions were very similar to the 2022 Phase I site visit. Several of the trash items identified in 2022 have been subsequently cleaned up.
The “imported soils” identified at the time of the 2022 ESA appeared to have been associated with what was called “the staging area,” where equip ment was stored during the buildout on the west side of site. The staging area was cleared this time and the piles were gone.
The site is undeveloped sandy g round surrounding a developed co mmunity. Except for Tamarisk trees parallel to the northeast and west boundaries of t h e s i t e , v e g e t a t i o n consisted of small mounds of native desert brush. The vegetation showed no sign of stress except for the lack of water.
Access to the site was limited to paved roads (Landau Boulevard , Verona Road, and Rio Pecos Road) associated with the residential development in the immediate vicinity.
Fencing blocked direct access to the site, except where the fencing was breached, or gates were opened.
E v i d e n c e w a s n o t s e e n o f h a z a r d o u s t r a s h , s u c h a s d r u m s , f u e l tanks, oil products, batteries, or other potentially hazardous materials.
3.1.2 Individual APNs
APN 677‐050‐015:
o Narrow parcel mostly covered with blow sand (Photo 1). APN 677‐050‐016:
o Small walled parcel covered with blow sand (Photo 2). APN 677‐050‐017):
o Fenced area has old mulch that is sand covered (Photo 5). o North of fenced area small piles of asphalt and rock debris (Ph oto 6). Hazardous materials were not observed in the debris piles.
APN 677‐050‐018:
o Along southern portions of parcel are areas of debris mostly where it was found in 2022. There were minor construct ion debris (concrete, rocks, e tc.), small piles of asphalt, old mulch piles and old wooden‐wire fencing (Photos 3‐5). APN 677‐050‐023:
o Minor asphalt and concrete piles, and trash and tires at northwest corner of lot. All nonhazardous (Photo 6). Minor domestic debris associated with Verona Road and Landau Boulevard.
May 15, 2023 ‐ 9 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
o F e n c e d r e t e n t i o n b a s i n a t e a s t s i d e o f l o t a n d s m a l l f e n c e d b a sin at northwest corner of lot maintained and free of trash.
APN 677‐050‐027:
o Minor amounts of rocks and asphalt (Photo 7). Large length metal pipe (Photo 8).
All nonhazardous.
APN 677‐050‐029:
o Narrow parcel on west side of site. Mainly sand dunes against the Tamarisk trees on west side of parcel (Photo 9).
APN 677‐050‐031:
o Minor nonhazardous windblown and domestic trash along Verona Road (Photo 10). o Scattered dumped tires at southwest corner of parcel. APN 677‐050‐032:
o The staging area noted at the time of the 2022 ESA had been cleared (Photo 11). o Minor trash and dumped tires were at the west corner of parcel. Similar locations are in the 2022 report.
o Discarded fencing was near the c enter of the south boundary of the APN (Photo 12).
APN 677‐050‐033:
o Mainly clear though some minor non‐hazardous trash.
APN 677‐050‐034:
o Mostly clear and covered with blow sand. Wall at northeast corner of site.
Evidence of the onsite use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials was not observed.
3.2 Site Vicinity Observations
The site vicinity generally consisted of undeveloped and residential properties. Properties adjacent to the site consisted of the following:
Parcel North Northeast East South West
677‐050‐015
and ‐016
Undeveloped
land; Southern
Pacific railroad
Undeveloped
land; Southern
Pacific railroad
Walled
complex likely
for utilities.
Undeveloped
land
Undeveloped
land
677‐050‐017
and ‐018
Undeveloped
land
Walled
complex likely
for utilities.
Undeveloped
land
Residential Undeveloped
land
May 15, 2023 ‐ 10 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
677‐050‐023 Community
building;
residential
Undeveloped
land beyond
Rio Vista Drive
Undeveloped
land beyond
Rio Vista Drive
Residential Park
677‐050‐027
Undeveloped
land
Undeveloped
land
Undeveloped
land
Residential Undeveloped
land
677‐050‐029
Undeveloped
land
Undeveloped
land
Undeveloped
land
Residential Levee
677‐050‐031
Undeveloped
land
Residential Residential Residential Undeveloped
land
677‐050‐032
and ‐033
Undeveloped
land
Residential Residential Undeveloped
land
Undeveloped
land
677‐050‐034 Undeveloped
land
Undeveloped
land
Undeveloped
land,
residential
Undeveloped
land
Undeveloped
land
Evidence was not observed that the site was adversely affected by activities on properties in the site vicinity.
4.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION
Information regarding the history of the site was obtained from various sources, as listed in the references section of this report.
4.1 Prior Reports
Earth Systems conducted for the site a Phase I Environmental Si te Assessment (Earth Systems, 2013), a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update (Earth Systems, 2014), and a second ESA (Earth Systems, 2022). In general, these investigations did no t find evidence that the site was adversely affected by activities in the site vicinity; the site w a s n o t i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e a g e n c y database reviews; and the sites in the site vicinity did not appear to pose a risk to the subject site based on the status of those sites, the distance, or direction from the subject site, or the nature of the issue(s) at those sites. RECs were not identified in th e 2013 ESA or the 2014 Update, and evidence of the on‐site manufacture, storage, or disposal of ha zardous materials was not observed.
The 2022 ESA identified the following REC:
“(s)everal dozen mounds of what appeared to be soil were stored on Parcel F2 by 2016 and were gone (or graded onsite) by 2020. The origin of the mounds is not known, though they could have been imported from offsite. These could be considered a REC, due to the potential for hazardous material residues (petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides residues) to be present in the soil.” Earth Systems recommended soil sam pling with analysis for OCPs and petroleum hydrocarbons.
See Section 7.0 for discussion of this REC.
May 15, 2023 ‐ 11 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
4.2 Additional Historical Information
Information that in some part was not included in the prior reports, but which was developed as a part of this ESA is summarized chronologically in the table below and in the following sections.
Footnotes regarding the sources of historical information are provided following the table.
Table 1 – Summary of Historical Site Usage
Date Source Discussion
1980 ERIS aerial
photo
The site and vicinity were genera lly unchanged as compared to t he 1958 aerial photo from the 2022 ESA.
2021 ERIS aerial
photo
The southeast sixth of APN 677‐050‐032 (former Parcel F2) appea rs to have a c o a t i n g o f d u s t s u p p r e s s a n t . A s t a g i n g a r e a w i t h v e h i c l e s a n d potentially a construction office were at the southeast corner of APN 677‐050 ‐032. Parcels offsite to the east of APNs APN 677‐050‐031, ‐032, 033; southea st of ‐034, and south of ‐027 and ‐018 were nearly fully developed for residential usage.
Historical information footnotes:
We attempted to obtain historical information from a standard set of resources, including historical aerial photographs, historical USGS topographic maps, Sanborn fire insurance maps, historical street directories, chain‐of‐title documents, city building permit files, and personnel interview. However, historical information was not obtained from some sources, as follows:
Sanborn Fire Insurance maps: Sanborn maps for the site and vici nity were requested from ERIS, a firm that specializes in maintaining this type of information. ERIS indicated that “no information was found for your site or adjacent properties.”
Historical City Directories: Act ual addresses are required to conduct searches using historica l street directories. The County Assessor’s reports indicate that addresses have not been assigned to the site.
Chain of Title documents: Chain of title documents were not provided prior to publication of this report and, therefore, were not reviewed.
City Building Permits were not requested because of the lack of significant development of the site.
County Assessor’s Office: The reports indicate that there are no building developments for the site.
5.0 RECORDS REVIEW
5.1 Agency Database Search Report
A r e p o r t s u m m a r i z i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e f r o m r e g u l a t o r y agencies regarding sites that generate, store, use, and/or have released hazardous materials was obtained from a firm that specializes in maintaining a database of this type of informati on. The publications reviewed in the database search are referenced in the database report, presented in Appendix C. The search radii used for each list were in accordance with the US EPA AAI and ASTM E1527‐13 guidelines as measured from the site boundary. Significant information obtai ned in the database search is summarized below.
The site is not listed in the database report.
Three sites listed five time were identified within the search radii and are listed in the database report as follows:
May 15, 2023 ‐ 12 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
o Shields Industries, Inc. (Map Key 1), located at 67265 Verona Road, on the opposite side of Verona Road from the southwest portion of the subject site, is listed in the database report as Hazardous Waste Generator [HAZGEN] on the Hazardous Waste Information System [HAZNET] database, which documents hazardous waste manif est data. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] monito r s t h e H A Z N E T database. However, this address is for a single‐family home. It is unlikely that hazardous waste is generated at this location, which may be the address f or one of the company principals. No problems regarding disposal of hazardous materi als are reported for the site and this is not a REC.
o Rio Vista (Housing Development) (Map Key 2) , located at Verona and Landau (streets), south and east of the subject site, is included in the following databases:
US EPA Facility Registry System [FINDS/FRS], which “identifies facilities, sites or places subject to environmental regulations or of environmental intere s t . ” I n v e n t o r y Database [FID] for a UST onsite. The report cites the latitude and longitude as the intersection of Landau and Verona and the description as “General contractors‐single‐ f a m i l y h o u s e s ” ( A p p e n d i x D ) . L i n k s i n t h e r e p o r t c i t e t h e f o l lowing sources of information:
Air Facility System [AFS] “ contains emissions, compliance and enforcement data on stationary sources of air po llution. Regulated sources cover a wide spectrum; from large industrial facilities to relatively small operations such as dry cleaners.
AFS does not contain data on facilities that are solely asbesto s demolition and/or renovation contractors, or landfills. ECHO Clean Air Act data f rom AFS are frozen and reflect data as of October 17, 2014; the EPA retired this s ystem for Clean Air Act stationary sources and transitioned to ICIS‐Air” (Appendix D). The listing was last updated August 16, 2011.
Integrated Compliance Information System ‐ National Pollutant D ischarge Elimination System [ICIS‐NPDES] “is an information management s ystem maintained by the Office of Compliance to track permit complian ce and enforcement status of facilities regulated by the NPDES under t he Clean Water Act. This data includes permit, inspection, violation and enfor cement action information for applicable ICIS records” (Appendix D). The listing was last updated October 19, 2014.
Due to the length of time since last updated and the Environmen tal Interest Type identified as “Air minor” these are not considered to be RECs. o Flat Top Mtn. Deposit (Map Key 3) , located 0.89 mile east‐nort heast of the subject site, is included in the Mineral Resource Data System [MRDS] as a pas t producer of sand and gravel for the construction industry (Appendix D). This is not considered to be a REC. The database search report has three listings categorized as unmapped, due to vague address listings or the inability of the automated search system to identify the location of the release s i t e . A r e v i e w o f t h e s e l i s t i n g s d i d n o t i d e n t i f y t h e m t o b e within the search radii. The May 15, 2023 ‐ 13 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
unmapped site does not appear to pose a concern for the site due to the distance, direction, status, or nature of the issue at that site.
The sites identified in the agency database review do not appea r to be RECs for the subject site due to the distance, direction, status, or nature of the issue at these sites.
5.2 California EPA, State Water Resources Control Board The California Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] GeoTracker website was accessed to research records on file regarding known problems a t t h e s i t e a d d r e s s . T h e d a t a b a s e s e a r c h d i d n o t f i n d r e s u l t s for the site or properties in the vicinity.
5.3 California Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] En viroStor website was accessed to research records on file regarding known problems at the sit e address or in the site vicinity.
The database search did not find results for the site or properties in the vicinity.
5.4 Vapor Encroachment
ASTM E1527‐13, Standard Practice for Environmental Assessments: Phase I Enviro nmental Assessment Process, specifies RECs related to petroleum releases. As defined in Section 1.3, a REC is “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substa nces or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: due to a release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that pose a material th reat of a future release to the environment.”
B a s e d o n r e v i e w s o f t h e A g e n c y D a t a b a s e S e a r c h R e p o r t , G e o t r a c ker website, and Envirostor website (Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.2) , petroleum vapor encroachment from facilities offsite were not identified.
5.5 Tribal Records
This site is within ¼ mile of tribal land. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians [ACBCI] staff was previously contacted regarding re c o r d s o n f i l e f o r A C B C I t r i b a l lands. ACBCI staff stated that ACBCI has signed a “memo of unde rstanding” with the Riverside C ounty Department of Environmental Health [RCDEH] that is included in ACBCI lease agreements, thereby holding tenants to abide by county guidelines regarding environmental issues onsite. Therefore, records on file for the site should duplicate records on file with the RCDEH.
5.6 Engineering and Institutional Controls
Engineering and Institutional Controls [EICs] (e.g., deed restr ictions and restrictive zoning) were not identified for the subject site in the agency database sear c h r e p o r t . E n g i n e e r i n g a n d Institutional Controls to a radius of ¼ mile were not identified.
May 15, 2023 ‐ 14 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
5.7 Environmental Cleanup Liens
Recorded Environmental Cleanup Li ens [ECLs] on a property are i ndicators that contamination exists or existed at the site. ECLs are “encumbrances on a pro perty for the recovery of incurred cleanup costs on the part of a state, tribal, or federal govern ment agency or other third party” (EPA 2005). In the EP’s judgment, an ECL is not likely to be a n issue onsite or in the vicinity due to lack of evidence that a release has occurred onsite.
5.8 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division The California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division [CalGEM] maps on the CalGEM website were reviewed for information regard ing historic oil‐well or geothermal drilling activities near the site. The maps and databases did not depict permitted oil or geothermal wells within 1 mile of the site.
6.0 INTERVIEWS, GENERAL RESEARCH, AND PRIOR REPORTS
6.1 Current Owners/Occupants/Operators
Mr. David DiRienzo, President and founder of UrbanWest (a real estate development and investment firm involved in 2023 planning of Verano Development), was contacted regarding his knowledge of the site. In 2022, Mr. DiRienzo and UrbanWest “created project designs” for “138 acres of residential development land within the Verano Master Planned Community in Cathedral City, California” (Linkedin, 2023). Mr. DiRienzo provided the following information:
Mr. DiRienzo has no knowledge/suspicion of the release of hazardous materials onsite. He is unaware of USTs or above‐ground storage tanks [ASTs] on site now or in the past. Mr. DiRienzo stated that there are no ECLs assigned to the site. The site has been consistently monitored to ward against illegal dumping.
6.2 Past Owners/Occupants/Operators
Contact information for prior owners, operators, or occupants was not readily available.
6.3 Owners/Occupants of Neighboring Properties
The US EPA recommends that interviews with persons on adjoining properties be conducted for properties that are “abandoned. ” The subject site is under act ive ownership and consistently monitored. Therefore, the site i s not considered to be abandon ed and interviews of owners/occupants of neighboring properties were not conducted.
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report presents the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [ESA] conducted by Earth Systems Pacific [Earth Systems] for Verano Development (APNs 677‐050‐015, ‐016, ‐017, ‐018, ‐023, ‐027, ‐029, ‐031, ‐032, ‐033, and ‐034), located we st of Landau Boulevard and north May 15, 2023 ‐ 15 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
of Verona Road in Cathedral City, Riverside County, California [the site]. We have endeavored to perform this ESA in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527‐
13. Exceptions to or deletions from this practice are describe d in Sections 1.5 and 1.6 of this report. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the sit e for the presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions [REC] related to the current or past use, handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or petroleum products on or near the subject property. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with this property except as discussed in the project summary presented below. Our findings and conclusions are summarized as follows:
1. The site was observed to consist of mass‐graded residential lots and undeveloped native desert.
2. Construction debris, household debris, and windblown trash were n o t e d s c a t t e r e d i n some areas of the site. The debris onsite does not appear to contain hazardous materials and is not considered a REC. Small piles of asphalt rubble and tires are not a REC but should be removed appropriately from the site.
3. Evidence was not observed during the site visit of the presence of storage tanks, water wells, drywells, potential PCB‐containing equipment (such as transformers), sumps, pits, ponds (other than an empty retention basin), lagoons, stained s oil, stressed vegetation (other than due to weather), or onsite septic system.
4. Evidence of the onsite use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials was not observed.
5. In 2022 Earth Systems recommended that soil piles on APN 677‐050‐032 be sampled and analyzed for potential hazardous substances. The soil piles an d staging area were not in evidence at the time of this ESA site visit.
6. The site vicinity consists of residential and undeveloped prope rties. Evidence was not observed that the site was adversely affected by activities in the site vicinity.
7. T h e s i t e w a s n o t i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e a g e n c y d a t a b a s e r e v i e w . T h e sites identified in the agency database review do not appear to be RECs for the subject site due to the distance, direction, status, or nature of the issue at these sites.
8. The sites in the site vicinity do not appear to pose a risk to the subject site based on the status of those sites, the distance, or direction from the subject site, or the nature of the issue(s) at those sites.
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
RECs were not identified for this site. Therefore, further investigations do not appear warranted.
‐o0o‐
May 15, 2023 ‐ 16 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
REFERENCES
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, 2006, Tribal Hydrogeolog y s t a f f , t e l e p h o n e c o n t a c t , November 7, 2006.
California Department of Conserva tion, Geologic Energy Manageme nt Division [CalGEM], https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/‐ 118.94276/37.10257/6, website accessed April 25, 2023.
_____, Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor websi te, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/default.asp, accessed May 1, 2023.
_____, Department of Water Resources [DWR], 1964, Bulletin Number 108 – Coachella Valley Investigation, July 1964.
California State Water Resource s Control Board, https://geotrac ker.waterboards.ca.gov/, website accessed May 1, 2023.
California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring System [C ASGEM], https://www.casgem.water.ca.gov, website accessed April 27, 2023.
City of Cathedral City, Planning Department, Maps, City of Cathedral City Zoning Map , https://www.cathedralcity.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5350/63624572164190 0000, website accessed April 28, 2023.
Earth Systems, 2022, Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, APNs 677‐050‐039, ‐023, ‐018, ‐017, ‐015, ‐016, ‐027, ‐031, ‐032, ‐033, ‐034, ‐029; 660‐340‐010, 660‐390‐003, Verano Development, West of Landau Boulevard & North of Verona Road, Cathedral City, Riverside County, California, File No.: 305289‐001, Doc. No.: 22‐04‐706, dated April 7, 2022.
ERIS, Database Report, Verano Develop ment, W of Landau/North of Veron a, Cathedral City, CA 92234, Project No: 305289‐002, Order No: 23042700717, dated May 1, 2023.
_____, Fire Insurance Map, Verano Development, W of Landau/North of Verona, Cathedral City, CA 92234, Project No: 305289‐002, Order No: 23042700717, dated April 28, 2023.
_____, Historical Aerials, Verano Development, W of Landau/North of Verona, Cathedral City, CA 92234, Project No: 305289‐002, Order No: 23042700717, dated May 2, 2023.
Google Earth, aerial photograph archives, as listed below:
Date Source/Flight
7‐4‐2019 Landsat/Copernicus
May 15, 2023 ‐ 17 ‐ File No. 305289‐002
Doc. No.: 23‐05‐703
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Linkedin, David DiRienzo, President at UrbanWest, https://www.linkedin.com/in/david‐dirienzo‐ 59b159133, website accessed May 2, 2023.
Riverside County Information Technology, Riverside County Geographic Information Services, https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=MMC_Public website accessed April 27, 2023.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2013, 40 CFR Part 312, Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries, Final Rule, dated November 13, 2013. _____, 2020, Tribes Approved for Treatment as a State (TAS), https://www.epa.gov/tribal/tribes‐ approved‐treatment‐state‐tas#regulatory‐and‐administrative‐tas, website accessed May 30, 2020.
United States Geologic Survey, 7.5 minute Cathedral City, Calif. Quadrangle, 1958, photo‐revised 1981.
_____, 7.5 minute Palm Springs, Calif. Quadrangle, 1957, photo‐revised 1988.
UrbanWest, Mr. David A. DiRienzo, President and Founder, email contact, May 4, 2023.
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Appendix A
Figures
Scale: 1" = 2,000’
0 2,000’ 4,000’
5/11/2023
LEGEND
Base Maps: USGS 7-1/2' Quadrangles, Cathedral City, Calif., 1958, photo-revised 1981, and Palm Springs, Calif., 1957, photo-revised 1988.
File No.: 305289-002
SITE
Approximate Scale: 1" = 600’
0 600’ 1,200’
LEGEND
Figure 2
Site Layout
File No.: 305289-0025/11/2023
APN Boundary
Fenced
Area
Locked
Gates
Locked Gates
Wall
Old Fencing Mulch,
Construction
Debris
Built Out
Construction
Debris
Fence
Wood
Debris
Domestic Trash
Fenced
Retention
Basin
Basin
Fence FenceFence Fence
Asphalt
PilesW
all
677-050-016
677-050-015
677-050-018
677-050-027
677-050-033
677-050-034
677-050-029
677-050-017
677-050-023
Fence
Interstate 10
Union P
acific Railroad
677-050-031 APN
677-050-032
677-050-031
Scattered Tires
Rockpile and Asphalt
Fencing
Minor
Debris
Metal Pipe
Mulch
Trash/Tires
Former
staging area
Rio Pecos Drive
Landau
Boulevard
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Appendix B
Photographs
Site Photographs