1-420
Tribe Name
Fed (F) Contact Person
Non -Fed (N)
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians F
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians F
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and
Cupeno Indians
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Lacy Padilla, THPO Operations
Manager
Tribal Operations,
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
Erica Schenk, Chairperson
Anthony Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
BobbyRay Esaprza, Cultural
Director
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
Ann Brierty, THPO
Robert Martin, Chairperson
02/26/2024 10:09 AM
1 of 9
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
F Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Jordan Joaquin, President,
Quechan Tribal Council
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman -
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
Jessica Valdez, Cultural
Resource Specialist
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
Gary Resvaloso, TM MLD
02/26/2024 10:09 AM
2 of 9
Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians F
Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
F
F
F
Mary Belardo, Cultural
Committee Vice Chair
Thomas Tortez, Chairperson
Alesia Reed, Cultural Committee
Chairwoman
Abraham Becerra, Cultural
Coordinator
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve This list is only applicable for contacting ID
02/26/2024 10:09 AM
3 of 9
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
2/26/2024
Contact Address
Phone #
Fax #
Email Address
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-
0189
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
(760) 333-5222
(760) 398-4722
(760) 342-2593
(951) 590-0942
(951) 763-5549
(951) 763-5549
(760) 782-0711
(951) 755-5259
(951) 755-5110
(760) 699-6919
(760) 347-7880
(951) 763-2808
(760) 782-0712
(951) 572-6004
(951) 755-5177
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
02/26/2024 10:09 AM
4of9
1-424
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
2/26/2024
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
P.O.Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
(928) 261-0254
(760) 919-3600
(928) 210-8739
historicpreservation@quechantri
be.com
executivesecretary@quechantrib
e.com
culturalcommittee@quechantribe
.com
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
[email protected]
(951) 659-2700
(951) 663-6261
(951) 654-5544
(951) 663-5279
(760) 777-0365
(951) 659-2228
(951) 654-4198
(951) 654-4198
(951) 654-4198
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
02/26/2024 10:09 AM
5 of 9
1-425
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
2/26/2024
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 [email protected]
(760) 397-0300
(760) 397-8146 [email protected]
(760) 397-0300 [email protected]
(760) 397-0300 [email protected]
my person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Code.
gal Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Peterson Road Project, Riverside C 02/26/2024 10:09 AM
6 of 9
1-426
Cultural Affiliation Counties Last Updated
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 1/11/2024
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 11/30/2023
Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 2/1/2024 Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 6/28/2023 Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 6/28/2023 Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Cahuilla
Serrano
Cahuilla
Serrano
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
02/26/2024 10:09 AM
7 of 9
Quechan Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San 5/16/2023 Bernardino,San Diego
Quechan
Quechan
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Cahuilla
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial, Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial, Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
5/16/2023
5/16/2023
8/16/2016
7/14/2023
7/14/2023
7/14/2023
10/30/2023
02/26/2024 10:09 AM
8 of 9
Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 10/30/2023 Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources ;ounty.
10/30/2023
10/30/2023
10/30/2023
Record: PROJ-2024-001049
Report Type: List of Tribes
Counties: Riverside
NAHC Group: All
02/26/2024 10:09 AM
9 of 9
February 26, 2024
1§(\171*
MATERIAL CULTURE
CONSULTING
RE: Proposed Peterson Road Project, City of Rancho Mirage; Cathedral City USGS Quadrangle, Riverside County, California.
Greetings,
Material Culture Consulting, Inc (MCC) is conducting the cultural resources review of the above Project to support preparation of the environmental documents. The project proposes the redevelopment of a 12 -acre lot within the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, CA (see attached map). As part of our background research and forthcoming survey, we would like to invite you to share any knowledge of potential cultural resources within the Project Area. Please note - this request is not part of any formal local, state, or federal consultation process, and all requests for consultation should be directed to City of Rancho Mirage as the Lead CEQA Agency.
Our firm contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 30, 2024, to request review of the Sacred Lands File and for a list of tribes with traditional lands and/or cultural places within the area. The NAHC responded on February 26, 2024, stating that the Sacred Lands File review resulted in negative results and provided your contact information as part of the list. We understand that negative results do not preclude the existence of cultural resources, and that a tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource, which is why we are contacting you.
Project Location and Description
The Peterson Road Project is located in the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County. The Project proposes the redevelopment of a trailer park into residential housing. The Project is bound by residential housing to the north on Desert Cove Ave. and to the south on Juniper Ln., a golf course and Whitewater River to the east, and public storage to the west near Peterson Road. The Project Area currently exists as a defunct trailer park with all structures removed and concrete and asphalt present. The area of potential impact (API) would encompass a total of 12 -acres (APN# 689-180-012). Specifically, the proposed Project is located within Section 02 of Township 05 South and Range 05 East USGS 7.5 -minute Cathedral City quadrangle (San Bernardino Base Meridian).
Please respond at your earliest convenience if you wish to share any knowledge of cultural resources within or adjacent to the API. Any information, concerns, or recommendations regarding cultural resources within the API can be shared with the Project Manager Erika McMullin via telephone at 909-967-8216, email at [email protected], or with MCC Archaeologist Hannah Johnston via telephone at 626-840-1797, email at [email protected] Thank you very much for your assistance.
Kindest regards,
Tria Belcourt, M.A., RPA
President and Principal Archaeologist
626-205-8279
[email protected]
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701-B North Towne Avenue Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialcultureensultiyg.30
Blieu Peterson Road
CEQA Due Diligence Native American Contact Log
February 2024
Name/Affiliation
Date and
Method of
1st
Contact
Date of 1st
Follow Up
Attempt
Date of 2"d
Follow -Up
Attempt
Results
MCC Response
Lacy Padilla, THPO
Operations Manager
Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
n/a
n/a
On March 4, 2024
Xitlaly Madrigal
(Cultural
Resources Analyst
from the
Tribal Historic
Preservation
Office) responded
stated that the
Project Area is not
located within the
boundaries of the
ACBCI Reservation,
but it is within the
Tribes Traditional
Use Area. The
ACBCI THPO
requested a
number of policies
be conducted.
MCC will
include this in
our final report.
Blieu Peterson Road
CEQA Due Diligence Native American Contact Log
February 2024
Tribal Operations
Mailed
n/a
n/a
Ana Rios sent the
MCC thanked
Augustine Band of
Letter via
email and letter
Ana Rios and
Cahuilla Indians
USPS on
attached from
stated the
84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
February
27th, 2024
Jacobia Kirksey,
Tribal Operation
Specialist
responded March
response will be
included in the
report
7th stating that at
this time, they are
unaware of
specific cultural
resources that
may be affected by
the
proposed project,
however, in the
event, we discover
any cultural
resources during
the
development of
this project to
please get in touch
with them
immediately for
further
evaluation.
Doug Welmas,
Mailed
Email sent
Phone call
As of March 29,
If a response is
Chairperson
Letter via
March 18th,
placed on
2024, MCC did not
received after
Cabazon Band of
Mission Indians
84-245 Indio Springs
Parkway
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
2024
March 28,
2024
receive a
response.
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Indio, CA, 92203
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
1-432
Blieu Peterson Road
CEQA Due Diligence Native American Contact Log
February 2024
Erica Schenk,
Chairperson
Cahuilla Band of Indians
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
n/a
n/a
On March 4, 2024
MCC received an
email from Lorrie
Gregory stating
that they are
unaware of any
cultural resources
at or near the
Project Area, but
stated that the
project is within
their traditional
land use and
requested to
review any cultural
materials
associated with
the project.
MCC will
include the
response in our
final report.
Anthony Madrigal,
Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
Cahuilla Band of Indians
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
n/a
n/a
see above
see above
BobbyRay Esaprza,
Cultural Director
Cahuilla Band of Indians
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
n/a
n/a
see above
see above
Ray Chapparosa,
Chairperson
Los Coyotes Band of
Cahuilla and Cupeno
Indians
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA,
92086-0189
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Phone call
placed on
March 18,
2024
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
On March 28,
2024, Ray
Chapparosa,
Chairperson stated
no comment and
differ to the local
tribes.
MCC thanked
Mr. Chapparosa
for his response
and will include
it on the final
report.
Ann Brierty, THPO
Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
As of March 29,
2024, MCC did not
receive a
response.
If a response is
received after
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
1-433
Blieu Peterson Road
CEQA Due Diligence Native American Contact Log
February 2024
Robert Martin,
Chairperson
Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
As of March 29,
2024, MCC did not
receive a
response.
If a response is
received after
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
Quechan Tribe of the
Fort Yuma Reservation
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
As of March 29,
2024, MCC did not
receive a
response.
(phone number
was no longer in
service)
If a response is
received after
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
Jordan Joaquin,
President, Quechan
Tribal Council
Quechan Tribe of the
Fort Yuma Reservation
P.O.Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
n/a
see below
see below
Manfred Scott, Acting
Chairman - Kw'ts'an
Cultural Committee
Quechan Tribe of the
Fort Yuma Reservation
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
On March 28,
20224, Mr. Scott
stated the Tribe
had no comment
and differed to the
local tribes.
Joseph Hamilton,
Chairperson
Ramona Band of
Cahuilla
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
202
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
As of March 29,
2024, MCC did not
receive a
response.
If a response is
received after
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
John Gomez,
Environmental
Coordinator
Ramona Band of
Cahuilla
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
202
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
As of March 29,
2024, MCC did not
receive a
response.
If a response is
received after
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
1-434
Blieu Peterson Road
CEQA Due Diligence Native American Contact Log
February 2024
Lovina Redner, Tribal
Chair
Santa Rosa Band of
Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
202
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
As of March 29,
2024, MCC did not
receive a
response.
If a response is
received after
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
Jessica Valdez, Cultural
Resource Specialist
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
On March 28,
2024 MCCspoke
with Jessica
Valdez, Cultural
Resource
Specialist who said
the tribe has no
comment and
differs to the local
Agua Caliente
Band.
MCC thanked
Ms. Valdez for
her response
and will include
in our report.
Isaiah Vivanco,
Chairperson
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
n/a
See above
See above
Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal
Historic Preservation
Officer
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
n/a
See above
See above
Gary Resvaloso, TM
MLD
Torres -Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
As of March 29,
2024, MCC did not
receive a
response.
If a response is
received after
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
Mary Belardo, Cultural
Committee Vice Chair
Torres -Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
As of March 29,
2024, MCC did not
receive a
response.
If a response is
received after
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
1-435
Blieu Peterson Road
CEQA Due Diligence Native American Contact Log
February 2024
Thomas Tortez,
Chairperson
Torres -Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Mailed
Letter via
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
Email sent
March 18th,
2024
Phone call
placed on
March 28,
2024
As of March 29,
2024, MCC did not
receive a
response.
If a response is
received after
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
Alesia Reed, Cultural
Mailed
Email sent
Phone call
As of March 29,
If a response is
Committee Chairwoman
Letter via
March 18th,
placed on
2024, MCC did not
received after
Torres -Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
2024
March 28,
2024
receive a
response.
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
Abraham Becerra,
Mailed
Email sent
Phone call
As of March 29,
If a response is
Cultural Coordinator
Letter via
March 18th,
placed on
2024, MCC did not
received after
Torres -Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
USPS on
February
27th, 2024
2024
March 28,
2024
receive a
response.
submission,
MCC will
forward the
response to the
Client and/or
Lead Agency.
1-436
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVAT;ON
March 04, 2024
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
Material Culture Consulting
Ms. Erika McMullin
2701-B North Towne Avenue
Pomona, California 91767
Re: Proposed Peterson Road Project
Dear Ms. Erika McMullin,
03-008-2024-003
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Proposed Peterson Road project. The project area is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is within the Tribe's Traditional Use Area. For this reason, the ACBCI THPO requests the following:
*A cultural resources inventory of the project area by a qualified archaeologist prior to any development activities in this area.
*A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from the information center.
*Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project.
*We would like to participate in the survey as this project is near the reservation.
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760) 423-3485. You may also email me at [email protected].
Cordially,
Xitlaly Madrigal
Cultural Resources Analyst
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE. PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
T 760/699+6800 F 760;699;6924 WWW.AGIJAGALIENTC-NSN.GOV 1-437
AUGUSTINE BAND OF CA UILLA INDIANS
84-001 AVENUE 54 COAC ELLA, CA 92236 I T: 760-398-4722 F: 760-369-7161 T IBAL C AI PE SON: A ANDA AUGUSTINE T IBAL T EASU E : ILLIA VANCE T IBAL COUNCIL E BE : ONNIE VANCE
Date: 03/07/2024
Dear: Tria Belcourt, M.A., RPA
SUBJECT: Proposed Peterson Road Project, City of Rancho Mirage; Cathedral City USGS Quadrangle, Riverside County, California.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer input concerning the development of the above -identified project. We appreciate your sensitivity to the cultural resources that may be impacted by your project and the importance of these cultural resources to the Native American peoples that have occupied the land surrounding the area of your project for thousands of years. Your invitation to consult on this project is greatly appreciated.
At this time, we are unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project, however, in the event, you should discover any cultural resources during the development of this project please get in touch with our office immediately for further evaluation.
Very truly yours,
L'n%eff
Jacobia Kirksey, Tribal Operation Specialist
1-438
3/14/24, 9:34 AM
Material Culture Consulting Mail - Fwd: Proposed Peterson Road Project Ana Rios
Administrative Assistant
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians
Office: (760) 398-4722 Ext 7498
Cell: (760) 450-3883
Email: [email protected]
Website: augustinetribe-nsn.gov
E 6Lpt.KH FA1 M ,filLAT iv- AUGUST I I E....
Mu...� art ctreh la iavV 7e. c .4 5 i N €� I V
. ▪ T. Belcourt 03.07.2024 A.pdf
373K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8f5a5a677e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1793245141119956010&simpl=msg11T944 131)956010 2/2
3/4/24, 11:30 AM Material Culture Consulting Mail - Fwd: Inquiry of the Dinah Shore & Peterson RD Projects Gmail
Hannah Johnston
Fwd: Inquiry of the Dinah Shore & Peterson RD Projects
2 messages
Tria Belcourt Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 11:23 AM
To: Erika McMullin , Hannah Johnston ,
Julia Carvajal , Meghan Lamb
FYI
Tria Belcourt, M.A., RPA# 917250
President and Principal Archaeologist
Material Culture Consulting, Inc.
Certified DBE/WBE/SBE
2701-B North Towne Avenue
Pomona CA, 91767
Phone: 626-205-8279
Fax: 626-249-0479
www.materialcultureconsulting.com
[email protected]
The content of this email, including attachments, is the confidential property of Material Culture Consulting. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately. Thank you.
Forwarded message
From: Lorrie Gregory
Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 11:18AM
Subject: Inquiry of the Dinah Shore & Peterson RD Projects To: [email protected]
CC: BobbyRay Esparza
Good morning,
Thank you for reaching out to the Cahuilla Band of Indians concerning the referenced projects. We are unaware of any cultural resources at/ or near the projects locations. However, both projects are within Cahuilla Traditional land use, therefore we request any cultural materials associated with both projects for review. Thank you again for reaching out, hope to hear from you soon.
Respectfully,
Lorrie Gregory
Cultural Resource Coordinator
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Phone: 1 (760) 315-6839
Email: [email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8f5a5a677e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1792624767815082584&simpl=msg-f:179262j76441simpl= ... 1/2
3/4/24, 11:30 AM
Material Culture Consulting Mail - Fwd: Inquiry of the Dinah Shore & Peterson RD Projects Erika McMullin Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 11:24 AM
To: Tria Belcourt
Cc: Hannah Johnston , Julia Carvajal ,
Meghan Lamb
Thanks!
Hannah- can you please update the NA logs for BOTH of the projects and upload their response. Thanks! [Quoted text hidden]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8f5a5a677e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1792624767815082584&simpl=msg-f: 179262j764 84 si mpl= ... 2/2
Appendix D
(CONFIDENTIAL):
Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR)
Series 523
Page Intentionally Blank
PETERSON ROAD RANCHO MIRAGE
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix D
Geotechnical Report
Page Intentionally Blank
��j� GE 0 C ON
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
PETERSON ROAD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 29, 2023
REVISED May 28, 2024
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
PREPARED FOR:
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
1-446
GEOCON
W E S T. I N C.
GEOTECHNICAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ M AT E R I A L S
Project No. T3065-22-01
April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
Rick Engineering Company
1770 Iowa Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92507
Attention: Ms. Stephanie A. Cruz, Associate Project Manager Subject: PRELIMINARYGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
PETERSON ROAD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Cruz:
In accordance with your authorization of our Proposal CV-24-0015-P-GTJanuary 4, 2024, Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon) herein submits the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed Multifamily Apartment Community for a 12 -acre parcel located east of Peterson Road north of the Santa Rosa Villa apartments in Rancho Mirage, California. The accompanying report presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed improvements. Based on the results of this study, it is our opinion the site is considered suitable for the proposed improvements provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
This report is preliminary in nature. Geocon should be afforded the opportunity to review the project plans as they develop and progress toward final design, so that that the descriptions and recommendations presented herein can be revised, as needed.
Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON WEST, IT.
shleigh D. Love
PE
Harry Derkalousdian
PE 79694
LAB:ADL:HHD:hd
(email) Addressee
Lisa A. Battiato
CEG 2316
78-075 Main Street #G-203 • La Quinta, California 92253 • Telephone 760.565.2002 • WWW.GEOC NINC.COM -447
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
3. GEOLOGIC SETTING 2
4. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS 2
4.1 General 2
4.2 Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu) 3
4.3 Alluvium (Qa) 3
5. GROUNDWATER 3
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 3
6.1 Surface Fault Rupture 3
6.2 Liquefaction & Dry Sand Settlement 5
6.3 Expansive Soil 6
6.4 Hydrocompression 6
6.5 Landslides 6
6.6 Rock Fall Hazards 6
6.7 Slope Stability 7
6.8 Tsunamis and Seiches 7
6.9 Dam Inundation and Flooding 7
6.10 Regional Ground Subsidence 7
7. SITE INFILTRATION 8
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10
8.1 General 10
8.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics 11
8.3 Grading 13
8.4 Earthwork Grading Factors 15
8.5 Utility Trench Backfill 16
8.6 Seismic Design Criteria 16
8.7 Conventional Foundations and Concrete Slabs -On -Grade 18
8.8 Post Tensioned Foundations 21
8.9 Miscellaneous Foundations 23
8.10 Conventional Retaining Walls 23
8.11 Swimming Pool 24
8.12 Exterior Concrete Flatwork 26
8.13 Lateral Loading 27
8.14 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations 28
8.15 Temporary Excavations 32
8.16 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 33
8.17 Plan Review 34
1-448
0 GEOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Geologic Map
Figure 3, Liquefaction Potential - MCE
Figure 4, Evaluation of Earthquake Induced Settlement in Dry Sandy -Soils
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
Figures A-1 through A-5, Logs of Borings
Figures A-6 through A-11, Logs of Dry Well and Percolation Borings Figures A-12 through A-17, Dry Well and Percolation Test Data
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Figures B-1, Modified Proctor Test Results
Figure B-2, Expansion Index Test Results
Figure B-3, Corrosivity Test Results
Figures B-4 through B-9, Grain Size Distribution
Figures B-10 through B-15, Consolidation Test Results
Figures B-16 through B-17, Percent Passing #200 Sieve
Figures B-18 through B-21, Direct Shear Results
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1-449
GEOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Multifamily Apartment Community development planned for approximately 12 acres located immediately east of Peterson Road, north of Santa Rosa Villa (apartments), approximately 200 feet south of Desert Cove Avenue, and east of the Whitewater Channel, as depicted on the on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The site is located at latitude 33.7612 and longitude -116.4370.
The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate subsurface soil and geologic conditions at the site and, based on the conditions encountered, provide preliminary recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of developing the property as presently proposed.
The scope of our investigation included review of published geologic information, private and public subsurface utility location, subsurface exploration and sample collection, percolation and dry well testing, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. A summary of the information and documentation reviewed for this study is presented in the List of References.
Our field investigation was conducted on March 14, 2024, and included the drilling of five geotechnical borings (B-1 through B-5) to depths ranging between approximately 21 1/2 to 511/2 feet below the existing ground surface, to observe the subsurface geological conditions at the site, collect relatively undisturbed in -situ and disturbed bulk samples for laboratory testing, and evaluate the depth to static groundwater. Percolation and dry well testing were performed at three locations each. Dry wells (DW-1 through DW-3) were drilled to 15 feet and percolation tests (P-1 through P-3) were drilled to 5 feet below ground surface. Testing was performed on March 14, 2024 in accordance with Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation LID BMP Handbook.
Appendix A presents a discussion of the field investigation, detailed logs of the borings, and percolation data. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are presented on Geologic Map, Figure 2.
We performed laboratory testing on select soil samples obtained from our field investigation to evaluate pertinent physical and chemical properties for geotechnical engineering analysis. Appendix B presents the results of our laboratory testing.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 1 April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1 -4 50
GEOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Site Plan by Studio TSQAURE2 depicts 29 residential buildings, a recreation center/office building and associated infrastructure improvements. Storm water will be collected in two basins in the eastern portion of the site and dry wells are proposed for each basin and in the east central areas of the site near the northern and southern property limits.
Structural loading information has not been provided to us at this time; however, we expect proposed buildings will generally consist of light weight wood framed structures and will be two stories high or less. We expect the proposed buildings will be supported by shallow concrete foundations and have slab -on -grade floors or alternatively be supported by post -tensioned foundation systems. For purposes of this preliminary evaluation, column loads for the proposed buildings are assumed to be on the order of 200 kips or less with wall loads on the order of 2 kips per linear foot or less. Geocon should be provided the structural plans and loading calculations when available for review, so that the descriptions and recommendations provided herein can be reevaluated and revised as needed.
3. GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located within the Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley is located within the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province which is a down dropped graben between branches of the San Andreas fault. Faulting on the southwestern side of the basin is buried by alluvium and no longer considered active. Active faulting is present along the northeastern side of the valley where the San Andreas fault is expressed at the ground surface by the north and south branches which bound the Indio Hills. The valley is bounded on the southwest by the Santa Rosa Mountains and the northeast by the Little San Bernardino Mountains.
4. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS
4.1 General
Based on our field investigation and published geologic maps of the area, the soil underlying the site consists of undocumented artificial fill (afu) and alluvium (Qa), which generally follows that of Dibblee and Minch (2008). The soils at the site generally include poorly -graded sands and silts with some silty sand. They are described in detail on the boring logs in Appendix A. The soil and geologic units encountered at the site are discussed in general terms below.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 2 April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-451
GEOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
4.2 Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu)
Undocumented artificial fill was encountered to depths of 5 to 9 feet and it may be deeper where the former community pool was located. The undocumented artificial fill consists of poorly graded and silty sands which are loose to medium dense and dry to moist. Construction debris was encountered within the fill. The fill was likely placed for the previous mobile home park some time between 1959 and 1972.
Based on the time period, it is unlikely that geotechnical observation and testing was performed during placement.
4.3 Alluvium (Qa)
The alluvium consists of thickly bedded silts and fine sands. Alluvium was found underlying the undocumented artificial fill to the maximum depth explored of approximately 511/2 feet. The alluvium can be characterized as loose to medium dense/firm to hard, dry to slightly moist, and is varying in shades of olive brown and yellowish brown. The unit shows some laminations and at varying depths there exists evidence of oxidation.
5. GROUNDWATER
Static groundwater was not encountered during this investigation to the maximum depth explored of approximately 511/2 feet. Based on a well records within approximately one mile from the site, static groundwater is between approximately 161 to 222 feet beneath the ground surface. Static groundwater elevations are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, and land use, among other factors, and vary as a result. Additionally, perched conditions may exist where none previously existed before.
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
6.1 Surface Fault Rupture
The numerous faults in southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults.
The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly known as CDMG) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program (Bryant and Hart, 2007). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). A potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years) but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 3 April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-452
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
The site is not within a currently established State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. No active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site.
The closest active fault to the site is the South Branch of the San Andreas fault located approximately 7 miles northeast of the site. Faults within a 50 -mile radius of the site are listed in Table 6.1A. Historic earthquakes in southern California of magnitude 6.0 and greater, their magnitude, distance, and direction from the site are listed in Table 6.1B.
TABLE 6.1A
ACTIVE FAULTS WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SITE
Fault Name
Maximum
Magnitude
(Mw)
Geometry
(Slip
Character)
Slip Rate
(mm/yr)
Information
Source
Distance
from Site
(mi)
Direction
from Site
San Andreas -South
Branch
7.5 RL SS
24 a
7 NE
San Andreas — North
Branch
7.5 RL SS
24 a
10 NE
San Jacinto Clark
7.2 RL-SS
12 a
18 SW
Burnt Mountain
6.5 RL-SS
0.6 a
18 N
San Gorgonio Pass
n/a
THRUST
n/a
a
19 NW
Morongo/Pinto Mountain
7.2 LL -SS
2.5 a
22 N
San Jacinto (Casa Loma)
6.9 RL-SS
12 a
30 NW
Coyote Creek
6.8 RL-SS
4 a
22 SW
Copper Mountain
7 RL-SS
0.6 a
36 NE
Mesquite Lake
7.3 RL-SS
0.6 a
36 NE
Earthquake Valley
6.5 RL-SS
2 a
40 SW
North Frontal
6.7 R
0.5 a
41 N
Lenwood
7.5 RL-SS
0.6 a
42 N
Elsinore (Wildomar)
6.8 RL-SS
5 a
42 SW
GEOMETRY: BT = BLIND THRUST, LL = LEFT LATERAL, N = NORMAL, 0 = OBLIQUE, R = REVERSE, RL = RIGHT LATERAL, SS = STRIKE SLIP.
INFORMATION SOURCES: A = CAO, T., BRYANT, W.A., ROWSHANDEL, B., BRANUM, D., AND WILLS, C.J., 2003, THE REVISED 2002 CALIFORNIA PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD MAPS, INCLUDING APPENDICES A, B, AND C, DATED JUNE; B = ONLINE FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA WEBSITE, MAPS.CONSERVATION.CA.GOV/CGS/FAM/, AS OF 1/2017.
N/A = DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01
-4-
April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-453
GVOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
TABLE 6.1B
HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE EVENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE
Earthquake
(Oldest to Youngest)
Date of Earthquake
Magnitude
Distance to
Epicenter
(Miles)
Direction to
Epicenter
Near Redlands
July 23, 1923
6.3 49
WNW
Long Beach
March 10, 1933
6.4 88
W
Tehachapi
July 21, 1952
7.5 170
WNW
San Fernando
February 9, 1971
6.6 121
WNW
Whittier Narrows
October 1, 1987
5.9 96
WNW
Sierra Madre
June 28, 1991
5.8 96
WNW
Landers
June 28, 1992
7.3 30
N
Big Bear
June 28, 1992
6.4 38
NW
Northridge
January 17, 1994
6.7 124
WNW
Hector Mine
October 16, 1999
7.1 59
NNE
Ridgecrest China Lake Fault
July 5, 2019
7.1 153
NW
6.2 Liquefaction & Dry Sand Settlement
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in -situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Additionally, seismically induced "dry -sand" settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not.
The current standard of practice as outlined in the Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (SCEC, 1999) requires a liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of the proposed structure. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium -grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be enough to induce liquefaction.
According to the RCIT Map My County online GIS system, the site is located within an area mapped as having a "moderate" potential for liquefaction.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 5 April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-454
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
We performed a liquefaction analysis of the soils underlying the site using the 1996 NCEER method of analysis with the updates by Youd et al. (2001). The liquefaction potential evaluation was performed by utilizing a groundwater depth of greater than 51.5 feet, a magnitude 8.08 earthquake, and the site -specific modified MCEG peak ground acceleration (PGAM) of 0.708. This semi -empirical method is based on a correlation between values of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance. An average conversion factor of 0.63 was used to derive SPT blow -count values from California Modified Sampler blow -count values. Due to the lack of shallow groundwater at the project site, liquefaction is not a design consideration. Our Empirical Estimation of Liquefaction Potential is included as Figure 4.
An evaluation of seismically induced "dry -sand" settlement was performed, with the resulting seismic "dry -sand" settlement estimated to be 0.65 inches. An analysis of seismically induced "dry -sand" settlement is included as Figure 5.
6.3 Expansive Soil
Laboratory testing of a representative sample of near surface site soil collected during our exploration indicates that soils have an Expansion Index of 0 and would therefore be classified as non -expansive in accordance with Section 1803.5.3 of the 2022 CBC and have a "very low" expansion index in accordance with ASTM D4829 (Expansion Index [El] of 20 or less).
6.4 Hydrocompression
Hydrocompression is the tendency of unsaturated soil structure to collapse upon wetting resulting in the overall settlement of the affected soil and overlying foundations or improvements supported thereon. Potentially compressible soils underlying the site are typically removed and compacted during remedial site grading. However, if compressible soil is left in -place, a potential for settlement due to hydrocompression of the soil exists.
Based on the laboratory test results, the potential for hydrocompression ranges from 0.23 to
1.5 percent within the alluvial deposits. We expect that the hydrocompressive characteristics of site soils will be effectively reduced as a result of remedial grading operations and adequate drainage measures as provided herein; therefore, we opine that hydrocompression is not a design consideration for the structural components of this project.
6.5 Landslides
The site is not located near a hillside; therefore, landslides are not a design consideration.
6.6 Rock Fall Hazards
Rock falls are not a design consideration due to the lack of natural bedrock slopes above and adjacent to the site.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 6 April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-455
GI';OCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
6.7 Slope Stability
Graded slopes are not proposed on the site at this time, therefore slope stability is not a design consideration.
6.8 Tsunamis and Seiches
A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or offshore slope failures. The first order driving force for locally generated tsunamis offshore southern California is expected to be tectonic deformation from large earthquakes (Legg, et al., 2002). The site is located approximately 75 miles from the nearest coastline, separated by two mountain ranges, and at an elevation of 50 feet MSL, therefore, the risk associated with tsunamis is not a design consideration.
A seiche is a run-up of water within a lake or embayment triggered by fault- or landslide -induced ground displacement. The project site is not located adjacent to a body of water; therefore, seiches are not a design consideration for the site.
6.9 Dam Inundation and Flooding
The eastern area of the site is within a flood zone along the Whitewater River per Riverside County Map My County website. The flood hazard should be addressed by the project civil engineer.
6.10 Regional Ground Subsidence
Regional subsidence has occurred in recent history within the Coachella Valley. Initial subsidence occurred between the 1920's and 1940's when groundwater was over -pumped and groundwater levels declined to the order of 50 feet. The introduction of Colorado River water in 1949 reduced groundwater pumping and the related subsidence temporarily stopped. In the 1970's overdraft of the groundwater occurred resulting in groundwater level declines of 50 to 100 feet and subsidence resumed. In 1996, the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) in cooperation with CVWD implemented a geodetic measurement of ground levels from Palm Desert, southwestward to the Salton Sea. Subsidence of 0.39 to 0.57 ft. has occurred within the La Quinta Subsidence Zone, located southwest of the site, between 1996 and 2005. Subsidence at a point located near the intersection of Avenue 54 and Jackson was recorded at 44 mm in 1998. Since that time, no subsidence has been recorded at that location. CVWD has embarked on a groundwater replenishment program which has slowed the rate of subsidence in the region. Ongoing studies from the USGS have discovered that the dominant factor in ground subsidence is the presence of silt layers which compress upon groundwater withdraw (Sneed, APWA Presentation March 2013). Ground subsidence could occur in the future and the site could be affected especially if groundwater withdrawal were to re -initiate. We anticipate the subsidence to be on a regional scale that could cause settlement across the project site. However, the settlement occurs over a relatively large geographic area and typically does not cause differential settlement over a relatively short horizontal distance that should be addressed as a design concern as part of the site development.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 7 April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-456
1,4 V0i "i_) \
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
7. SITE INFILTRATION
Percolation testing was performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District LID BMP, Appendix A (Handbook) for infiltration basins.
The percolation test locations are depicted on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
Percolation test borings P-1 through P-3 were excavated to depths of 5 feet below existing grade. "Dry well" or deep percolation test borings were excavated to depths of 15 feet below existing grade.
These borings were excavated using a CME 75 hollow -stem auger drilling machine with 8 -inch -diameter augers. Approximately two inches of gravel was placed at the bottom of each test hole, and a perforated pipe was placed atop the gravel to keep the test hole open. Gravel was placed around the bottom of the test hole to support the test pipe. The test locations were pre -saturated prior to testing.
The boring logs and percolation data is presented in Appendix A. A summary of the percolation data and infiltration rate results are provided in the table below.
CALCULATED INFILTRATION RATES FROM PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS Parameter
P-1
P-2
P-3
DW-1
DW-2
DW-3
Depth (inches)
60 60
60 180
180
180
Test Type
Sandy
Sandy
Sandy
Sandy
Sandy
Sandy
Change in head over time: OH
(inches)
26.8 32.6
18.4 67.8
59.4 40.1
Average head: Han (inches)
20.0 22.1
20.8 96.3
106.3
116.8
Time Interval: At (minutes)
10 10
10 10
10 10
Radius of test hole: r (inches)
4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0
Calculated Infiltration Rate: It
(inches/hour)
14.6 16.3
9.7 8.3
6.6 4.0
The results of the percolation testing indicate that the calculated infiltration rates at the locations tested are between 4.0 and 16.3 inches per hour. The Handbook requires a factor of safety of 3 be applied to the values above based on the test method used.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 8 April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-457
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
The in -situ field percolation tests performed provide short-term infiltration rates. Where appropriate, the short-term infiltration rates shall be converted to long-term infiltration rates using reduction factors depending on the degree of infiltration quality, maintenance access and frequency, site variability, subsurface stratigraphy variation, and other factors. The small-scale percolation testing cannot model the complexity of the effect of interbedded layers of different soil composition, and our test results should be considered only as index values of infiltration rates.
Due to the presence of potentially hydrocompressive soils, the proposed infiltration system should be located a minimum distance of 25 feet from proposed structures and a minimum distance of 15 feet from site improvements to reduce the potential for induced settlements to adversely impact the proposed structures and improvements. Provided these offsets are maintained, there is a very low potential for infiltration -related soil settlement to adversely affect the proposed structures; some settlement may occur locally within the area of the infiltration system. The proposed infiltration system should also be located at least 50 feet away from the Whitewater Storm Channel along the eastern site boundary.
The civil engineer should also evaluate the impact on surface drainage should some soil settlement occur locally within the area of the infiltration system. It is suggested that flexible connections be utilized between the storm drainpipes and infiltration chambers. The project owner should understand that it is not our intent to completely prevent any soil settlement and/or associated distress of overlying pavement as a result of stormwater infiltration as doing so would be prohibitive to the proposed project.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 9 April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1 -4 58
GEOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General
8.1.1 It is our opinion that neither soil or geologic conditions were encountered during the investigation that would preclude the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during design and construction.
8.1.2 Potential geologic hazards at the site include seismic shaking and compressible near surface soils. Based on our investigation and available geologic information, active, potentially active, or inactive faults are not present underlying or trending toward the site.
8.1.3 The undocumented fill and upper portion of loose, compressible alluvium on the site is not considered suitable for the support of compacted fill or settlement -sensitive improvements.
Remedial grading of the surficial soil will be required as discussed herein. The site soils are suitable for re -use as engineered fill provided the recommendations in the Grading section of this report are followed.
8.1.4 Although groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface investigation, it is possible that perched water may be encountered during grading, particularly during the wet -weather season.
8.1.5 Soil samples tested for hydrocompression exhibit a collapse potential of up to approximately
1.5 percent. It is anticipated that remedial grading will reduce the hydrocompressive characteristics of the near -surface soils.
8.1.6 Previous improvements on the site, including building pads, slabs -on -grade, pavement, subsurface utilities, septic systems, wells, and the previous swimming pool structures (if not removed) should be removed with the resultant voids backfilled as recommended herein.
8.1.7 Site soils are generally comprised of sand, which are expected to have little to no cohesion and may be subject to caving in un-shored excavations. Excavation and shoring recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this report.
8.1.8 Proper drainage should be maintained in order to preserve the design properties of the engineered fill. Recommendations for site drainage are provided herein.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 10 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1 -4 59
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.1.9 We expect the proposed pool to be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system.
We expect the residential buildings to be supported on either conventional shallow foundation systems or post -tensioned foundation systems. Foundations are expected to derive support in engineered fill subsequent to the recommended grading. Earthwork and foundation recommendations are provided herein.
8.1.10 Once design or civil grading plans are made available, the recommendations within this report should be reviewed and revised, as necessary. Additionally, as the project design progresses toward a final design, changes in the design, location, or elevation of the proposed improvements should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to evaluate the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.
8.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics
8.2.1 Excavation of the undocumented artificial fill and upper alluvial deposits are expected to be possible with moderate effort using conventional heavy-duty equipment in proper functioning order.
8.2.2 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be "non -expansive" (expansion index [El] 20 or less) as defined by 2022 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. We expect a majority of the soil encountered possess a "very low" expansion potential (El of 0 to 20) in accordance with ASTM D4829. The table below presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. Although unlikely, any medium to highly expansive soils encountered at the site should not be placed within 4 feet of the proposed foundations, flatwork or paving improvements.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expans MI
ASTM D 4829 Expansion
Classification
022 CBC Expansion Classification
0-20
Very Low
Non -Expansive
21-50
Low
51-90
Medium
91-130
High
Greater Than 130
Very High
Expansive
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01
April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-460
GVOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.2.3 Additional testing for expansion potential should be performed during grading along with plasticity index testing on soils with expansion indices of more than 20.
8.2.4 We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Appendix B presents results of the laboratory water-soluble sulfate tests. Laboratory tests performed on near surface samples indicate that the on -site materials possess a "SO" sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2022 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-19 Chapter 19. The table below presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2022 CBC Section 1904.3 and ACI 318. The presence of water- soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration.
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO
SULFATE -CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
Exposure Class
Water -Soluble
Sulfate (SO4)
Percen
by Weight
Cement
Type (ASTM C 150)
Maximum
Water to
Cement Ratio
by Weight/
Minimum
Compressive
Strength (psi)
50 504 2.00
V+Pozzolan or Slag
0.45 4,500
V
0.40 5,000
i Maximum water to cement ratio limits do not apply to lightweight concrete.
8.2.5 Laboratory test results indicate a resistivity of 1000 ohm -cm, pH of 8.5, chloride content of 390 ppm, and sulfate content of 180 ppm. Resistivity serves as an indication parameter for the presence of soluble salts only and does not specifically indicate a corrosive situation exists. As shown in the table below, the site would not be classified as "corrosive" to buried improvements in accordance with the Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Caltrans, 2021).
Resistivity is not included as a parameter to define a corrosive area for structures except for MSE walls. MSE walls are not anticipated for this project.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 12 -
April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1 -461
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
CALTRANS CORROSION GUIDELINES
Corrosion Resistivity
Exposure (ohm -cm)
Chloride (ppm) Sulfate (ppm) pH
Corrosive
<1,500
500 or greater
1,500 or greater 5.5 or less I
8.2.6 Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned.
8.3 Grading
8.3.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix C and the Grading Ordinances of the City of Rancho Mirage.
8.3.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the City inspector, owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
8.3.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of previous structures and infrastructure, including but not limited to utilities, pavement, slabs -on -grade, deleterious materials, debris, and vegetation. Additionally, if the previous swimming pool and spa structures still remain buried, they should be removed. The approximate location of the previous pool structures are indicated on Figure 2. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter and deleterious debris.
Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site.
8.3.4 The undocumented artificial fill, and the upper loose alluvium in structural areas should be removed to expose competent alluvium. At least 3 feet of newly placed engineered fill should be placed below proposed building foundations. The removals should be extended laterally a minimum of 5 feet from the building footprint, or for a distance equal to the depth of fill below the footings, whichever is greater. The expected depths of removal are depicted on Figure 2. The actual depth of remedial grading should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer (a representative of Geocon) during grading operations. In pool areas, removals should be extended laterally a minimum distance of 2 feet beyond the pool footprint.
The bottoms of the excavations should be scarified to a depth of at least 1 foot, moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D1557), prior to fill placement.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 13 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-462
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.3.5 In areas where small ancillary structures are proposed, such as trash enclosures and equipment pads, remedial removals should provide at least 24 inches of newly placed engineered fill below the bottom of proposed footings.
8.3.6 Remedial removals should be extended to depths of at least 12 inches below planned subgrade elevations in non-structural areas where pavement and flatwork are proposed.
8.3.7 Excavations adjacent to existing improvements that extend below a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) projection downward and outward from the outside bottom edge of the improvements may utilize slot cutting to construct the improvement while maintaining support for existing utilities, roadways, or walls. Care should be taken by the grading contractor so that impact to existing or proposed improvements does not occur during slot -cut excavations. This may require reduced slot cut lengths if loose or otherwise unstable soil is encountered.
The contractor should be aware that there is an inherent risk to slot -cutting as movement of near vertical excavations can cause stress relief features and vertical ground settlement outside of the excavation. The grading contractor should be prepared to take necessary steps to provide lateral stability/temporary buttressing if slot cut sidewalls experience instability.
8.3.8 We recommend that the initial temporary excavation along the property line be sloped back at a uniform 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope gradient or flatter for excavation of the existing soils to the necessary depth. The temporary slope may then be excavated using slot -cutting techniques (see illustration below).
8.3.9 The slot -cutting method employs the earth as a buttress and allows the earth excavation to proceed in phases. The initial excavation is made at a slope of 1:1. Alternate "A" slots should be worked first. Slots may be up to 7 feet in width. The backfill should be completed in the "A" slots before the "B" slots are excavated. After completing the backfill in the "B" slots, the "C" slots may be excavated. Slot -cutting is not recommended for vertical excavations greater than 6 feet in height or where surcharged by more than 150 pounds per linear foot. Where slot dimensions or surcharge loads exceed these amounts, Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 14 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-463
\
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.3.10 Geocon should observe the removal bottoms to check the competence of the exposed soil.
Deeper excavations or subgrade stabilization will be required if loose, soft, or porous materials are present at the base of the removals.
8.3.11 The fill placed within 5 feet of proposed foundations should possess a "very low" to "low" expansion potential (El of 50 or less).
8.3.12 The site should be brought to finish grade elevations with fill compacted in layers. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction.
Fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557. Fill materials placed below optimum moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill.
Earthwork should be observed, and compacted fill tested by representatives of Geocon.
8.3.13 If needed, import fill should consist of granular materials with a "low" to "very low" expansion potential (El of 50 or less), non -corrosive, generally free of deleterious material, and contain rock no larger than 6 inches. Geocon should be notified of the import soil source and should be afforded the opportunity to perform laboratory testing of the import soil prior to its arrival at the site to evaluate its suitability as engineered fill material.
8.3.14 Finished slopes should be landscaped with drought -tolerant vegetation having variable root depths and requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, the slopes should be drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion.
8.3.15 Infiltration trenches and ponds should be excavated into native soil without compaction effort applied to the basin bottom. Basin maintenance should include the removal of silt from the basin bottom after each significant rain event.
8.4 Earthwork Grading Factors
8.4.1 Estimates of shrinkage factors are based on empirical judgments comparing the material in its existing or natural state as encountered in the exploratory excavations to a compacted state. Variations in natural soil density and in compacted fill density render shrinkage value estimates very approximate. As an example, the contractor can compact the fill to a dry density of 90 percent or higher of the laboratory maximum dry density. Thus, the contractor has an approximately 10 percent range of control over the fill volume. Due to the variations in the actual shrinkage/bulking factors, a balance area should be provided to accommodate variations.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 15 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-464
GEOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.5 Utility Trench Backfill
8.5.1 Utility trenches should be properly backfilled in accordance with the requirements of the City of Rancho Mirage and the following recommendations. The pipes should be bedded with well -graded crushed rock or clean sand (Sand Equivalent greater than 30) to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. The use of well -graded crushed rock should be used in conjunction with filter fabric to prevent the gravel from having direct contact with soil.
The remainder of the trench backfill may be derived from onsite soil or approved import soil, compacted as necessary, until the required compaction is obtained. The use of 2 -sack slurry and controlled low strength material (CLSM) are also acceptable. However, consideration should be given to the possibility of differential settlement where the slurry ends and earthen backfill begins. These transitions should be minimized, and additional stabilization should be considered at these transitions.
8.5.2 Utility trench backfill should be placed in layers no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Utility backfill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density and moisture conditioned at 0 to 2 percent over optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557. Backfill at the finish subgrade elevation of new pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density in the upper 12 inches. Backfill materials placed below the recommended moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill.
8.5.3 All trench and foundation excavation bottoms must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon), prior to placing bedding materials, fill, steel, gravel, or concrete.
8.6 Seismic Design Criteria
8.6.1 The following table summarizes the site -specific design criteria obtained from the 2022 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2021 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The data was calculated using the online application U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). The short spectral response uses a period of
0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.2.2 of the 2022 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The values presented in the following table are for the risk -targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER).
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 16 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-465
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter
Value
2022 CBC Reference
Site Class
D
Section 1613.2.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration — Class B (short), Ss
1.50g
Figure 1613.2.1(1)
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration — Class B (1 sec), S1
0.60g
Figure 1613.2.1(3)
Site Coefficient, FA
1.0 Table 1613.2.3(1)
Site Coefficient, Fv
1.7*
Table 1613.2.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration (short), SMs
1.50g
Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-20)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration — (1 sec), SM1
1.02g*
Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-21)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SOS
1.00g
Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-22)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1
0.68g*
Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-23)
*Per Supplement 3 of ASCE 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis (GMHA) shall be performed for projects on Site Class "D" sites with 1 -second spectral acceleration (S1) greater than or equal to 0.2g, which is true for this site. However, Supplement 3 of ASCE 7-16 provides an exception stating that that the GMHA may be waived provided that the parameter SM1 is increased by 50% for all applications of SMS. The values for parameters SM1 and SDI. presented above have not been increased in accordance with Supplement 3 of ASCE 7-16.
8.6.2 The following table presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16.
ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
Parameter
Value
ASCE 7-16 Reference
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration,
PGA
0.644g
Figure 22-9
Site Coefficient, FPGA
1.1 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground
Acceleration, PGAM
0.708g
Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01
- 17 -
April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-466
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.6.3 The Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion (MCE) is the level of ground motion that has a 2 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 2,475 years. According to the 2022 California Building Code and ASCE 7-16, the MCE is to be utilized for the evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and it is our understanding that the intent of the building code is to maintain "Life Safety" during an MCE event. The Design Earthquake Ground Motion (DE) is the level of ground motion that has a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 475 years.
8.6.4 Deaggregation of the MCE peak ground acceleration was performed using the USGS online Unified Hazard Tool, 2014 Conterminous U.S. Dynamic edition (v4.2.0). The result of the deaggregation analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the MCE peak ground acceleration is characterized as an 8.08 magnitude event occurring at a hypocentral distance of 10.98 kilometers from the site.
8.6.5 Deaggregation was also performed for the Design Earthquake (DE) peak ground acceleration, and the result of the analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the DE peak ground acceleration is characterized as a 7.49 magnitude occurring at a hypocentral distance of 10.77 kilometers from the site.
8.6.6 Conformance to the criteria in the above tables for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
8.7 Conventional Foundations and Concrete Slabs -On -Grade
8.7.1 The foundation recommendations presented herein are for the proposed one to two-story structures subsequent to the recommended grading. Future structures supported on a conventional shallow foundation with concrete slab -on -grade are assumed to derive support in newly placed engineered fill.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 18 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-467
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.7.2 Conventional foundations for the structures may consist of either continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Conventionally reinforced continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. A wall/column footing dimension detail depicting footing embedment is provided below.
WALL FOOTING
VAPOR BARRIER
CONCRETE SLAB
CLEAN SAND
O z
a o
o
FINISHED PAD GRADE
FOUNDATION
WIDTH
O
o
o
COLUMN FOOTING
CLEAN SAND
Wall/Column Footing Detail
FOUNDATION
WIDTH
8.7.3 Continuous footings may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,800 psf (dead plus live load). Isolated spread footings may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,300 psf (dead plus live load). A one-third increase in allowable bearing capacity is permitted for use with the alternative load combinations given in Section 1605.2 of the 2022 CBC.
8.7.4 From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, concrete slabs -on -grade for the structures should be at least 4 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed 24 inches on center in both directions. The concrete slab -on -grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slab for supporting equipment and storage loads.
A thicker concrete slab may be required for heavier loading conditions. To reduce the effects of differential settlement on the foundation system, thickened slabs and/or an increase in steel reinforcement can provide a benefit to reduce concrete cracking.
8.7.5 The maximum expected static settlement for the planned structure, supported on conventional foundation systems with the above allowable bearing pressures, and deriving support in engineered fill is estimated to be less than %2 -inch and to occur below the heaviest loaded structural element. Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 19 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-468
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
initial application of loading. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed %-inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. The estimated seismically induced "dry -sand" settlement of
0.65 inch should also be considered in the design of proposed structures. Based on seismic considerations, proposed structures should be designed for a combined static and seismically induced differential settlement of 3 inch over a distance of 40 feet.
8.7.6 Once the design and foundation loading configuration proceeds to a more finalized plan, the estimated settlements within this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary.
8.7.7 Steel reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of at least two No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer.
8.7.8 Foundation excavation bottoms must be observed and approved in writing by a representative of Geocon, prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
8.7.9 Slabs that may receive moisture -sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture -sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute's (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture -Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity -controlled environment.
8.7.10 The bedding sand thickness should be evaluated by the project foundation engineer, architect, and/or developer. However, we should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 4 inches. Placement of 3 inches and 4 inches of sand is common practice in southern California for 5 -inch and 4 -inch thick slabs, respectively.
The foundation engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures that may be utilized to assure proper curing of the slab to reduce the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that the foundation design engineer present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations presented on the foundation plans.
8.7.11 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be sprinkled to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 20 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-469
GVOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.7.12 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, walls, and slabs -on -grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular where re-entrant slab corners occur.
8.7.13 Geocon should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.
8.8 Post Tensioned Foundations
8.8.1 Alternatively, a post -tensioned concrete slab and foundation system may be used for support of the proposed structures subsequent to the recommended grading deriving support from the newly placed engineered fill. The post -tensioned system should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post -tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post - Tensioning Institute (PTI) DC 10.5-12 Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post -Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils or WRI/CRSI Design of Slab - on -Ground Foundations, as required by the 2022 California Building Code (CBC Section 1808.6.2). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions, we understand it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential settlement. The post -tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented in the following table, which are based on the guidelines presented in the PTI, Third Edition design manual.
POST -TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post -Tensioning Institute (PTI)
Third Edition Design Parameters
Value
Thornthwaite Index
-20
Equilibrium Suction
3.9 Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em (feet)
5.3 Edge Lift, yM (inches)
0.61 Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em (feet)
9.0 Center Lift, yM (inches)
0.3 Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01
- 21 -
April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28 2024
1 -470
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.8.2 The foundations for the post -tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post -tensioned mat foundation system is planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and extend below the clean sand or crushed rock layer.
8.8.3 If the structural engineer proposes a post -tensioned foundation design method other than PTI DC 10.5:
• The post -tensioned foundation system design parameters above are still applicable. • Interior stiffener beams should be used.
• The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches. • The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches.
The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
8.8.4 Our experience indicates post -tensioned slabs may be susceptible to excessive edge lift, regardless of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential.
The structural engineer should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the proposed structures.
8.8.5 During the construction of the post -tension foundation system, the concrete should be placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post -tension foundation system unless specifically designed by the structural engineer.
8.8.6 Foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,300 psf (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. The estimated maximum total and differential settlement for the planned structures due to foundation loads is %z -inch and %-inch, respectively.
8.8.7 Consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
8.8.8 Interior stiffening beams should be incorporated into the design of the foundation system in accordance with the PTI design procedures.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 22 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.8.9 Foundation excavation bottoms must be observed and approved in writing by a representative of Geocon, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
8.8.10 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
8.8.11 Geocon should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.
8.9 Miscellaneous Foundations
8.9.1 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as block walls up to 6 feet in height, planter walls or trash enclosures which will not be tied to the proposed structure may be supported on conventional foundations bearing on a minimum of 24 inches of newly placed engineered fill which extends laterally at least 24 inches beyond the foundation area. It is essential that proper drainage be maintained in order to minimize settlements in the soils and any foundations supported therein.
8.9.2 If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are loose, compaction of the loose soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. Miscellaneous foundations may be designed for a bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 12 inches in depth below lowest adjacent grade, and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
8.9.3 Foundation excavations should be observed and approved in writing by a representative of Geocon, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated.
8.10 Conventional Retaining Walls
8.10.1 The recommendations presented below are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 6 feet. In the event that walls significantly higher than 6 feet are planned, Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 23 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.10.2 Retaining wall foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Conventional Foundation and Concrete Slab on Grade section of this report.
8.10.3 Retaining walls with a level backfill surface that are not restrained at the top should be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (active pressure) of 49 pcf.
8.10.4 Restrained walls are those that are not allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, walls may be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (at -rest pressure) of 60 pcf.
8.10.5 The wall pressures provided above assume that the proposed retaining walls will support relatively undisturbed alluvial soils or engineered fill derived from onsite soils. If import soil will be used to backfill proposed retaining walls, revised earth pressures may be required to account for the geotechnical properties of the import soil used as engineered fill. This should be evaluated once the use of import soil is established. All imported fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by Geocon. prior to bringing soil to the site.
8.10.6 The wall pressures provided above assume that the retaining wall will be properly drained preventing the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. If retaining wall drainage is not implemented, the equivalent fluid pressure to be used in design of undrained, restrained walls is 90 pcf for the full height of the wall. The value includes hydrostatic pressures plus buoyant lateral earth pressures. If a partially drained wall is proposed, Geocon should be contacted to provide additional recommendations.
8.10.7 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent structures and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses.
8.11 Swimming Pool
8.11.1 For the proposed swimming pool, the shell bottoms should be designed as a free-standing structure and may derive support on a minimum of 3 feet of engineered fill compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 24 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-473
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.11.2 Swimming pool foundations and walls may be designed in accordance with the Conventional Foundation and Concrete Slab on Grade, and the Conventional Retaining Walls sections of this report. A hydrostatic relief valve should be considered as part of the swimming pool design unless a gravity drain system can be placed beneath the pool shell.
8.11.3 Surface drainage around the pool/spa should be designed to prevent water from ponding and seeping into the ground. Surface water should be collected and conducted through non - erosive devices to the street, storm drain or other approved water course or disposal area.
Leakage from the proposed pool/spa could create an artificial groundwater condition that will likely create instability problems. Therefore, all plumbing and the pool/spa should be leak free.
8.11.4 The deck for the swimming pool/spa should be cast separately of the swimming pool/spa, and water stops should be provided between the bond beam and the deck. Jointing for concrete flatwork should be provided in accordance with the recommendations of the American Concrete Institute. The joints should be sealed with an approved flexible sealant to reduce the potential for introduction of surface water into the underlying soil.
8.11.5 Consideration should be given to installing a subdrain system for the pool area. The subgrade surface should be graded to slope a minimum of 1 percent away from the pool.
An impermeable liner (e.g. High -density polyethylene, HDPE, with a thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent PVC liner) could be placed over the subgrade soil. The liner, if installed, should overlap by at least 12 inches and sealed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
8.11.6 To mitigate the potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils beneath the pool deck, we recommend the construction of a deepened footing along the outside edge of the pool deck flatwork. A subdrain consisting of 4 -inch diameter perforated PVC pipe should be installed inside the deepened footing and sloped to drain into an approved outlet. The pipe should be surrounded by 3/ inch open -graded gravel and wrapped with filter fabric.
8.11.7 If the proposed pools are in proximity to a proposed or existing structure, consideration should be given to the construction sequence. If the proposed pool is to be constructed near an existing structure, or a proposed structure that is constructed before the pool's construction, the excavation required for the pool could remove a critical component of lateral support from the structure's foundations and would therefore require shoring to Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 25 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
GV000N
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
safeguard the structure's foundations. Once information regarding the pool locations and depth becomes available, this information should be provided to Geocon for review and possible revision of these recommendations.
8.12 Exterior Concrete Flatwork
8.12.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the table below. The recommended steel reinforcement would help reduce the potential for cracking.
MINIMUM CONCRETE FLATWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Expansion
Index, El
Minimum Reinforcing Steel* Options
Minimum
Thickness
El < 50
6x6-W2.9/W2.9 (6x6-6/6) welded wire mesh
No. 3 Bars 18 inches on center, Both Directions
4 Inches
*In excess of 8 feet square.
8.12.2 The subgrade soil should be properly moisturized and compacted prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The subgrade soil should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D1557.
8.12.3 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations of this report, the exterior concrete flatwork has a potential to experience some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade.
The reinforcing steel should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the potential for vertical offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.
8.12.4 Concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the Grading section of this report prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be verified prior to placing concrete. Base materials will not be required below concrete improvements.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 26 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28 2024
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.12.5 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer.
8.12.6 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of exterior slabs as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, slabs -on -grade will still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics.
Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction.
8.13 Lateral Loading
8.13.1 Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations, slabs and by passive earth pressure. A passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf should be used for the design of footings or shear keys poured neat against newly compacted fill.
The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance.
8.13.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between newly compacted fill soil and concrete of 0.4 should be used for design. When combining passive pressure and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 27 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
GEOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.14 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
8.14.1 The final pavement design should be based on R -value testing of the subgrade soils.
Streets should be designed in accordance with the City of Rancho Mirage standards and specifications when final Traffic Indices and R -Value test results of subgrade soil are completed. For preliminary design purposes, we used an estimated R -value of 50 based on the soil classifications. Preliminary flexible pavement sections are presented in the following table. Geocon should be contacted if other roadway classifications and traffic indices are appropriate for the project.
PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Road Classification
Traffic Index
Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate Base
(inches)
Alley / Parking Lots
4.0 3
4 Cu I -De -Sac
4.5 3
4 Local Road
5.0 3
4 Residential Collector
6.0 31/2
4 Industrial Collector/Secondary Major
8.0 4%
6 8.14.2 Prior to construction of new pavement sections, remedial grading should be performed in accordance with the Grading section of this report.
8.14.3 The upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content beneath pavement sections.
8.14.4 Aggregate base materials should conform to the requirements for Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) or Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) in Sections 200-2.2 and 200-2.4, respectively, of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook).
Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform to Section 26-1.02A of the latest edition of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. Base materials should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D1557. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of 95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D1561.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 28 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
GVOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.14.5 Where prefabricated concrete pavers (80 mm thick) will be used in site roadways and parking areas, it is acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint to construct the pavers over 2 inches of sand underlain by a properly prepared subgrade and aggregate base per the following table. The aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as in accordance with ASTM D1557. Pavers should be constructed in accordance with the manufacture's guidelines. Preliminary paver design sections are presented in the following table.
PAVER DESIGN SECTIONS
Road Classification/Use
Estimated Traffic
Index (TI)
Prefabricated
Concrete Paver
(inches)
Aggregate Base
(inches)
Alley / Parking Lots
4.0 31/8
6 8.14.6 Where concrete pavers will be placed in pedestrian walkway areas, and will not be subject to vehicle loading, the inclusion of a 4 -inch layer of base over properly compacted subgrade underlying the pavers is acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint.
8.14.7 Where different pavement sections are to be constructed adjacent to each other, we recommend that consideration be given to the use of deepened base sections to maintain a uniform base thickness and avoid stepped cuts for placement of base material. This condition is expected to occur across the transition across the areas of asphalt paving and prefabricated pavers.
8.14.8 A rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in roadway aprons and cross gutters. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330-21 Commercial Concrete Parking Lots and Site Paving Design and Construction —Guide. The table below provides the traffic categories and design parameters used for the calculations for 20 -year design life.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 29 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
GVOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
TRAFFIC CATEGORIES
Traffic
Category
Description
Reliability
(%)
Slabs Cracked at End
of Design Life (%)
A
Car Parking Areas and Access Lanes
60 15
B
Entrance and Truck Service Lanes
60 15
C
School or City Buses (Excluding Large
Articulated Buses)
75 15
D
Heavy Duty Trucks (Gross Weight of 80
Kips)
75 15
E
Garbage or Fire Truck Lane
75 15
8.14.9 We used the parameters presented in the following table to calculate the pavement design sections. We should be contacted to provide updated design sections, if necessary.
RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter
Design Value
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k
100 pci
Modulus of Rupture for Concrete, MR
500 psi
Concrete Compressive Strength
3,000 psi
Concrete Modulus of Elasticity, E
3,150,000 psi
8.14.10 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum thickness as presented in the following table.
RIGID VEHICULAR PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Traffic Category
Trucks Per Day
Portland Cement
Concrete, T (Inches)
A = Car Parking Areas and Access Lanes
10 5%
B = Entrance and Truck Service Lanes
10 6
50 6%2
100
6%2
C = School or City Buses
50 9%2
100
91/2
D = Heavy Duty Trucks
50 61/2
100
7 E = Garbage or Fire Truck Lanes
5 6%2
10 7
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01
- 30 -
April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-479
GVOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.14.11 The PCC vehicular pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content. The garbage truck pad should be large enough such that all wheels are on the concrete pad during the loading operations.
8.14.12 Adequate joint spacing should be incorporated into the design and construction of the rigid pavement in accordance with the following table.
MAXIMUM JOINT SPACING
Pavement Thickness, T (Inches)
Maximum Joint Spacing (Feet)
4<T<5
10 5<T<6
12Y2
6<T
15 8.14.13 The rigid pavement should also be designed and constructed incorporating the parameters presented in the following table.
ADDITIONAL RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Subject
Value
Thickened Edge
1.2 Times Slab Thickness Adjacent to Structures
1.5 Times Slab Thickness Adjacent to Soil
Minimum Increase of 2 Inches
4 Feet Wide
Crack Control Joint
Depth
Early Entry Sawn = T/6 to T/5, 1.25 Inch Minimum
Conventional (Tooled or Conventional Sawing) = T/4 to T/3 Crack Control Joint
Width
-Inch for Sealed Joints and Per Sealer Manufacturer's
Recommendations
1/16- to 1/4 -Inch is Common for Unsealed Joints
8.14.14 Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes with the possible exception of dowels at construction joints as discussed herein.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 31 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-480
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.14.15 To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack -control joints (weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab.
Crack -control joints should be sealed with an appropriate sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade materials. The depth of the crack -control joints should be in accordance with the referenced ACI guide.
8.14.16 To provide load transfer between adjacent pavement slab sections, a butt -type construction joint should be constructed. The butt -type joint should be thickened by at least 20 percent at the edge and taper back at least 4 feet from the face of the slab.
8.14.17 Concrete curb/gutter should be placed on soil subgrade compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content. Cross -gutters that receive vehicular traffic should be placed on subgrade soil compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content. Base materials should not be placed below the curb/gutter, or cross -gutters so water is not able to migrate from the adjacent parkways to the pavement sections. Where flatwork is located directly adjacent to the curb/gutter, the concrete flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs to help reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.
8.15 Temporary Excavations
8.15.1 Excavations of up to 10 feet in height may be required during earthwork operations.
The excavations are expected to expose artificial fill and alluvial deposits, which may contain material that is subject to caving. The contractor should be prepared for caving soils in open excavations, and formwork may be required in foundation excavations. Vertical excavations up to 5 feet in height may be attempted where not surcharged by adjacent foundations or traffic, and where caving soils are not present.
8.15.2 Excavations of up to 10 feet in height are expected for construction of the proposed utility improvements; and we expect that the proposed utilities will be installed with conventional cut -and -cover methods.
8.15.3 Vertical excavations greater than 5 feet or where surcharged by existing structures will require sloping and/or shoring measures in order to provide a stable excavation.
The contractor's competent person should evaluate the appropriate slope and/or shoring based on soil type and prevailing site conditions per Cal -OSHA regulations.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 32 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-481
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.15.4 Where there is insufficient space for sloped excavations, shoring or trench shields should be used to support excavations. Shoring may also be necessary where a sloped excavation could remove vertical or lateral support of existing improvements, including existing utilities and adjacent structures. The contractor's competent person should evaluate the appropriate shoring system to provide per Cal -OSHA regulations.
8.15.5 Where temporary construction slopes are utilized, the top of the slope should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the slope. If the temporary construction slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces.
The contractor's competent person should inspect the soils exposed in the cut slopes during excavation in accordance with Cal -OSHA regulations so that modifications of the slopes can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur.
8.15.6 It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment, but some deflection will occur. We recommend that the deflection be minimized to prevent damage to existing structures and adjacent improvements. Where a public right-of-way is present or adjacent offsite structures do not surcharge the shoring excavation, the shoring deflection should be limited to less than 1 inch at the top of the shored embankment.
Where offsite structures are within the shoring surcharge area it is recommended that the beam deflection be limited to less than %z inch at the elevation of the adjacent offsite foundation, and no deflection at all if deflections will damage existing structures.
The allowable deflection is dependent on many factors, such as the presence of structures and utilities near the top of the embankment and will be assessed and designed by the project shoring engineer.
8.16 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
8.16.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the original designed engineering properties. Proper drainage should be maintained at all times.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 33 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-482
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
8.16.2 Site drainage should be collected and controlled in non -erosive drainage devices.
Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2022 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope. Discharge from downspouts, roof drains and scuppers are not recommended onto unprotected soils within five feet of the building perimeter. Planters which are located adjacent to foundations should be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into the soils providing foundation support. Landscape irrigation is not recommended within five feet of the building perimeter footings except when enclosed in protected planters.
8.16.3 Positive site drainage should be provided away from structures, pavement, and the tops of slopes to swales or other controlled drainage structures. The building pad and pavement areas should be fine graded such that water is not allowed to pond.
8.16.4 Landscaping planters immediately adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Either a subdrain, which collects excess irrigation water and transmits it to drainage structures, or impervious above -grade planter boxes should be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that consideration be given to providing a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 12 inches below the base material.
8.17 Plan Review
8.17.1 Geocon should be provided the opportunity to review the grading, structural, and foundation plans for the project prior to final submittal, to verify that the plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations of this report and to determine if additional analyses is required.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - 34 - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-483
GEOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of their representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
The requirements for concrete and reinforcing steel presented in this report are preliminary recommendations from a geotechnical perspective. The civil and structural engineers should provide the final recommendations for structural design of concrete and reinforcing steel for foundation systems, floor slabs, exterior concrete, or other systems where concrete and reinforcing steel are utilized, in accordance with the latest version of applicable codes.
The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-484
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. American Concrete Institute, 2019, ACI 318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, Report by ACI Committee 318.
2. American Concrete Institute, 2021, ACI 330 21 Commercial Concrete Parking Lots and Site Paving Design and Construction, Report by ACI Committee 330.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, 2017.
4. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, 2021, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, dated March.
5. California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2.
6. California Geological Survey (CGS), Earthquake Shaking Potential for California, from USGS/CGS Seismic Hazards Model, CSSC No. 03-02, 2003.
7. California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping -Ground Motion Page, 2003, CGS Website: www.conserv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap .
8. California Geological Survey, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002 (revised April 2003). 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years; http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html .
9. California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Water Data Library online database, www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/ , accessed March 2024.
10. Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2008, Geologic Map of the Thousand Palms and Lost Horse Mountain 15 Minute Quadrangles, Riverside County, California, DF-372, 1:62,500.
11. Jennings, Charles W. and Bryant, William A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology Map No. 6.
12. Legg, M. R., J. C. Borrero, and C. E. Synolakis, Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities, 2002 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report, dated January 2003.
13. Public Works Standards, Inc., 2021 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction "Greenbook," Published by BNi Building News.
14. Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT), Map My County, accessed March 2024.
15. Riverside County, 2013, General Plan Amendment No. 960, Section 4.11 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards.
16. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA and 2 Periods of Spectral Acceleration, 2002, USGS Website: www.earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps .
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-485
VICINITY MAP
G1-110 CON
W E S T. I N C.
G EOTEC HN IC AL, ENVIRONMENTAL, MATERIALS
78-075 Main Street #G-203, La Quinta, California 92253
PHONE 951-304-2300 www.geoconinc.com
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
PETERSON RO A D
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA
KD
APRIL 2024
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
FIG. 1
1-486
GEOCON LEGEND
Locations are approximate
B-5
P-3
DW-3
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATION
ESTIMATED REMEDIAL REMOVAL DEPTH
PERCOLATION TEST LOCATION
DRY WELL TEST LOCATION
afu
I> www.geoconinc.com
GEOLOGIC MAP
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
PETERSON ROAD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 2024 I PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
KD
FIG. 2
1-487
EMPIRICAL ESTIMATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE
NCEER (1996) METHOD W 2001 UPDATES
EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION:
Earthquake Magnitude:
8.08 Peak Horiz. Acceleration PGAM (g):
0.708
Magnitude Scaling Factor:
0.826
Historic High Groundwater:
161.0
Groundwater Depth During Exploratioi
100.0
LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS:
Unit Wt. Water (pcf):
Depth to
Base (ft)
Total Unit
Wt. (pcf)
Water
(0 or 1)
Field
SPT (N)
Depth of
SPT (ft)
Liq.Sus.
(0 or 1)
-200
(%)
Est. Dr
(%)
CN
Factor
Corrected
(N1)60cs
Eff. Unit
Wt. (psf)
Resist.
CRR 7.5
rd
Factor
Induced
CSR
Liquefac.
Safe.Fact.
1.0 108.0
0 7
5.0 1
71 58
1.700
21.1 108.0
0.229
1.000
0.460
--
2.0 108.0
0 7
5.0 1
71 58
1.700
21.1 108.0
0.229
0.998
0.459
--
3.0 108.0
0 7
5.0 1
71 58
1.700
21.1 108.0
0.229
0.996
0.458
--
4.0 108.0
0 7
5.0 1
71 58
1.700
21.1 108.0
0.229
0.994
0.457
--
5.0 108.0
0 7
5.0 1
71 58
1.700
21.1 108.0
0.229
0.991
0.456
--
6.0 91.8
0 7
5.0 1
71 58
1.700
21.1 91.8
0.229
0.989
0.455
--
7.0 91.8
0 15
7.5 1
70 81
1.700
39.4 91.8
Infin.
0.987
0.454
--
8.0 91.8
0 15
7.5 1
70 81
1.648
38.4 91.8
Infin.
0.985
0.453
--
9.0 91.8
0 15
7.5 1
70 81
1.557
36.5 91.8
Infin.
0.982
0.452
--
10.0 91.8
0 15
7.5 1
70 81
1.480
35.0 91.8
Infin.
0.980
0.451
--
11.0 96.5
0 10
10.0 1
49 64
1.412
24.1 96.5
0.275
0.978
0.450
--
12.0 96.5
0 10
10.0 1
49 64
1.351
23.2 96.5
0.261
0.976
0.449
--
13.0 96.5
0 10
10.0 1
49 64
1.298
22.5 96.5
0.250
0.974
0.448
--
14.0 96.5
0 10
10.0 1
49 64
1.250
21.9 96.5
0.240
0.972
0.447
--
15.0 96.5
0 10
10.0 1
49 64
1.207
21.3 96.5
0.232
0.970
0.446
--
16.0 95.1
0 15
15.0 1
11 73
1.169
23.1 95.1
0.259
0.967
0.445
--
17.0 95.1
0 15
15.0 1
11 73
1.134
22.5 95.1
0.249
0.965
0.444
--
18.0 95.1
0 15
15.0 1
11 73
1.102
21.9 95.1
0.240
0.963
0.443
--
19.0 95.1
0 15
15.0 1
11 73
1.073
21.3 95.1
0.233
0.961
0.442
--
20.0 95.1
0 15
15.0 1
11 73
1.046
20.8 95.1
0.226
0.958
0.441
--
21.0 95.1
0 13
20.0 1
11 63
1.021
19.6 95.1
0.211
0.956
0.440
--
22.0 95.1
0 13
20.0 1
11 63
0.997
19.2 95.1
0.206
0.953
0.438
--
23.0 95.1
0 13
20.0 1
63 0.975
17.0 95.1
0.181
0.950
0.437
--
24.0 107.9
0 21
22.5 1
79 0.954
28.4 107.9
0.385
0.947
0.436
--
25.0 107.9
0 21
22.5 1
79 0.932
27.8 107.9
0.362
0.944
0.434
--
26.0 104.3
0 15
25.0 1
9 64
0.912
20.6 104.3
0.223
0.940
0.433
--
27.0 104.3
0 15
25.0 1
9 64
0.894
20.2 104.3
0.218
0.936
0.431
--
28.0 104.3
0 15
25.0 1
9 64
0.876
19.8 104.3
0.213
0.932
0.429
--
29.0 104.3
0 15
25.0 1
9 64
0.860
19.5 104.3
0.209
0.928
0.427
--
30.0 104.3
0 15
25.0 1
9 64
0.845
19.1 104.3
0.205
0.923
0.425
--
31.0 104.3
0 17
30.0 1
7 65
0.830
21.4 104.3
0.234
0.918
0.422
--
32.0 104.3
0 17
30.0 1
7 65
0.816
21.0 104.3
0.229
0.912
0.420
--
33.0 104.3
0 17
30.0 1
7 65
0.803
20.7 104.3
0.224
0.907
0.417
--
34.0 104.3
0 17
30.0 1
7 65
0.790
20.4 104.3
0.220
0.900
0.414
--
35.0 104.3
0 17
30.0 1
7 65
0.778
20.1 104.3
0.216
0.894
0.411
--
36.0 104.3
0 19
35.0 1
6 65
0.767
22.0 104.3
0.242
0.887
0.408
--
37.0 104.3
0 19
35.0 1
6 65
0.756
21.7 104.3
0.238
0.880
0.405
--
38.0 104.3
0 19
35.0 1
6 65
0.745
21.4 104.3
0.233
0.872
0.401
--
39.0 94.2
0 22
40.0 1
67 0.735
24.3 94.2
0.278
0.864
0.397
--
40.0 94.2
0 22
40.0 1
67 0.727
24.0 94.2
0.273
0.855
0.394
--
41.0 94.2
0 22
40.0 1
67 0.718
23.7 94.2
0.268
0.846
0.389
--
42.0 94.2
0 22
40.0 1
67 0.710
23.4 94.2
0.264
0.837
0.385
--
43.0 94.2
0 22
40.0 1
67 0.702
23.2 94.2
0.260
0.828
0.381
--
44.0 93.5
0 21
45.0 1
63 0.694
21.9 93.5
0.240
0.818
0.377
--
45.0 93.5
0 21
45.0 1
63 0.687
21.6 93.5
0.237
0.808
0.372
--
46.0 93.5
0 21
45.0 1
63 0.680
21.4 93.5
0.234
0.798
0.367
--
47.0 93.5
0 21
45.0 1
63 0.673
21.2 93.5
0.231
0.788
0.363
--
48.0 116.8
0 21
45.0 1
63 0.665
21.0 116.8
0.228
0.778
0.358
--
49.0 116.8
0 21
45.0 1
63 0.657
20.7 116.8
0.224
0.768
0.353
--
50.0 116.8
0 16
50.0 1
38 53
0.649
23.7 116.8
0.268
0.757
0.349
--
51.0 116.8
0 16
50.0 1
38 53
0.642
23.5 116.8
0.265
0.747
0.344
--
62.4 ENERGY & ROD CORRECTIONS:
Energy Correction (CE) for N60:
1.25 Rod Len.Corr.(CR) (0 -no or 1 -yes):
1 Bore Dia. Corr. (CB):
1.00 Sampler Corr. (CS):
1.20 Use Ksigma (0 -no or 1 -yes):
1 Boring ID: B-3
cl EOCON
WT S T, rN C
4:0F,
GECTECHNICAL.
+ ENVIRONMENTAL. �y '� p��y MATERIALSMATER
i c. rj -eat # 2' X3, Lo Q u-1 1 1 a, C a 1911 Zia 9'22E3 FHCNE.7E1 2::4-11`', .L oni
DRAFTED BY: ADL CHECKED BY: HHD
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL - MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
PETERSON ROAD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 2024
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
FIGURE 3
1-488
MCE EARTHQUAKE
INFORMATION:
Boring ID:
B-3
Earthquake Magnitude:
8.08 Peak Horiz. Acceleration
(g):
0.708
Depth of Base
of Strate (ft)
Thickness of
Layer (ft)
Depth of Mid-
point of Layer
(ft)
Soil Unit Weight
(pcf)
Overburden
Pressure at Mid-
point (tsf)
Mean Effective
Pressure at Mid-
point (tsf)
Average Cyclic
Shear Stress
[Tay]
Field SPT [N]
Correction
Factor [Cer]
Relative Density
[Dr] (%)
Correction
Factor [Cn]
Corrected
[N1160
rd Factor
Maximum Shear
Mod. [Gmax]
(tsf)
Jyeffl*[Geffl
yeff
Shear Strain
[yeff]*100%
Volumetric Strain
M7.5
[E15} (%)
Number of Strain
Cycles [Nc]
Corrected Vol.
Strains [Ec]
Estimated
Settlement [S]
(inches)
JGmaxl
1.0 1.0
0.5 108.0
0.03 0.02
0.012
7 1.25
58.3 1.7
21.1 1.0
166.0
7.41E-05
1.40E-04
0.014
1.32E-02
21.1 1.54E-02
0.00 2.0
1.0 1.5
108.0
0.08 0.05
0.037
7 1.25
58.3 1.7
21.1 1.0
287.5
1.26E-04
2.30E-04
0.023
2.16E-02
21.1 2.52E-02
0.01 3.0
1.0 2.5
108.0
0.13 0.09
0.062
7 1.25
58.3 1.7
21.1 1.0
371.2
1.59E-04
2.30E-04
0.023
2.16E-02
21.1 2.52E-02
0.01 4.0
1.0 3.5
108.0
0.19 0.13
0.087
7 1.25
58.3 1.7
21.1 1.0
439.2
1.85E-04
1.70E-04
0.017
1.60E-02
21.1 1.86E-02
0.00 5.0
1.0 4.5
108.0
0.24 0.16
0.112
7 1.25
58.3 1.7
21.1 1.0
498.0
2.06E-04
8.10E-04
0.081
7.61E-02
21.1 8.88E-02
0.02 6.0
1.0 5.5
91.8 0.29
0.20 0.134
7 1.25
58.3 1.7
21.1 1.0
546.8
2.21E-04
8.10E-04
0.081
7.61E-02
21.1 8.88E-02
0.02 7.0
1.0 6.5
91.8 0.34
0.23 0.155
15 1.25
80.9 1.7
39.4 1.0
724.8
1.90E-04
1.50E-04
0.015
6.64E-03
21.1 7.75E-03
0.00 8.0
1.0 7.5
91.8 0.38
0.26 0.176
15 1.25
80.9 1.6
38.4 1.0
765.3
2.00E-04
4.50E-04
0.045
2.06E-02
21.1 2.40E-02
0.01 9.0
1.0 8.5
91.8 0.43
0.29 0.197
15 1.25
80.9 1.6
36.5 1.0
796.6
2.11E-04
4.50E-04
0.045
2.18E-02
21.1 2.55E-02
0.01 10.0
1.0 9.5
91.8 0.48
0.32 0.217
15 1.25
80.9 1.5
35.0 1.0
825.9
2.21E-04
4.50E-04
0.045
2.30E-02
21.1 2.69E-02
0.01 11.0
1.0 10.5
96.5 0.52
0.35 0.238
10 1.25
64.0 1.4
24.1 1.0
764.3
2.58E-04
4.50E-04
0.045
3.60E-02
21.1 4.21E-02
0.01 12.0
1.0 11.5
96.5 0.57
0.38 0.260
10 1.25
64.0 1.4
23.2 1.0
789.5
2.68E-04
4.50E-04
0.045
3.76E-02
21.1 4.39E-02
0.01 13.0
1.0 12.5
96.5 0.62
0.42 0.281
10 1.25
64.0 1.3
22.5 1.0
813.6
2.77E-04
4.50E-04
0.045
3.90E-02
21.1 4.55E-02
0.01 14.0
1.0 13.5
96.5 0.67
0.45 0.302
10 1.25
64.0 1.2
21.9 1.0
836.5
2.85E-04
4.50E-04
0.045
4.04E-02
21.1 4.72E-02
0.01 15.0
1.0 14.5
96.5 0.72
0.48 0.323
10 1.25
64.0 1.2
21.3 1.0
858.5
2.93E-04
4.50E-04
0.045
4.17E-02
21.1 4.87E-02
0.01 16.0
1.0 15.5
95.1 0.76
0.51 0.344
15 1.25
72.7 1.2
23.1 1.0
911.3
2.89E-04
3.70E-04
0.037
3.11E-02
21.1 3.63E-02
0.01 17.0
1.0 16.5
95.1 0.81
0.54 0.364
15 1.25
72.7 1.1
22.5 1.0
930.3
2.96E-04
3.70E-04
0.037
3.22E-02
21.1 3.76E-02
0.01 18.0
1.0 17.5
95.1 0.86
0.58 0.384
15 1.25
72.7 1.1
21.9 1.0
948.6
3.02E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
6.38E-02
21.1 7.44E-02
0.02 19.0
1.0 18.5
95.1 0.91
0.61 0.404
15 1.25
72.7 1.1
21.3 1.0
966.4
3.08E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
6.57E-02
21.1 7.67E-02
0.02 20.0
1.0 19.5
95.1 0.95
0.64 0.423
15 1.25
72.7 1.0
20.8 1.0
983.5
3.13E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
6.77E-02
21.1 7.89E-02
0.02 21.0
1.0 20.5
95.1 1.00
0.67 0.443
13 1.25
63.4 1.0
19.6 1.0
988.0
3.21E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
7.26E-02
21.1 8.48E-02
0.02 22.0
1.0 21.5
95.1 1.05
0.70 0.462
13 1.25
63.4 1.0
19.2 1.0
1003.9
3.26E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
7.45E-02
21.1 8.70E-02
0.02 23.0
1.0 22.5
95.1 1.10
0.74 0.481
13 1.25
63.4 1.0
17.0 0.9
985.9
3.41E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
8.61E-02
21.1 1.01E-01
0.02 24.0
1.0 23.5
107.9
1.15 0.77
0.501
21.42 1.25
78.6 1.0
28.4 0.9
1196.4
2.90E-04
3.70E-04
0.037
2.43E-02
21.1 2.83E-02
0.01 25.0
1.0 24.5
107.9
1.20 0.81
0.522
21.42 1.25
78.6 0.9
27.8 0.9
1214.8
2.94E-04
3.70E-04
0.037
2.49E-02
21.1 2.91E-02
0.01 26.0
1.0 25.5
104.3
1.25 0.84
0.542
15 1.25
64.2 0.9
20.6 0.9
1123.8
3.26E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
6.85E-02
21.1 7.99E-02
0.02 27.0
1.0 26.5
104.3
1.31 0.88
0.562
15 1.25
64.2 0.9
20.2 0.9
1139.4
3.30E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
7.01E-02
21.1 8.18E-02
0.02 28.0
1.0 27.5
104.3
1.36 0.91
0.582
15 1.25
64.2 0.9
19.8 0.9
1154.6
3.33E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
7.17E-02
21.1 8.37E-02
0.02 29.0
1.0 28.5
104.3
1.41 0.95
0.601
15 1.25
64.2 0.9
19.5 0.9
1169.4
3.36E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
7.33E-02
21.1 8.56E-02
0.02 30.0
1.0 29.5
104.3
1.46 0.98
0.620
15 1.25
64.2 0.8
19.1 0.9
1183.9
3.39E-04
7.10E-04
0.071
7.49E-02
21.1 8.74E-02
0.02 31.0
1.0 30.5
104.3
1.52 1.02
0.638
17 1.25
64.6 0.8
21.4 0.9
1250.7
3.28E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.79E-02
21.1 5.59E-02
0.01 32.0
1.0 31.5
104.3
1.57 1.05
0.656
17 1.25
64.6 0.8
21.0 0.9
1264.9
3.30E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.89E-02
21.1 5.71E-02
0.01 33.0
1.0 32.5
104.3
1.62 1.09
0.674
17 1.25
64.6 0.8
20.7 0.9
1278.8
3.32E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.99E-02
21.1 5.82E-02
0.01 34.0
1.0 33.5
104.3
1.67 1.12
0.692
17 1.25
64.6 0.8
20.4 0.9
1292.4
3.34E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
5.08E-02
21.1 5.93E-02
0.01 35.0
1.0 34.5
104.3
1.72 1.16
0.709
17 1.25
64.6 0.8
20.1 0.9
1305.8
3.36E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
5.18E-02
21.1 6.04E-02
0.01 36.0
1.0 35.5
104.3
1.78 1.19
0.726
19 1.25
64.9 0.8
22.0 0.9
1366.7
3.26E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.64E-02
21.1 5.41E-02
0.01 37.0
1.0 36.5
104.3
1.83 1.23
0.743
19 1.25
64.9 0.8
21.7 0.9
1379.9
3.27E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.72E-02
21.1 5.50E-02
0.01 38.0
1.0 37.5
104.3
1.88 1.26
0.759
19 1.25
64.9 0.7
21.4 0.9
1393.0
3.29E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.80E-02
21.1 5.60E-02
0.01 39.0
1.0 38.5
94.2 1.93
1.29 0.774
22 1.25
66.8 0.7
24.3 0.9
1471.9
3.15E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.12E-02
21.1 4.81E-02
0.01 40.0
1.0 39.5
94.2 1.98
1.33 0.787
22 1.25
66.8 0.7
24.0 0.9
1483.7
3.15E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.18E-02
21.1 4.88E-02
0.01 41.0
1.0 40.5
94.2 2.02
1.36 0.801
22 1.25
66.8 0.7
23.7 0.8
1495.4
3.16E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.24E-02
21.1 4.95E-02
0.01 42.0
1.0 41.5
94.2 2.07
1.39 0.813
22 1.25
66.8 0.7
23.4 0.8
1506.9
3.16E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.30E-02
21.1 5.02E-02
0.01 43.0
1.0 42.5
94.2 2.12
1.42 0.826
22 1.25
66.8 0.7
23.2 0.8
1518.2
3.16E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.36E-02
21.1 5.09E-02
0.01 44.0
1.0 43.5
93.5 2.17
1.45 0.838
21 1.25
62.8 0.7
21.9 0.8
1505.8
3.21E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.67E-02
21.1 5.45E-02
0.01 45.0
1.0 44.5
93.5 2.21
1.48 0.850
21 1.25
62.8 0.7
21.6 0.8
1516.6
3.22E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.73E-02
21.1 5.52E-02
0.01 46.0
1.0 45.5
93.5 2.26
1.51 0.861
21 1.25
62.8 0.7
21.4 0.8
1527.2
3.22E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.79E-02
21.1 5.59E-02
0.01 47.0
1.0 46.5
93.5 2.31
1.55 0.873
21 1.25
62.8 0.7
21.2 0.8
1537.6
3.22E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.85E-02
21.1 5.66E-02
0.01 48.0
1.0 47.5
116.8
2.36 1.58
0.886
21 1.25
62.8 0.7
21.0 0.8
1549.2
3.22E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.92E-02
21.1 5.74E-02
0.01 49.0
1.0 48.5
116.8
2.42 1.62
0.901
21 1.25
62.8 0.7
20.7 0.8
1561.9
3.23E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.99E-02
21.1 5.82E-02
0.01 50.0
1.0 49.5
116.8
2.48 1.66
0.915
16 1.25
52.7 0.6
23.7 0.8
1653.6
3.08E-04
5.20E-04
0.052
4.24E-02
21.1 4.95E-02
0.01 REFERENCE:
TECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
AND DESIGN
GUIDES AS
ADAPTED
FROM THE US
ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS,
NO. 9
TOTAL
SETTLEMENT
(inches) =
0.65 GEOCON
W E S T, I N C.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, MATERIALS
78-075 Man S - el G-23(3, La OuTr7fa, Ca iffornla 922-53 PHONE 951-304-= Vineiner.geccon"rte.cor,
DRAFTED BY: ADL
CHECKED BY: HHD
EVALUATION OF EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED SETTLEMENTS
IN DRY SANDY SOILS
MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
PETERSON ROAD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 2024
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
FIGURE 4
1-489
APPENDIX
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field investigation was conducted on March 14, 2024, which included the drilling of five geotechnical borings and six percolation test borings to depths of 5 to 511/2 feet below existing grades.
The geotechnical borings were drilled with a CME 75 truck -mounted drill rig equipped with an 8 -inch -diameter hollow -stem auger. The geotechnical borings were drilled to observe the subsurface geological conditions at the site, collect relatively undisturbed in -situ and disturbed bulk samples for laboratory testing, and evaluate the depth to groundwater. We collected bulk and relatively undisturbed samples from the borings by driving a 3 -inch O. D., California Modified Sampler or Standard Penetration Test Sampler (SPT) into the "undisturbed" soil mass with blows from a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The California Modified Sampler was equipped with 1 -inch high by 23/8 -inch inside diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate removal and testing. Relatively undisturbed samples and bulk samples of disturbed soils were transported to our laboratory for testing. The soil conditions encountered were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logs of the geotechnical borings are presented on Figures A-1 through A-5.
The percolation testing was performed on March 14, 2024, in accordance with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Low Impact Development Best Management Practices Handbook. Percolation boring logs are presented on Figures A-6 through A-11 and percolation test data sheets are presented on Figures A-12 through A-17. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained.
The approximate locations of the borings and percolation tests are depicted on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - A - April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-491
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
N
FT
Z
o
m
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER I
SOIL
CLASS
(uscs)
BORING B-1
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
— 0
SP-SM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
— :-
B-1@1-5'
j,) . :. .::.:.
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, medium dense, dry, yellow brown to grayish brown; fine to medium sand; brick pieces in cuttings — 2
B-1 g2 5'
_ 1 K
102.6
1.1 — 4
r. .
B-1@5'
- Becomes loose, moist, gray
16 93.8
9.4 — 6 —
—
ML
ALLUVIUM (Qa)
_
_ 8
B-1 @7.5' •
I
Sandy SILT, firm, damp, grayish brown; fine sand
_ i 2
90.3 3.1
— 10
B-1@10'
•
•
12 93.8
10.0 I
- Becomes hard, moist, gray to olive brown; alternating layers of silt and silty sand; laminated
_
— 12 —
—
— 14 —
•
—
B-1 @15'
•
- Becomes damp, grayish brown
31 92.2
2.5 — 16 —
—
— 18 —
—
— 20
B-1@20'
SP
Poorly -graded SAND, medium dense, dry, yellow brown; fine to coarse 32 114.3
L9
sand with gravel
—
Total Depth = 21.5' feet
Groundwater not encountered
Penetration resistance for 140 -lb hammer falling 30 inches by auto hammer
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/2024
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B-1, Page 1 of 1
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-492
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
IN
FT
SAMPLE
NO.
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
BORING B-2
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
— 0
SP
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
—
Poorly -graded SAND, loose, dry, yellow brown; fine sand —
B-2 22.5'
— 1;
86.8 0.9
— 4 —
—
B-2@5'
SP-SM
ALLUVIUM (Qa)
1 5
X7.5
6.3 — 6 —
Poorly graded SAND with silt, dense, moist, light gray, trace fine sand —
— 8 —
[email protected]'
ML
Sandy SILT, stiff, moist, gray; fine sand; laminated; mottling iron oxide _ 14
83.0 16.0
10 B-2@10'
SP-SM
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, loose to medium dense, moist, light grayish 16 75.2
26.8 brown; fine sand; trace gravel
—
— 12 —
— 14 —
—
B-2@15'
:
2_,
105.2
2.7 — 16 —
-
- Becomes medium dense, damp
— 18 —
—
— 20
B-2@20'
'
96.8 8.9
— 22 —
—
— 24 —
—
B-2@25'
- Becomes yellowish gray brown
21 94.1
; . ti
— 26 —
—
Total Depth = 26.5' feet
Groundwater not encountered
Penetration resistance for 140 -lb hammer falling 30 inches by auto hammer
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/2024
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring B-2, Page 1 of 1
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-493
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-0
DEPTH
N
FT
Z
o
m
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER I
SOIL
CLASS
(uscs)
BORING B-3
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
— 0
SP-SM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
—
-
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, medium dense, dry, yellow brown; fine to —
B-3@1-5'
j .. : :. . .::.:.
medium sand
— 2 —
j; -
—
B-3 g2.5'
17 100.9
0.7 — 4
- - . -:
B-3@5'
i
— 6
ML
ALLUVIUM a
(Q )
Sandy SILT, soft, damp, yellow brown; fine sand
-
- 8 _
[email protected]
— i 5
89.1 3.0
- Becomes stiff
10 B-3@10'
SP-SM
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, loose, dry, alternating laminations of 10 yellow gray brown; fine sand
—
— 12 —
—
_B
[email protected]
:
:.
_ 2
95.3 1.3
— 14
B-3@15'
r_
SP
Poorly -graded SAND, medium dense, dry, yellow gray brown; fine to I
— 16 —
medium sand
—
— 18 [email protected]
-_
_ 26
93.3 1.9
- Becomes red and yellow brown; mottling
- Becomes gravelly, rocky
— 20 —
B-3@20'
r _ - .
- No recovery
I
— 22 —
—
[email protected]
1�
SM
Silty SAND with coarse gravel, dry to damp, medium dense, yellow gray brown; fine sand; cemented silt laminations
_ 34
105.7
2.1 — 24 —
—
B-3@25'
SP-SM
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, loose, dry, yellow brown to black, fine 15 — 26 —
sand
—
— 28 [email protected]
- :_ :.
28 103.3
1.0 - Becomes medium dense
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B-3, Page 1 of 2
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-494
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
IN
FT
SAMPLE
NO
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
BORING B-3
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
— 30
B-3@30'
SP
Poorly -graded SAND, medium dense, dry, yellow brown with black; fine 1 I
to medium grained
—
— 32 —
—
[email protected]
- `=
- Little recovery
_ i-t
— 34 —
-.
—
B-3@35'
; :
r
19 — 36 —
_ 38 [email protected]
ML
SILT, very stiff, moist,red; thin layers of silt/clay; oxidation; trace organics _ 42
90.9 3.6
- 40 -
B-3@40'
[
- Becomes silty clayey, yellow gray brown; laminated
2222
— 42 —
—
[email protected]
_ 4-1
85.2 9.7
— 44 —
-
SP
Poorly -graded SAND, medium dense, dry, yellow brown with black; fine to medium sand; no recovery
_
B-3@45'
r
- No recovery
11 — 46 —
—
— 48 —[email protected]
_ 52
115.8
0.9 - Becomes dense
50 B-3@50'
I 1- I --I-
SM
Silty SAND, medium dense, dry, yellow brown; fine grained 16 Total Depth = 51.5' feet
Groundwater not encountered
Penetration resistance for 140 -lb hammer falling 30 inches by auto hammer
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/2024
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B-3, Page 2 of 2
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-495
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
IN
FT
SAMPLE
NO.
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER I
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
BORING B-4
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
— 0
SP
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
Poorly -graded SAND, loose, moist, gray black brown; fine sand —
B -4@1-5'j.._::-. _-
B -4g2.5'
— 13
102.3
3.0 — 4 —
B-4@5'
:" -"
SP
ALLUVIUM (Qa)
14 100 ?
2.-1
— 6 —
Poorly -graded SAND, loose, damp, yellow gray brown; interlayers of silt; fine to medium sand
—
— 8 _
[email protected]'
:: - .
- Becomes yellow brown
— 15
92.1 3.1
10 B-4@10'
--
- Becomes fine to medium dense, moist
20 95.1
9.2 — 12 —
-
—
— 14 —
-- -
—
B-4@15'
:
1)
106.2
0.9 — 16 —
— 18 —
—
— 20
B-4@20'
=
:: "- ".
- Becomes dry, yellow gray black red orange; gravelly sand; coarse gravel
34 108.8
1.1 and weathered rocks
—
— 22 —
— 24 —
- - - --
—
B-4@25'
="
40 102 Ii
0.6 — 26 —
—
Total Depth = 26.5' feet
Groundwater not encountered
Penetration resistance for 140 -lb hammer falling 30 inches by auto hammer
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/2024
Figure A-4,
Log of Boring B-4, Page 1 of 1
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-496
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
N
FT
Z
o
m
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER I
SOIL
CLASS
(uscs)
BORING B-5
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
— 0
SP-SM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
— :-
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, loose, dry, yellow brown; fine sand -
- 2
[email protected]'
_ 16
91.1 0.6
— 4
B-5@5'
ML
ALLUVIUM (Qa)
14 87.1
20.2 — 6 —
I
Sandy SILT, stiff, moist, gray; fine sand; laminated
—
— 8 _
[email protected]'
I
— 14
93.2 2.4
— 10
B-5@10'
SP-SM
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist, yellow brown; fine 19 95.0
6.2 sand
—
— 12 —
—
— 14 —
—
B-5@15'
26 93.9
4.6 — 16 —
I
—
— 18 —
—
— 20 —
B-5@20' =
. .:
- Becomes light gray, damp
—
20 102.1
2.6 Total Depth = 21.5' feet
Groundwater not encountered
Penetration resistance for 140 -lb hammer falling 30 inches by auto hammer
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/2024
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring B-5, Page 1 of 1
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-497
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
N
FT
Z
o
m
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER I
SOIL
CLASS
(uscs)
BORING DW-1
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
— 0
SP-SM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, loose, dry, yellow brown; fine to medium sand
—
— 2 —
—
— 4 —
—
ML
ALLUVIUM (Qa)
— 6 —
Sandy SILT, firm, damp, gray brown; fine sand
—
— 8 —
—
SP-SM
Poorly -graded SAND silt, loose, dry to damp, yellow brown; fine sand — 10 —
—
— 12 —
—
— 14 DW-1
@13.
-r
-
SM
Silty SAND, loose, dry to damp, yellow brown, alternating laminations of fine sand and silt
_ 9
Total Depth = 15'
Groundwater not encountered
Percolation Test Equipment Set on 03/14/2024
Percolation Test Ran on 03/14/2024
Presaturated with 5 gallons of water
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/2024
Figure A-6,
Log of Boring DW-1, Page 1 of 1
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-498
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
N
FT
SAMPLE
NO.
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER
SOIL
CLASS
(uscs)
BORING DW-2
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
— 0
SP-SM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
Poorly graded SAND with silt, dry, loose, yellow brown; fine to medium sand
—
— 2 —
—
— 4 —
—
— 6 —
—
- gravel in cuttings; pieces of brick in cuttings; fill — 8 —
—
SP-SM
ALLUVIUM (Qa)
— 10 —
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, loose, damp, yellow brown to grayish brown; fine to medium sand
—
— 12 —
—
— 14 DW-2@13.
- _
- Becomes medium dense
_ 17
Total Depth = 15'
Groundwater not encountered
Percolation Test Equipment Set on 03/14/2024
Percolation Test Ran on 03/14/2024
Presaturated with 5 gallons of water
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/2024
Figure A-7,
Log of Boring DW-2, Page 1 of 1
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. rr IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-499
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
N
FT
SAMPLE
NO.
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER
SOIL
CLASS
(uscs)
BORING DW-3
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
— 0
SP
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
Poorly -graded SAND, loose, dry, yellow brown; fine to medium sand -
- 2 —
-
-
—
— 4 —
- -
--
—
— 6 —
- -
-
—
ML
ALLUVIUM (Qa)
_
Sandy SILT, firm, damp, yellow brown; trace fine sand
— 8 —
—
— 10 —
—
— 12 —
—
— 14 DW-3@13.
_ 31
Alternating layers of poorly -graded sand and sandy silt; stratified Total Depth = 15'
Groundwater not encountered
Percolation Test Equipment Set on 03/14/2024
Percolation Test Ran on 03/14/2024
Presaturated with 5 gallons of water
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/024
Figure A-8,
Log of Boring DW-3, Page 1 of 1
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-500
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
N
FT
SAMPLE
NO.
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER
SOIL
CLASS
(uscs)
BORING P-1
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 — 2 —
_ 4 [email protected]'
SP-SM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, loose, dry, yellow brown to grayish brown; fine sand, weeds and gravel at surface
Alternating layers of poorly -graded sand with silt and silty sand; stratified —
_ i2
Total Depth = 5'
Groundwater not encountered
Percolation Test Equipment Set on 03/14/2024
Percolation Test Ran on 03/14/2024
Presaturated with 5 gallons of water
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/2024
Figure A-9,
Log of Boring P-1, Page 1 of 1
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-501
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
N
FT
SAMPLE
NO.
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER
SOIL
CLASS
(uscs)
BORING P-2
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 — 2 —
_ 4 _
[email protected]'
SP-SM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, loose, dry, yellow brown to grayish brown; fine sand
- Roots in sample, trace gravel
—
—
_
Total Depth = 5'
Groundwater not encountered
Percolation Test Equipment Set on 03/14/2024
Percolation Test Ran on 03/14/2024
Presaturated with 5 gallons of water
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/2024
Figure A-10,
Log of Boring P-2, Page 1 of 1
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-502
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
DEPTH
N
FT
SAMPLE
NO.
LITHOLOGY
GROUNDWATER
SOIL
CLASS
(uscs)
BORING P-3
ELEV. (MSL.) 250 DATE COMPLETED 3/14/24
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
EQUIPMENT CME 75 BY: ADL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
— 0
— 2 —
— 4 —
[email protected]'
SP-SM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (afu)
Poorly -graded SAND with silt, loose, dry, yellow brown to grayish brown; fine to medium sand
—
—
— -4
Total Depth = 5'
Groundwater not encountered
Percolation Test Equipment Set on 03/14/2024
Percolation Test Ran on 03/14/2024
Presaturated with 5 gallons of water
Backfilled with cuttings 03/14/2024
Figure A-11,
Log of Boring P-3, Page 1 of 1
T3065-22-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
1-503
PERCOLATION TEST REPORT
Project Name: UHC Peterson Rd Project No.: T3065-22-01
Test Hole No.: DW-1 Date Excavated: 3/14/2024
Length of Test Pipe: 186.0 inches Soil Classification: SM Height of Pipe above Ground: 6.0 inches Presoak Date: 3/14/2024 Depth of Test Hole: 180.0 inches Perc Test Date: 3/14/2024 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: KD Percolation Tested by: KD Water level measured from BOTTOM of hole
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Trial No.
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
Interval
Elapsed
Level
Level
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 8:25 AM
25 25
131.4
0.0 131.4
0.2 8:50 AM
2 8:50 AM
25 50
131.8
0.0 131.8
0.2 9:15 AM
Soil Criteria: Sandy
Percolation Test
Reading
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
No.
Interval
Elapsed
Head
Head
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 9:18 AM
10 10
132.0
52.4 79.6
0.1 9:28 AM
2 9'28 AM
10 20
135.2
64.4 70.8
0.1 9:38 AM
3 9:38 AM
10 30
135.6
48.1 87.5
0.1 9:48 AM
4 9:48 AM
10 40
135.0
54.0 81.0
0.1 9:58 AM
5 9:58 AM
10 50
135.0
67.2 67.8
0.2 10:08 AM
6 10:08 AM
10 60
130.2
62.4 67.8
0.2 10:18 AM
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): 8.3
Radius of test hole (in): 4 Figure A-12
Average Head (in): 96.3
1-504
PERCOLATION TEST REPORT
Project Name: UHC Peterson Rd Project No.: T3065-22-01
Test Hole No.: DW-2 Date Excavated: 3/14/2024
Length of Test Pipe: 186.0 inches Soil Classification: SP-SM Height of Pipe above Ground: 6.0 inches Presoak Date: 3/14/2024 Depth of Test Hole: 180.0 inches Perc Test Date: 3/14/2024 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: KD Percolation Tested by: KD Water level measured from BOTTOM of hole
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Trial No.
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
Interval
Elapsed
Level
Level
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 10:05 AM
25 25
130.4
0.0 130.4
0.2 10:30 AM
2 10:30 AM
25 50
132.4
0.0 132.4
0.2 10:55 AM
Soil Criteria: Sandy
Percolation Test
Reading
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
No.
Interval
Elapsed
Head
Head
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 11:01 AM
10 10
135.1
85.4 49.7
0.2 11:11 AM
2 11:11 AM
10 20
126.6
60.0 66.6
0.2 11:21 AM
3 11:21 AM
10 30
129.8
82.4 47.4
0.2 11:31 AM
4 11:31 AM
10 40
124.4
58.8 65.6
0.2 11:41 AM
5 11:41 AM
10 50
131.4
75.5 55.9
0.2 11:51 AM
6 11:51 AM
10 60
136.0
76.6 59.4
0.2 12:01 PM
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): 6.6
Radius of test hole (in): 4 Figure A-13
Average Head (in): 106.3
1-505
PERCOLATION TEST REPORT
Project Name: UHC Peterson Rd Project No.: T3065-22-01
Test Hole No.: DW-3 Date Excavated: 3/14/2024
Length of Test Pipe: 183.0 inches Soil Classification: SP / ML Height of Pipe above Ground: 3.0 inches Presoak Date: 3/14/2024 Depth of Test Hole: 180.0 inches Perc Test Date: 3/14/2024 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: KD Percolation Tested by: KD Water level measured from BOTTOM of hole
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Trial No.
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
Interval
Elapsed
Level
Level
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 11:57 AM
25 25
139.2
0.0 139.2
0.2 12:22 PM
2 12:22 PM
25 50
136.8
0.0 136.8
0.2 12:47 PM
Soil Criteria: Sandy
Percolation Test
Reading
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
No.
Interval
Elapsed
Head
Head
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 12:51 PM
10 10
133.2
81.8 51.4
0.2 1:01 PM
2 1:01 PM
10 20
139.2
88.7 50.5
0.2 1:11 PM
3 1:11 PM
10 30
137.8
91.6 46.2
0.2 1:21 PM
4 1:21 PM
10 40
136.4
94.0 42.5
0.2 1:31 PM
5 1:31 PM
10 50
142.2
102.0
40.2 0.3
1:41 PM
6 1:41 PM
10 60
136.8
96.7 40.1
0.3 1:51 PM
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): 4.0
Radius of test hole (in): 4 Figure A-14
Average Head (in): 116.8
1-506
PERCOLATION TEST REPORT
Project Name: UHC Peterson Rd Project No.: T3065-22-01
Test Hole No.: P-1 Date Excavated: 3/14/2024
Length of Test Pipe: 63.0 inches Soil Classification: SP-SM Height of Pipe above Ground: 3.0 inches Presoak Date: 3/14/2024 Depth of Test Hole: 60.0 inches Perc Test Date: 3/14/2024 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: KD Percolation Tested by: KD Water level measured from BOTTOM of hole
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Trial No.
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
Interval
Elapsed
Level
Level
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 8:15 AM
25 25
24.0 0.0
24.0 1.0
8:40 AM
2 8:40 AM
25 50
24.0 0.0
24.0 1.0
9:05 AM
Soil Criteria: Sandy
Percolation Test
Reading
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
No.
Interval
Elapsed
Head
Head
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 9:11 AM
10 10
20.4 2.4
18.0 0.6
9:21 AM
2 9:21 AM
10 20
37.2 18.0
19.2 0.5
9:31 AM
3 9:31 AM
10 30
33.6 6.7
26.9 0.4
9:41 AM
4 9:41 AM
10 40
38.0 13.2
24.8 0.4
9:51 AM
5 9:51 AM
10 50
54.0 26.4
27.6 0.4
10:01 AM
6 10:01 AM
10 60
33.4 6.6
26.8 0.4
10:11 AM
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): 14.6
Radius of test hole (in): 4 Figure A-15
Average Head (in): 20.0
1-507
PERCOLATION TEST REPORT
Project Name: UHC Peterson Rd Project No.: T3065-22-01
Test Hole No.: P-2 Date Excavated: 3/14/2024
Length of Test Pipe: 63.0 inches Soil Classification: SP Height of Pipe above Ground: 3.0 inches Presoak Date: 3/14/2024 Depth of Test Hole: 60.0 inches Perc Test Date: 3/14/2024 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: KD Percolation Tested by: KD Water level measured from BOTTOM of hole
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Trial No.
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
Interval
Elapsed
Level
Level
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 10:08 AM
25 25
30.0 0.0
30.0 0.8
10:33 AM
2 10:33 AM
25 50
28.8 0.0
28.8 0.9
10:58 AM
Soil Criteria: Sandy
Percolation Test
Reading
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
No.
Interval
Elapsed
Head
Head
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 11:03 AM
10 10
27.6 7.2
20.4 0.5
11:13 AM
2 11:13 AM
10 20
30.0 3.6
26.4 0.4
11:23 AM
3 11:23 AM
10 30
31.2 7.2
24.0 0.4
11:33 AM
4 11:33 AM
10 40
32.4 0.0
32.4 0.3
11:43 AM
5 11:43 AM
10 50
30.2 0.0
30.2 0.3
11:53 AM
6 11:53 AM
10 60
38.4 5.8
32.6 0.3
12:03 PM
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): 16.3
Radius of test hole (in): 4 Figure A-16
Average Head (in): 22.1
1-508
PERCOLATION TEST REPORT
Project Name: UHC Peterson Rd Project No.: T3065-22-01
Test Hole No.: P-3 Date Excavated: 3/14/2024
Length of Test Pipe: 66.0 inches Soil Classification: SP-SM Height of Pipe above Ground: 6.0 inches Presoak Date: 3/14/2024 Depth of Test Hole: 60.0 inches Perc Test Date: 3/14/2024 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: KD Percolation Tested by: KD Water level measured from BOTTOM of hole
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Trial No.
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
Interval
Elapsed
Level
Level
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 11:40 AM
25 25
26.4 0.0
26.4 0.9
12:05 PM
2 12:05 PM
25 50
26.4 0.0
26.4 0.9
12:30 PM
Soil Criteria: Sandy
Percolation Test
Reading
Time
Time
Total
Initial Water
Final Water
A in Water
Percolation
No.
Interval
Elapsed
Head
Head
Level
Rate
(min)
Time (min)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(min/inch)
1 12:47 PM
10 10
25.2 15.6
9.6 1.0
12:57 PM
2 12:57 PM
10 20
26.4 14.4
12.0 0.8
1:07 PM
3 1:07 PM
10 30
26.4 13.8
12.6 0.8
1:17 PM
4 1:17 PM
10 40
26.4 13.8
12.6 0.8
1:27 PM
5 1:27 PM
10 50
34.8 19.2
15.6 0.6
1:37 PM
6 1:37 PM
10 60
30.0 11.6
18.4 0.5
1:47 PM
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): 9.7
Radius of test hole (in): 4 Figure A-17
Average Head (in): 20.8
1-509
APPENDIX
10 GV000N
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
We performed laboratory tests in accordance with current, generally accepted test methods of ASTM International (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. We analyzed selected soil samples for in - situ density and moisture content, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, corrosion potential, grain size distribution and analysis, consolidation and collapse characteristics, and direct shear strength. The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Figures B-1 through B-21. The in -place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - B April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-511
Sample No:
B 1 ©1 5
Poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), yellow brown to grayish brown
TEST NO.
1 2
3 4
5 6
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
6040
6110
6162
6152
Weight of Mold (g)
4257
4257
4257
4257
Net Weight of Soil (g)
1783
1853
1905
1895
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
842.4
903.5
854.3
947.0
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
791.2
837.4
784.8
856.0
Weight of Container (g)
257.4
259.1
255.3
256.8
Moisture Content (%)
9.6 11.4
13.1 15.2
Wet Density (pcf)
118.0
122.7
126.1
125.4
Dry Density (pcf)
107.7
110.1
111.5
108.9
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
1 1 1 .5
Optimum Moisture Content (% )
13.0 130.0 -
-
•`
.� -..
i 1 1 I
'•.
S.G. 2.65
•
`. %
S.G.2.7
.
`�.
125.0
�,
'•
S.G. 2.75
•
ti\
120.0
�.
'•.
r115.0
'
'•
to
�•,.
0 .
.
o
110.0
`
105.0
100.0
0 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Moisture Content (%)
Preparation Method: A
<0
GEOCON
COMPACTI ON CHARACTERI STI CS USI NG
MODI Fl ED EFFORT TEST RESULTS
Project No.: T3065-22-01
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
ASTM D-1557
Checked by:
April 2024 Figure B-1
1-512
B-5@1-5
MOLDED SPECI MEN
BEFORE TEST
AFTER TEST
Specimen Diameter
(in.)
4.0 4.0
Specimen Height
(in.)
1.0 1.0
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold
(gm)
552.0
584.2
Wt. of Mold
(gm)
198.4
198.4
Specific Gravity
(Assumed)
2.7 2.7
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont.
(gm)
473.3
584.2
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont.
(gm)
433.9
307.2
Wt. of Container
(gm)
173.3
198.4
Moisture Content
(%)
15.1 25.6
Wet Density
(pcf)
106.7
116.2
Dry Density
(pcf)
92.7 92.5
Void Ratio
0.8 0.8
Total Porosity
0.5 0.4
Pore Volume
(cc)
93.2 92.9
Degree of Saturation
(%) [Smeasl
50.2 84.6
Date
Time
Pressure (psi)
Elapsed Time (min)
Dial Readings (in.)
3/25/2024
10:00
1.0 0
0.3213
3/25/2024
10:10
1.0 10
0.3213
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
3/26/2024
10:00
1.0 1430
0.3198
3/26/2024
11:00
1.0 1490
0.3198
Expansion Index (El meas)
=
-1.5
Expansion Index ( Report )
=
0 Expansion I ndex, E150
CBC CLASSI FI CATI ON *
UBC CLASSI FI CATI ON * *
0-20
Non -Expansive
Very Low
21-50
Expansive
Low
51-90
Expansive
Medium
91-130
Expansive
High
>130
Expansive
Very High
* Reference: 2022 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.3 ** Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 18 -1 -B.
Project No.: T3065-22-01
EXPANSI ON I NDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D-4829
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
CrEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024 Figure B-2
1-513
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY
POTENTIAL OF HYDROGEN (pH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS AASHTO T289 ASTM D4972 and AASHTO T288 ASTM G187
Sample No.
pH
Resistivity
(ohm centimeters)
B-2@1-5
8.5 1000
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CHLORI DE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
AASHTO T291 ASTM C1218
Sample No.
Chloride Ion Content (% )
B-2@1-5
0.039
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS AASHTO T290 ASTM C1580
Sample No.
Water Soluble Sulfate
(% SO4)
Sulfate Exposure
B-2@1-5
0.018
SO
Project No.:
T3065-22-01
CORROSI VI TY TEST RESULTS
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024
Figure B-3
1-514
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT AND CLAY
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1%:" %" %" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
PERCENT PASSSING BY WEIGHT
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
100 10
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN DIAMETER, mm
SAMPLE
CLASSI Fl CATI ON
D60
D30
D10
DW-1©13.5
Silty SAND (SM), yellow brown
0.094
GRAI N SIZE DI STRI BUTI ON
CT 202
Project No.: T3065-22-01
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024 Figure B-4
1-515
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT AND CLAY
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1%" 3/" %" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
PERCENT PASSSING BY WEIGHT
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN DIAMETER, mm
SAMPLE
CLASS! Fl CATI ON
D60
D30
D10
DW [email protected]
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM), yellow
brown to grayish brown
0.37 0.2
0.08 GRAI N SI ZE DI STRI BUTI ON
CT 202
Project No.: T3065-22-01
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024 Figure B-5
1-516
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT AND CLAY
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 13:" %" %" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
PERCENT PASSSING BY WEIGHT
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
100 10
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN DIAMETER, mm
SAMPLE
CLASSI Fl CATI ON
D60
D30
D10
[email protected]
Sandy SI LT (ML), grayish brown
GRAI N SIZE DI STRI BUTI ON
CT 202
Project No.: T3065-22-01
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024 Figure B-6
1-517
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT AND CLAY
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1%:" %" %" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
PERCENT PASSSING BY WEIGHT
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
100 10
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN DIAMETER, mm
SAMPLE
CLASS! Fl CATI ON
D60
D30
D10
[email protected]
Poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), alternating
layers of Silty SAND, yellow brown to grayish brown
0.2 0.1
GRAI N SIZE DI STRI BUTI ON
CT 202
Project No.: T3065-22-01
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024 Figure B-7
1-518
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT AND CLAY
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1%" 3/" %" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
PERCENT PASSSING BY WEIGHT
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
1 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN DIAMETER, mm
SAMPLE
CLASS! Fl CATI ON
D60
D30
D10
P-2©3.5
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM), yellow
brown to grayish brown
0.41 0.2
GRAI N SI ZE DI STRI BUTI ON
CT 202
Project No.: T3065-22-01
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024 Figure B-8
1-519
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT AND CLAY
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1%" 3/" %" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
PERCENT PASSSING BY WEIGHT
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN DIAMETER, mm
SAMPLE
CLASS! Fl CATI ON
D60
D30
D10
P [email protected]
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM), yellow
brown to grayish brown
0.22 0.16
0.08 GRAI N SI ZE DI STRI BUTI ON
CT 202
Project No.: T3065-22-01
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024 Figure B-9
1-520
WATER ADDED AT 1.0 KSF
Percent Consolidation
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1
1.0 Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
10.0 SAMPLE I D.
SOI L TYPE
DRY DENSI TY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOI STURE (%)
Fl NAL MOI STURE
(% )
B-2@5
or a
with Silt (SP-SM), light
arav
79.7 6.3
38.8 Project No.:
T3065-22-01
CONSOLI DATI ON TEST RESULTS
ASTM D-2435
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024
Figure B-10
1-521
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
Percent Consolidation
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1.0
0.1 Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
10.0 SAMPLE I D.
SOI L TYPE
DRY DENSI TY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
Fl NAL MOI STURE
(% )
[email protected]
Sandy SILT (ML),
grayish brown
87.6 3.5
33.2 Project No.:
T3065-22-01
CONSOLI DATI ON TEST RESULTS
ASTM D-2435
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024
Figure B-11
1-522
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
Percent Consolidation
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1.0
0.1 Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
10.0 SAMPLE I D.
SOI L TYPE
DRY DENSI TY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOI STURE (%)
Fl NAL MOI STURE
(% )
B-2@10
Poorly Graded SAND
with Silt (SP-SM), light
aravish brown
85.0 26.8
37.0 Project No.:
T3065-22-01
CON SOLI DATI ON TEST RESULTS
ASTM D-2435
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024
Figure B-12
1-523
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
0 1
2 3
Percent Consolidation
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1
1.0 Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
10.0 SAMPLE I D.
SOI L TYPE
DRY DENSI TY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOI STURE (%)
Fl NAL MOI STURE
(% )
B-2@15
Poorly Graded SAND
with Silt (SP-SM),
light grayish brown
109.1
2.7 14.3
Project No.:
T3065-22-01
CON SOLI DATI ON TEST RESULTS
ASTM D-2435
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024
Figure B-13
1-524
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
Percent Consolidation
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1
1.0 Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
10.0 SAMPLE I D.
SOI L TYPE
DRY DENSI TY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOI STURE (%)
Fl NAL MOI STURE
(% )
B-2@25
or a
with Silt (SP-SM),
yellowish arav brown
91.9 3.8
26.7 Project No.:
T3065-22-01
CONSOLI DATI ON TEST RESULTS
ASTM D-2435
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024
Figure B-14
1-525
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
0 1
2 3
Percent Consolidation
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1
1.0 Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
10.0 SAMPLE I D.
SOI L TYPE
DRY DENSI TY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOI STURE (%)
Fl NAL MOI STURE
(% )
B-5@20
Poorly Graded SAND
with Silt (SP-SM), light
arav
98.7 2.6
20.6 Project No.:
T3065-22-01
CON SOLI DATI ON TEST RESULTS
ASTM D-2435
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024
Figure B-15
1-526
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT AND CLAY
—
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
100.0
80.0 60.0
40.0 20.0
0.0 m
100
v
m
co
m
10 o o 0 0 0
d o o o 0 6
z z z z z z
1 0.1
Grain Diameter (mm)
0.01 0.001
Sample No.
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
B-1 @ 7.5'
68.0 B-3 @5'
70.9 B-3 @ 7.5'
69.8 B-3 @ 10'
48.9 B-3@15'
11.3 B-3 @25'
9.3 B-3 @ 30'
6.7 B-3 @ 35'
6.2 Project No.: T3065-22-01
GRAI N SI ZE ANALYSI S
ASTM D-1140
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024
Rgure B-16
1-527
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT AND CLAY
—
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
100.0
80.0 60.0
40.0 20.0
0.0 v
m m
100
co
m
10 o No 0 0 0
d o o o 0 0
z z z z z z
1 0.1
Grain Diameter (mm)
0.01 0.001
Sample No.
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
B-3 @ 50'
38.0 Project No.: T3065-22-01
GRAI N SI ZE ANALYSI S
ASTM D-1140
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
GEOCON
Checked by:
April 2024
Rgure B-17
1-528
Shear Stress (ksf)
3.5 3.0
2.5 2.0
1.5 1.0
0.5 0.0
0.05 01
0.15 02
0 Shear Stress (ksf)
5.0 4.0
3.0 2.0
1.0 0.0
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
0.25 00 10 20 30 40
Normal Stress (ksf)
Boring No.
B-1
Sample No.
B-1@1-5
Depth (ft)
1-5
Sample Type:
Bulk
Soil Identification:
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM), yellow
brown to grayish brown
Strength Parameters
C (psf)
4) (0)
Peak
38 32
Ultimate
4 32
50 Normal Stress (kip/ft2)
1 3
• 1.94
5 A 3.18
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2)
• 0.66
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
0 0.64
0 1.92
0 3.18
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
0.05 0.05
0.05 Initial Sample Height (in.)
1.0 1.0
1.0 2.375
Ring Inside Diameter (in.)
2.375
2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%)
12.9 12.9
13.0 Initial Dry Density (pcf)
100.1
100.0
100.1
51.4 Initial Degree of Saturation (%)
51.1 50.6
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
1.2 1.2
1.2 14.8
Final Moisture Content (%)
15.8 18.1
<<r)).'
GEOCON
DI RECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by:
Project No.: T3065-22-01
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure B-18
1-529
Shear Stress (ksf)
4.0 3.5
3.0 2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0 0.5
0.0 0
0.05 0 1 0.15
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
Shear Stress (ksf)
5.0 4.0
3.0 2.0
1.0 0.0
02 00 10 20 30 40
Normal Stress (ksf)
Boring No.
B-1
Sample No.
B-1@5
Depth (ft)
5 Sample Type:
5 Soil Identification:
Poorly Graded sand with Silt (SP-SM), gray
Strength Parameters
C (psf)
4) (0)
Peak
189
34 Ultimate
81 32
50 ■
0.25 Normal Stress (kip/ft2)
1 3
5 A 3.50
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2)
• 0.83
• 2.26
Shear Stress @End of Test (ksf)
0 0.66
0 2.09
A 3.19
0.05 1.0
2.375
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
0.05 0.05
Initial Sample Height (in.)
1.0 1.0
2.375
Ring Inside Diameter (in.)
2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%)
9.4 7.2
7.9 91.8
25.4 1.2
23.4 Initial Dry Density (pcf)
89.7 92.0
Initial Degree of Saturation (%)
28.8 23.4
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
1.2 1.2
Final Moisture Content (%)
26.6 26.3
<<fr,
GEOCON
Project No.:
T3065-22-01
DI RECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by:
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure B-19
1-530
Shear Stress (ksf)
4.0 3.5
3.0 2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0 0.5
0.0 0
0.05 0 1 0.15
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
Shear Stress (ksf)
5.0 4.0
3.0 2.0
1.0 0.0
00 10 20 30 40
Normal Stress (ksf)
Boring No.
B-1
Sample No.
B-1@10
Depth (ft)
10 Sample Type:
Ring
Soil Identification:
Sandy SILT (ML), laminated with silty sand,
gray to olive brown
Strength Parameters
C (psf)
4) (0)
Peak
53 35
Ultimate
56 32
50 ■
0 2 0.25
Normal Stress (kip/ft2)
1 3
2.18 5
A 3.49
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2)
•
0.72 •
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
0 0.70
0 1.90
0 3.19
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
0.05 0.05
0.05 1.0
2.375
Initial Sample Height (in.)
1.0 1.0
Ring Inside Diameter (in.)
2.375
2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%)
10.0 8.9
10.4 89.2
31.5 1.2
29.0 Initial Dry Density (pcf)
91.6 93.7
30.0 Initial Degree of Saturation (%)
32.1 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
1.2 1.2
Final Moisture Content (%)
27.4 26.6
<4fr,
GEOCON
Project No.:
T3065-22-01
DI RECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by:
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure B-20
1-531
3.0 2.5
Shear Stress (ksf)
2.0 1.5
1.0 0.5
0.0 �_•_r • • • • S • . • • ♦ ►
0 0.05 0 1 0.15
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
Shear Stress (ksf)
5.0 4.0
3.0 2.0
1.0 0.0
00 10 20 30 40
Normal Stress (ksf)
Boring No.
B-2
Sample No.
[email protected]
Depth (ft)
7.5 Sample Type:
Ring
Soil Identification:
Sandy SILT (ML), gray
Strength Parameters
C (psf)
4 (0)
Peak
90 28
Ultimate
105
27 50
■
0 2 0.25
Normal Stress (kip/ft2)
1 •
3 1.64
5 A 2.78
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2)
•
0.65 Shear Stress @End of Test (ksf)
0 0.64
0 1.61
0 2.69
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
0.05 0.05
0.05 1.0
2.375
Initial Sample Height (in.)
1.0 1.0
Ring Inside Diameter (in.)
2.375
2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%)
16.0 18.0
25.8 76.9
58.3 1.2
35.3 Initial Dry Density (pcf)
82.8 74.6
38.7 Initial Degree of Saturation (%)
41.7 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
1.2 1.2
Final Moisture Content (%)
33.5 37.4
<<r)).
GEOCON
Project No.:
T3065-22-01
DI RECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by:
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure B-21
1-532
APPENDIX
10 GVOCON
Multifamily Apartment Community, Peterson Road
Geotechnical Investigation
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY
PETERSON ROAD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. T3065-22-01
Geocon Project No. T3065-22-01 - C April 29, 2024
REVISED May 28, 2024
1-534
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.
1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed.
2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as - graded topography.
2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-535
2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on -site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading.
2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil -rock fills or rock fills, as defined below.
3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than 3/ inch in size.
3.1.2 Soil -rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches.
3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than % inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on -site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 GI rev. 07/2015
1-536
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil -rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track -walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant.
3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 11/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials.
4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off -site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-537
4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish Grade Original Ground
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Consultant
Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur
Varies
Finish Slope Surface
See Note 1
See Note 2 —
No Scale
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant.
4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-538
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1 Compaction of soil or soil -rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented -steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic -tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil -rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content.
5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:
6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.
6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified.
6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified.
6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in -place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-539
6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over -built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track -walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8 As an alternative to over -building of slopes, slope faces may be back -rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4 -foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track -walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice.
6.2 Soil -rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:
6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open - face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-540
6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry.
The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center -to -center with a 5 -foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.
6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.
6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:
6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post -construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20 -ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph
6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection GI rev. 07/2015
1-541
variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.
6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In -place density testing will not be required in the rock fills.
6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2 -foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement.
6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant.
7. SUBDRAINS
7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8 -inch -diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6 -inch -diameter pipes.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-542
TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL
\� Al Llr`ILY .
\ REMCVAL
BEE PETAL 6 �vELO -
BEDROCK
NOTE EINAL 20 OF PPE AT OIJOP-
SHALL BE NON.PfnrrfAT"..
NOTES.
1.....6.NOI DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 6P PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR FILLS P4 EXCESS OF 100-FEE.T IN OEP EH OR A PPE LLNG 1 H OF LONCicR THAN 5001 -LE 2 . ..&INCH DWNI TER. SO-IFDLA F 40 PVC PFRFORATFD P PF FOR Fit I S I FSS THAN 100-FFfT IN DEPTH OR A PIPE I FNGTH SHORTER THAN 5O0 FF-FT
NO SCALE
7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4 -inch -diameter (or lager) pipes.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-543
TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
NOTES:
1_/DCCAYATE SACKCCUT AT I 1 INCLINATION (UNLESS O'TIETMi9E NOTED)
2. -SASE O% STASIL [TY FILL TO SE 3 FEET IN/0 FORMA TIONA. MA-FIAL, PL OP NG A MNINUM 5% P OO SLOPE i-STASIUTY FILL TO BE commas) OF PROPERLY CC DS'AG-EONANULM SOIL
4._.01MNLYDRAMS 10 BEAPPi0VLDPREPABMICATLUCI NVLYCRAWPANE151VINALWAING20014GRLOUr.AltNI) SPACED APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET CENTER TO CENTER ANC 4 FEET WIDE CLOSER SPACING MAY SE RECLY RED F SEEPAGE IS ENCOLNlTERED.
Tf...-FITER MAT':AWL TO SE Y4NCN. OPEN GRA7ED CRUB2+ED ROCK ENCLOSED N APPROVED FLTER CA C ;:NAAFI '40NC1 B ...COLLECTOR PPE TO BE 4 -INCH WAIN DIAMETER. PERFORATED, TNCKANNA83 PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR EOUNALLNT. MD SLOB TO DRAM AT I PERCENT MINIMUM TO APPRCVWD OUTLET.
NO SCALE
7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40 -scale grading plans.
7.4 Rock fill or soil -rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down -slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6 -inch -diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric.
Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-544
7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20 -foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non -perforated drainpipe. At the non -perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe.
TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL
FRONT VIEW
NO SCALE
SIDE VIEW
tr
M.E
cowmen _Tay
curarprw�u {' + c MN nvn
SCUD S1BOaAN PIPE
POIFO A -ED 9U11CfiArs P,PE
r wpm ate;
S
NO SCA,_E
7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-545
TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL
FRONT VIEW
1 OR
WORM
• .e a.
it
t.4'tir�; r.•
•I..... , • • .
• • 4
• % a
▪ a�
ti II
• la
.• •�_.�,
1T
NO SOS
SIDE VIEW
OCNCRETE
NEAbW L1
NOTE. N=.AITVN 1. SNOUID MITI ET AT TOE CAr Elll. 31.ODF NO SCALE
OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE MANAGE
7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an "as -built" map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-546
8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil -rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil -rock fill placed and compacted.
8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil -rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.
8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading.
8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
8.6.1 Soil and Soil -Rock Fills:
8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In -Place By the Sand -Cone Method.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-547
8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil -Aggregate In -Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture -Density Relations of Soils and Soil -Aggregate Mixtures Using 10 -Pound Hammer and 18 - Inch Drop.
8.6.1.4 Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.
9. PROTECTION OF WORK
9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant.
10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as -built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as -graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as -graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
GI rev. 07/2015
1-548
Page Intentionally Blank
PETERSON ROAD RANCHO MIRAGE
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix E
Paleontological Report
Page Intentionally Blank
April 2024
.4"\4117/11:10
MATERIAL CULTURE
C O N S U L T I N G
Submitted to:
Blieu Companies, LLC
2000 E. 4th Street #205
Santa Ana, CA 92705
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
PETERSON ROAD PROJECT
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Material Culture ConsultingTM
© 2021 All Rights Reserved.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. I 2701-B North Towne Avenue/Por ona CA 91767.1.. www.materialcultureconsulti com
1 °17/1:10
MATERIAL CULTURE
CONSULTING
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT:
PETERSON ROAD PROJECT
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Blieu Companies, LLC
2000 E 4th St. #205
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Principal Investigators/Authors:
Jennifer Ritz, M.S.
Erika McMullin, B.A.
Hannah Johnston, M.Sc.
Zac White, B.A.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc.
2701-B North Towne Avenue
Pomona, CA 91767
April 2024
Type of Study: Paleontological resources assessment
Paleontological Resources within 1 -mile of Project Area: None Geologic Units: Quaternary alluvium with marine deposits (Q), pre -Cenozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks undivided (m) USGS 7.5 -minute Quadrangle(s): Cathedral City, Section 02 of Township 5 S, Range 5 E APN(s): 689-180-012
Survey Area: Approx. 12 acres
Date of Fieldwork: March 13, 2024
Key Words: Paleontology, CEQA, Holocene, Pleistocene, Quaternary alluvium with marine deposits (Q), pre -Cenozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks undivided (m), Low Paleontological Potential, Riverside County 1-553
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The Peterson Road Project (hereafter referred to as Project or Project Area) proposes the redevelopment of a lot, that currently exists as a defunct trailer park, into a 116 unit multi -family apartment housing complex. The proposed Project encompasses an approximately 12 -acre site. The Project is located within the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California. Material Culture Consulting, Inc. (MCC) was retained by Blieu Companies, LLC (Blieu), to conduct a paleontological assessment of the Project Area. The assessment was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations and guidelines. This assessment documents the potential for encountering paleontological resources during construction and operation of the Project, and provides recommendations on how to mitigate potential impacts to paleontological resources. The City of Rancho Mirage is the lead agency under CEQA.
The Project Area is mapped as Pliocene- to Holocene -age Quaternary alluvium with marine deposits (Q) (Dibblee and Minch 2008). Additionally, Early Proterozoic- to Cretaceous -age pre -Cenozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks undivided (m) are mapped within a 1 -mile buffer of the Project Area (Dibblee and Minch 2008).
The presence of fossil material is unlikely given the young age of the Holocene alluvial units and the adjacent non- fossiliferous metamorphic rocks. The locality search at Western Science Center (WSC) reported no fossil localities within one mile of the Project Area (Stoneburg 2024).
The potential for encountering significant paleontological resources within the Project Area is low throughout the Project, however, there is a potential for sensitive sediments to be reached at an unknown depth. The Riverside County General Plan Multipurpose Open Space (OS) Element indicates that additional paleontological mitigation is not required for projects mapped in Low sensitivity areas, unless an inadvertent discovery is made. MCC recommends no direct paleontological mitigation for this Project unless an unanticipated fossil resource is located during the construction process, in accordance with Riverside County General Plan OS 19.7.
All notes, correspondence, and other materials related to this Project are located at MCC, in Pomona, California.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculturec1is.t n5c5r 4
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 3
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 8
STATE REGULATIONS 8
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 8
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 8
LOCAL REGULATIONS 8
METHODS 10
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESEARCH 10
PALEONTOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT 10
BACKGROUND CONTEXT 12
GEOLOGIC OVERVIEW 12
RESULTS 14
PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH 14
PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 14
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONCLUSIONS 19
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS 19
REFERENCES 21
List of Figures
Figure 1. Peterson Road Project Vicinity (1:500,000) 5
Figure 2. Peterson Road Project Location (as depicted on Cathedral City USGS 7.5 -minute Quadrangle, 1:24,000) 6
Figure 3. Peterson Road Project Area (as depicted on aerial photograph, 1:3,000). 7 Figure 4. Peterson Road Project Paleontological Sensitivity Map. 11 Figure 5. Peterson Road Project Geology (1:24,000) 13
Figure 6. Overview of Project Area from Peterson Rd, including Travelodge Ln, facing east 15 Figure 7. Overview of Project Area, including access gate along Peterson Rd., facing south 15 Figure 8. Representative photo of sediments including red brick tile on Northwest end of Project Area, plan view 15
Figure 9. Representative photograph of imported white quartz gravel, plan view 15 Figure 10. Representative photograph of decorative shell, plan view 16 Figure 11. Overview of project area from north end, facing west 16 Figure 12. Overview of project area, facing southwest 16 Figure 13. Representative photograph of red brick and cement mortar landscaping, plan view 16 Figure 14. Representative photograph of imported volcanic gravel, plan view 17 Figure 15. Overview of Project Area, including Travelodge Ln, facing west 17 Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculturec11 t n5c5 5
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure 16. Overview of overgrowth on east end of project area, facing south 17 Figure 17. Overview of modern refuse, facing north 17
Figure 18. Representative photograph of modern refuse, view west 18 Figure 19. Overview of Project Area, facing east 18
Figure 20. Overview of Project Area, facing south 18
Figure 21. Representative photo of utility connections for mobile home lots, plan view 18 Figure 22. Overview of parking lot on east end of project area, Facing northeast 19 Figure 23. Representative photo of vegetation density, facing south 19 Figure 24. Representative photo of sediments, Plan view 19 Figure 25. Overview of single mobile home lot, facing west 19 APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
Staff Qualifications
Paleontological Resources Records Search Results
INTRODUCTION
The Peterson Road Project (hereafter referred to as Project or Project Area) proposes the redevelopment of a lot, that currently exists as a defunct trailer park, into a 116 unit multi -family apartment housing complex. Material Culture Consulting, Inc. (MCC) was retained by Blieu Companies, LLC (Blieu), to conduct a paleontological assessment of the Project Area. The assessment was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations and guidelines. This assessment documents the potential for encountering paleontological resources during construction and operation of the Project and provides recommendations on how to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. The City of Rancho Mirage is the lead agency under CEQA.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project is located in the City of Rancho Mirage, in Riverside County (Figure 1). The Project consists of a previously developed lot totaling approximately 12 acres (APN# 689-180-012). The Project Area is situated east of San Jacinto Mountain and adjacent of California State Route 111 (Hwy 111). Specifically, the proposed Project is located within Section 02, Township 05 South, Range 05 East on the Cathedral City USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle (San Bernardino Base Meridian) (Figure 2). The Project Area is bound by private residential property to the north, near Desert Cove Ave. and private residential property to the south, near Juniper Lane, with a golf course to the east, near Butler Adams Trail, and a privately owned public storage units to the west near Peterson Road (Figure 3). The proposed Project involves the development of a multi -family apartment complex that would consists of 116 units on redeveloped parcels of land.
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Jennifer Ritz, M.S., served as the Staff Paleontologist II for this Project and authored this report. Ms. Ritz has a M.S. in Geology from California State University, Long Beach and over 14 years experience in all aspects of paleontology, including 12 years in California paleontological mitigation. She is the Qualified Paleontological Resource Consultant for MCC on the County of Riverside's Paleontological Consultant List, under Jennifer Kelly.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculturec1i t n5c5r 6
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
MCC Cultural Resource Project Manager and cross -trained Paleontologist Erika McMullin, B.A. oversaw the Project and provided peer technical review of the review. MCC Archaeologist and cross -trained Paleontologist, Hannah Johnston, M.Sc., provided authorship of this report and GIS support. MCC Archaeologist and cross -trained Paleontologist Zac White, B.A. conducted the field survey and provided co -authorship of the report.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculture4 c5r 7
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Mountain
Wilderness
Big Bear-City
0 Big Bear Lake
Eam
a
San Gorgonio
,Pass gan�ning�
San Gorgonio
Wilderness
Mount San
Jacinto State
Park
111
Yucca Valley
Desert Hot
,Springs
Cathedral City
0 Sky Valley
0 Project Location
Hemet Idyllwild Agua Caltente Rancho Mirage
° Palm Desert
0 N
Catiu tla
Reservation
Beauty
Mount:rYeauty
WilderiM:ountain
Wilderness
Study Area
Santa Rosa
Reservation
Coyote Canyon
Cultural
Preserve
Los Coyotes
Reservation
Silver Spur Mobile
Manor
0 La Quinta
0 Indio
O
Santa Rosa -San
Jacinto
Mountains
Nati°nat
Monument
Santa Rosa
Mountains State
Wilderness
Borrego:Springs
0 Deser Lodge_
Twentynlne Palms
0 Per
Mecca Hills
Wilderness
Mecca
c
Desert Shores
Salton Sea Beach
0Salton City
Project Area
0 5 10 15 20
Miles
Kilometers
"1111:740
0 10 20 30 40 MATERIALCONStCULTURE
1:500,000
Figure 1. Peterson Road Project Vicinity (1:500,000).
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculturec1i t n5c rt
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
o ? Ar
CAWENTE
i L-'
buy.:
ti
.•
‘.
`�—
34 -
i•
•
;
_ •—••
_
4:
-
ry
INDIAN RESERV TION p_
s
p
e
....rt.t-1. GOLF COURS=
d
•
� -
[) TAMLReSK COUN?g
`�
®�
gj
,r h� a t• �
0 Z •.ray.- r.e. %CLUB f
e:• I^ y`.
1.._..___::
P ..- .: w
i WOMD A PA SAW: : . .. .
: ::
251
•
DRIVE-.
r i
t
•
ea• —
•1:4.
J...
..T
Lr�
:
try' l l_ -a`' •' �. i • p
,7 . ,.i'i V � !�'C, y'
- i.•1
tiler
a
DRIVE -ate=...
-
.�.-,� - \ TH D€RBURO (AINTRY Clall • •'
y , •yam 9.'
t l t ..
) ' 4 I
I ` •• •1 �
~d
- _ .__ • r -.se ,
• ..
•....
• �
Vii)' C
'f`�► =^ i `" 1.t
,- a2 €"f"• `��,
\f � OF:
��'
�{ ��
pia ��i
-+ �. •
•
•`{,
/ � �
USGS
7:5'.Quad: Cathedral[City`
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Project Area
Miles
1Wliyi'll1P ,
Kilometers MATERIAL CULTURE
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 CONSULTING
1:24,000
Figure 2. Peterson Road Project Location (as depicted on Cathedral City USGS 7.5 -minute Quadrangle, 1:24,000) Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 12701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1626-205-8279 I www.materialculturec1-i t n5c5r 9
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure 3. Peterson Road Project Area (as depicted on aerial photograph, 1:3,000).
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 12701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1626-205-8279 I www.materialculturec1� e+t56 0
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
The Project is subject to local and state laws and regulations regarding paleontological resources. These regulations require the identification of paleontological resources during the planning stage of new projects; include application review for projects that would potentially involve land disturbance; provide project -level standard conditions of approval that address unanticipated discoveries; and provide requirements to develop specific mitigation measures if resources are encountered during any development activity. Specific governing legislation and regulations include the following:
STATE REGULATIONS
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
CEQA declares that it is state policy to "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with...historic environmental qualities." It further states that public or private projects financed or approved by the state are subject to environmental review by the state. All such projects, unless entitled to an exemption, may proceed only after this requirement has been satisfied. CEQA requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project. In the event that a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered.
The CEQA Environmental Checklist includes one question regarding paleontological resources: "Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?" (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Section VII, Part F). If paleontological resources are identified as being within a proposed project area, the sponsoring agency must take those resources into consideration when evaluating project impacts. The level of consideration may vary with the importance of the resource.
CEQA does not provide a definition for unique paleontological resources. Therefore, many paleontologists and agencies utilize the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) criteria, which define significant (i.e., unique) paleontological resources as:
"Fossils and fossiliferous deposits...consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information" (SVP 2010).
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
Public Resources Code (PRC) Division 5, Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5 includes additional state -level requirements for the assessment and management of paleontological resources. Section 5097.5 states that a person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface, any historic or precontact 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 the lands. As defined in PRC Section 5097.5, public lands include any lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of the state, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.
LOCAL REGULATIONS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
While the City of Rancho Mirage is the Lead Agency, their General Plan does not specify requirements for paleontological resources. The Riverside County General Plan requires consideration of paleontological resources under the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the general plan (County of Riverside, 2015). The Riverside County General Plan recommendations are based on the SVP guidelines (2010) for the mitigation of paleontological Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculturecli t 6 1
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
resources. Additionally, the Riverside County General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element contains a figure of paleontological sensitivity, Figure 05-8. The Multipurpose Open Space Element of the general plan (County of Riverside, 2015) provides the following requirements for paleontological sensitive areas within the county:
• 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 0S-8, 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, 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 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.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculturecl-i t n562
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
METHODS
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESEARCH
The literature review included an examination of geologic maps of the Project Area and a review of relevant published and unpublished geological and paleontological literature to determine which geologic units are present within the Project Area and whether fossils have been recovered from those geologic units elsewhere in the region. As geologic units may extend over large geographic areas and contain similar lithologies and fossils, the literature review includes areas well beyond the Project Area.
Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT/RCLIS) also provides a paleontological resource sensitivity map to determine the required impact mitigation used in environmental assessments of development proposals (RCLIS 2021). This map was consulted by MCC staff on March 12, 2024.
The purpose of a locality search is to establish the status and extent of previously recorded paleontological resources within and adjacent to the study area for a given project. On March 6, 2024, a locality search was conducted through the Western Science Center (WSC) for the Project Area.
PALEONTOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT
The Riverside County General Plan (2015) recommendations are based on the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (2010) for the mitigation of paleontological resources. Riverside County classifies paleontological potential three ways:
Low Potential: Previous field surveys and documentation have demonstrated these areas as having a low potential for containing significant paleontological resources. However, it must be noted that surface geology is not always indicative of subsurface geology or the potential for paleontological resources.
Undetermined Potential: Areas underlain by sedimentary rocks for which literature or unpublished studies are not available, have undetermined potential for containing significant paleontological resources.
High Potential: Sedimentary rocks with high potential for containing significant non-renewable paleontological resources include rock units in which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been found or determined likely to be present. High sensitivity areas are mapped as either "High A" or "High B" based on the following criteria:
High Sensitivity A: Geologic formations or mapped rock units that are known to contain or have the correct age and depositional conditions to contain significant paleontological resources.
High Sensitivity B: A sensitivity equivalent to High A, but is based on the occurrence of fossils at a specified depth below the surface. This category indicated fossils that are likely to be encountered at or below 4 feet of depth and may be impacted during construction activities.
The entirety of the Peterson Road Project lies within an area mapped as Low Potential according to County of Riverside GIS
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculturecli t 6 3
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
f=11 Project Area
Sensitivity Class (Low Potential)
0 200
400 600
1:10,000
Meters
800
MATERIAL CULTURE
CONSULTING
Figure 4. Peterson Road Project Paleontological Sensitivity Map.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 I www.materialculturect 64
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
GEOLOGIC OVERVIEW
The Project Area is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province (California Geological Survey 2002).
A geomorphic province is a geographical area of distinct landscape character with related geophysical features, including relief, landforms, orientations of valleys and mountains, type of vegetation, and other geomorphic attributes (Harden 2004). Attributes of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province consist of northwest - southeast -trending, fault -bounded discrete blocks, with mountain ranges, broad intervening valleys, and low-lying coast plains (Yerkes et al. 1965; Norris and Webb 1990). Within California, the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province extends approximately 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the Mexican border, extending southward approximately 775 miles toward to the tip of Baja California, and it is bound on the east by the right -slip San Andreas Fault Zone, the Eastern Transverse Ranges, and the Colorado Desert (Norris and Webb 1990; Hall 2007).
The Project Area is mapped as Pliocene- to Holocene -age Quaternary alluvium with marine deposits (Q) (Stoneburg 2024, Figure 4). Within a 1 -mile radius of the Project, to the south and southwest, metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks are exposed in the foothills; however, these units do not occur within the Project's footprint and thus will not be discussed beyond this section.
Pliocene- to Holocene -age Quaternary alluvium with marine deposits (Q) consists of light brown loose, fine- to medium -grained sand covering alluvial deposits from the Holocene epoch (Dibblee and Minch 2008). This unit is considered to have low paleontological potential.
Early Proterozoic- to Cretaceous -age pre -Cenozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks undivided (m) consists of brown sand and gravel (Dibblee and Minch 2008). As this geologic unit is an igneous and/or highly altered metamorphic rock, it is considered to have a low paleontological potential, and does not occur within the direct Project area.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculturecl-i t n56 5
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
lorinririn
T wwr� .4; f er
CI Project Area
= 1-mi. buffer
Geology
I Q: Quaternary alluvium with marine deposits 0
(Pliocene to Holocene)
m: pre -Cenozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks undivided (Early Proterozoic to Cretaceous)
Paleontological Sensitivity
I Class 1: Very Low
Class 2: Low
Vi
0.5 1
1:24,000
1 I�►
7 Miles
Kilometers Ar WAN.
1.5 2 MATERIAL CULTURE
CONSULTING
Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A. (2008) Geologic map
of the Thousand Palms & Lost Horse Mountain
15 minute quadrangles, Riverside County, California
Dibblee Geological Foundation Seriesand Number:
Dibblee Foundation Map DF-372 (1:52,500)
Figure 5. Peterson Road Project Geology (1:24,000).
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. i 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 I 626-205-8279 I www.materialculturecl1 +t n66 6
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
RESULTS
PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH
After reviewing the paleontological sensitivity layer on Riverside County Map My County provided by Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT), the Project Area was deemed to have low paleontological potential (Riverside County 2024, Figure 4). No paleontological records from this area or within 1 mile of the Project were discovered in the literature searches.
In March 2024, a locality search was conducted through the Western Science Center of Riverside County (WSC) (Appendix A). This search identified did not identify any vertebrate localities in the WSC records that exist near the Project Area in the same or similar deposits.
PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
During the course of fieldwork, survey conditions were fair due to the Project Area being mostly developed (Figure 5-24). Ground visibility in the entire Project Area ranged from poor to good (20-75%) due to density of overgrown grass and weeds. The average surface visibility was good (75%). The eastern portion of the Project Area had lowered visibility (10-25%) due to denser vegetation. Areas with poorer visibility were surveyed in 5 -meter transects instead of 10 -meter transects. Presently, the Project Area exists as an empty mobile home community with a gradual west -facing slope of less than 5 -degrees. Furthermore, the entire area shows heavy disturbance from previous development.
Overall, the Project Area is highly disturbed. The remnants of 125 individual mobile home lots and 3 parking lots were observed throughout the Project Area. Each mobile home lot consists of a paved structure pad, sidewalk, driveway and underground utilities. Heavy grading and excavation would have taken place to build the lots, utilities and the roads (Travelodge Lane) that connect them. Piles of modern refuse and landscaping material were observed throughout the project area. Evidence of imported landscaping material was observed with the presence of white quartz gravel, red lava rock and decorative clam shell. Soil in the area consisted of brown fine- to medium coarse -grained silty sand with imported quartz and volcanic pebble -sized inclusions. No paleontological resources were observed during the field survey.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialcultureCt 6 7
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure 6. Overview of Project Area from Peterson Road, Figure 7. Overview of Project Area, including access gate along including Travelodge Lane, facing east Peterson Rd., facing south Figure 8. Representative photo of sediments including red Figure 9. Representative photograph of imported white quartz brick tile on Northwest end of Project Area, plan view gravel, plan view Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 12701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1626-205-8279 I www.materialculturecli t 6 8
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure 10. Representative photograph of decorative shell, plan view
Figure 11. Overview of project area from north end, facing west
Figure 12. Overview of project area, facing southwest
Figure 13. Representative photograph of red brick and cement mortar landscaping, plan view
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 12701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1626-205-8279 I www.materialculturecl1 t 6
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure 14. Representative photograph of imported volcanic Figure 15. Overview of Project Area, including Travelodge Ln, gravel, plan view. facing west
Figure 16. Overview of overgrowth on east end of project area, facing south
Figure 17. Overview of modern refuse, facing north
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculturec1i t n5c7ri
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure 18. Representative photograph of modern refuse,
view west
Figure 19. Overview of Project Area, facing east
Figure 20. Overview of Project Area, facing south
Figure 21. Representative photo of utility connections for mobile home lots, plan view
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 12701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1626-205-8279 I www.materialculturec1i t n5c7ri 1
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
Figure 22. Overview of parking lot on east end of project Figure 23. Representative photo of vegetation density, facing area, Facing northeast south
Figure 24. Representative photo of sediments, Plan view Figure 25. Overview of single mobile home lot, facing west
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONCLUSIONS
The paleontological resource assessment of the Project Area included a locality records search, geological map and literature reviews. The records search at the WSC reported no fossil localities within the Project Area or within one mile of the Project Area. Based on the results of the study, Pliocene- to Holocene -age Quaternary alluvium with marine deposits (Q) are considered to have low paleontological potential.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
The potential for encountering significant paleontological resources within the Project Area is low due to the presence of Pliocene- to Holocene -age Quaternary alluvium with marine deposits (Q) throughout the Project Area and the highly disturbed nature of the Project surface due to prior development of the site. Based on the low sensitivity of the Project area and the recommendations within the County of Riverside General Plan, no additional Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculture4 c72
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
paleontological mitigation measures are necessary unless unanticipated discoveries of paleontological material are encountered during construction.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date: March 31, 2024 Signature:
Name: Jennifer Ritz (Kelly), M.S., Geology
Riverside County Qualified Paleontologist
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialculturec1i t n5c7ii 3
Peterson Road Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, California
April 2024
REFERENCES
California Geological Survey
2002 California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36, California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Available online: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34134/CGS-2002- California-Geomorphic-ProvincesNote-36-PDF
County of Riverside
2015 General Plan, Chapter 5, Multipurpose Open Space Element: Paleontological Resources. Available online:
https://planning.rctlma.org/General-Plan-Zoning/General-Plan Dibblee, T.W., and J.A. Minch.
2008 "Geologic Map of the Thousand Palms & Lost Horse Mountain 15 Minute Quadrangles, Riverside County, California." Ngmdb.Usgs.Gov, 1 Jan. 1970, ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_83958.htm.
Hall, C.A.H., Jr.
2007 Introduction to the Geology of Southern California and Its Native Plants, University of California Press, Berkeley, 493 p.
Harden, D.R.
2004 California Geology, Second Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 552 p.
Morton, D.M. and F.H. Weber, Jr.
2003 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Elsinore 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, California. USGS Open -File Report 2003-281, scale 1:24,000.
Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W.
1990 Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 541 p.
Riverside County
2024 "Riverside Map My County." Geocortex Viewer for HTMLS. gisl.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public. Accessed 26 March Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources.
Available online: https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_ Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf
Stoneburg, D.
2024 Paleontological resources for Peterson Road Project. Paleontological locality records search completed by the Western Science Center. Letter dated March 6, 2024.
Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E., and Vedder, J.G. 1965 Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California: An Introduction: Professional Paper.
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1 626-205-8279 1 www.materialcultureCtse n5c7ri 4
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 12701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 1626-205-8279 I www.materialculturec seit nn c
Appendix A:
Staff
Qualifications
"\17p
MATERIAL CULTURE
CONSULTING
JENNIFER RITZ, M.SC.
PRINCIPAL PALEONTOLOGIST
PROFILE
Jennifer Ritz has experience in all aspects of paleontology. She has extensive experience with monitoring, salvage, fieldwork, project management, and report writing, as well as volunteer experience from the La Brea Tar Pits/Page Museum and the Cooper Center of Orange County (Paleontology department) and field experience as a Staff Geologist for Leighton Geotechnical. Her expertise is Geology, and she has her M.S. in Geological Sciences, emphasis in Geochemistry.
Jennifer has taught lab courses in paleontology and general geology and assisted with field mapping classes. Jennifer is HAZWOPER 40 -hour certified and a registered Orange County paleontologist. She has authored and co-authored more than 100 paleontological compliance documents, including PRMPs, EIR, EIS, PEA, treatment plans, final monitoring reports, survey reports, and other compliance documents, in compliance with NEPA, CEQA, Caltrans and city and county laws, ordinances, regulations, and statutes.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
1 Ontario Ranch Logistic Center
Ontario Land Ventures, LLC:: City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager. Ms. Ritz coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and authored the PRIMP for this project. Ms.
Ritz also oversaw the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This was a mass grading project for the construction of two main warehouse buildings for a new industrial park development.
Duration: 2018 — 2021
Rosamond Water Waste Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Project Rosamond Community Services District Wastewater Treatment Plant ::
Rosamond, CA, Kern County
Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager. Ms. Ritz oversaw the paleontological monitoring program when paleontological resources were discovered during construction. The project involved the addition of a wastewater treatment wetland on a 80 -acre property owned by the RCSD, located just south of the existing treatment facility. Excavations involved the reconfiguration of the existing pond into three ponds and the conversion of the facultative lagoons to a percolation pond system. Ms. Ritz co-authored the final paleontological mitigation report.
Duration: 2019 - 2020
EXPERIENCE
15 years
M.Sc. in Geology
California State University, Long Beach,
California, 2012
B.S., Geology (preliminary work for
entry to M.S. Geology Program)
California State University, Long Beach,
2005
• Orange County Certified
Paleontologist
• San Diego County Certified
Paleontologist
• 10HR OSHA (in progress)
• Society for Vertebrate
Paleontologists
Saddleback Stadium Improvement Project
South Orange County Community College District :: City of Mission Viejo, Orange County Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager. Ms. Ritz coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP), and oversaw the paleontological monitoring program detailed in the PRIMP. Ms. Ritz co-authored the final paleontological mitigation report. This Project was a renovation to the college's athletic facilities which included the development of a new 8,000 seat stadium.
Duration: 2018 — 2020
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 N. Towne Ave., Suite B, Pomona CA 91767 1 w www.materialculiure' o 7tt.com
Rider Commerce Center Project
Core5 Industrial Partners :: Perris, CA, Unincorporated Riverside County, California Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager Ms. Ritz coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP). Ms. Ritz also oversaw the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This was for the development of a 204,300 sqft commerce building which involved the construction of a light industrial warehouse, two offices, and a parking lot.
Duration: 2018-2020
Harvill Industrial Park Project
KCS West :: City of Perris, Riverside County, California Paleontological Principal Investigator and Project Manager. Ms. Ritz coordinated all surveying, preparation of compliance and environmental documentation for this project, and prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP). Ms. Ritz also oversaw the paleontological monitoring program for this Project. This was a mass grading project for the development of a new 423,664 sqft warehouse and associated site improvements.
Duration: 2017 — 2020
West of Devers Transmission Line Project
Southern California Edison :: Riverside County, California Paleontological Project Manager. Ms. Ritz provided all project management and paleontological related services. This included proper BLM authorization and permitting to conduct surveying and a research design for field reconnaissance related to PEA, EIS/EIR documentation for the proposed transmission line. She assisted with managing documentation with laws relating to paleontological resources, among which are CEQA and NEPA compliance.
Duration: 2009 — 2016
Regional Connector
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority :: Los Angeles County, CA Paleontological Monitor. Ms. Ritz performed paleontological monitoring during construction involving ground disturbance.
Metro is constructing a new rail line and associated stations to connect future and existing rail lines in the downtown area into an integrated system. The Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project will directly link the 7th Street/Metro Center Station to the Metro Gold Line near Little Tokyo/Arts District Station. The project will involve construction and operation of a 1.9 -mile Light Rail Transit (LRT) connector that would link the Metro Blue Line, Metro Gold Line, and Metro Expo Line into a single consolidated system.
Duration: 2015 — 2016
Crenshaw/LAX Mass -Transit Light Rail Line
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority :: Los Angeles, CA Project Coordinator and Monitor. Ms. Ritz performed project scheduling, communication with Metro and construction crew staff, and ensuring project compliance for archaeological and paleontological monitoring during the construction of Metro's
8.5 -mile mass -transit light rail line through southwest Los Angeles. Ms. Ritz also performed paleontological monitoring during ground disturbing activities and Qa/Qc the paleontological documentation.
Duration: 2015 — 2016
Orange Line Bus Enhancement to North Hollywood Red Line Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority :: Los Angeles, CA Paleontological Lead and Monitor. Ms. Ritz performed paleontological monitoring during ground disturbance which included trenching and mass -grading for Metro's construction of a pedestrian tunnel connecting the North Hollywood Metro Orange Line and Metro Red Line Stations. Ms. Ritz was also the Lead Paleontologist overseeing the paleontological monitors and Qa/Qc the paleontological documentation.
Duration: 2014 — 2015
2 1-578
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) Segments 3 —11 Southern California Edison :: Kern County, Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County Paleontological Project Manager. Ms. Ritz conducted and led surveys along this project's right of way. She was also in charge of scheduling monitoring crews during grading in areas of paleontological sensitivity, managing and reviewing log sheets, and tracking data that is incorporated to final reports. Ms. Ritz played a valuable role with scheduling for the project's needs. She monitored, surveyed, and reported on all paleontological facets of this project as the Lead Paleontological Monitor for segment 3B, which was located near Rosamond, and for segments 4-11 which extended into Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. She authored more than 10 of the compliance reports for this project. She also performed monitoring on every segment of this Project.
Duration: 2009 - 2015
3 1-579
MATERIAL CULTURE
CONSULTING
ERIKA MCMULLIN, B.A.
SENIOR ARCHAEOLOGIST
PROFILE
Erika McMullin is an archaeologist with over seven years of archaeological experience, and over four years of cultural resource management (CRM) experience. Ms. McMullin has worked on projects subject to Federal, State, and local government regulations within California. She has served as a field director for monitoring, survey, site recording, and excavation throughout California and internationally. Ms. McMullin specializes in bioarchaeological techniques, including identifying and exhuming human burials. She has served as a bioarchaeology supervisor at the Blackfriary Archaeology Field School in Co. Meath, Ireland. In addition to field work, she has performed laboratory analysis of human remains on a Maya population in Belize and conducted biological profiles for previously undetermined individuals with varying ancestries. Ms. McMullin earned her GIS Certificate in 2019 and serves as MCC's GIS Specialist where she is responsible for map creation, spatial data analysis and management, and other GIS support services. Recently, Ms. McMullin has been responsible for managing several on -call contracts for Southern California Edison as a subconsultant, including performing project management, authoring various archaeological reports, and managing field staff. She has also completed hundreds of California State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms for recording and evaluating sites and individual resources. She has written and provided technical peer review of monitoring and survey reports for various agencies. In addition, she serves as Project Manager for MCC's CEQA projects where she is responsible for conducting California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) record searches, Native American correspondence and outreach, background research, managing surveys, writing Phase I Reports, and recommending mitigation measures.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Veterans Affairs West Los Angeles Hospital Bldg. 220 Parking Lot Expansion Project Dept. of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System :: Los Angeles, CA Project Manager. Ms. McMullin provides project management support for all archaeological resource monitoring services. Her responsibilities included maintaining communication with all involved parties, fulfilling staffing requests, tracking the project's progress, writing monitoring compliance report, analyzing data and creating maps through GIS, and submitting all deliverables to the client.
Duration: September 2023 -Present
Windy Fire Restoration Emergency Work
Southern California Edison :: Sequoia National Forest
Project Manager. Ms. McMullin Provides project management support for all archaeological field surveys and monitoring assignments for this program. Post -fire restoration work includes line clearing and tree trimming/removal, maintaining and repairing roads, and replacing damaged SCE infrastructure. The work area includes areas in the southern portion of Sequioa National Forest.
Duration: August 2023 -Present
French Fire Restoration Emergency Work
Southern California Edison :: Sequoia National Forest
Project Manager. Ms. McMullin Provides project management support for all archaeological field surveys and monitoring assignments for this program. Post -fire restoration work includes line clearing and tree trimming/removal, maintaining and repairing roads, and replacing damaged SCE infrastructure. The work area includes areas in the southern portion of Sequioa National Forest.
Duration: August 2023 -Present
EXPERIENCE
7 years
EDUCATION
M.A. in Biological
Anthropology, emphasis in
Bioarchaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles, In
Progress (Jan. 2024)
B.A. Anthropology
University of California, Los
Angeles, 2014
CERTIFICATIONS
• GIS Professional
Certificate, California
State University, Los
Angeles 2019
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 N. Towne Ave., Suite B, Pomona CA 91767 1 w www.materialcull
San Jacinto Deteriorated Pole Program
Southern California Edison :: Santa Barbara, Riverside, and San Bernardino County, CA Project Manager. Ms. McMullin Provides project management support for all archaeological field surveys and monitoring assignments for this program. The work areas include Santa Barbara, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Her responsibilities included maintaining communication with all involved parties, fulfilling staffing requests, tracking the project's progress, writing DPRs and reports, analyzing data and creating maps through GIS, and submitting all deliverables to the client.
Duration: May 2023 -Present
1149 N. Las Palmas Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment Project Kimley-Horn :: Hollywood, Los Angeles County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, co-authored the cultural and tribal sensitivity report, and provided peer review of the paleontological report.
November 2022 -May 2023
Veterans Affairs West Los Angeles Hospital Lot 38 Project Dept. of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System :: Los Angeles, CA Staff Archaeologist and Co -Project Manager. Ms. McMullin provides archaeological resource monitoring services during ground disturbing phases of the project. This project is relocating utilities to replace abandoned utilities at MacArthur Field on the Veterans Affairs Hospital property. Erika's responsibilities includes maintaining communication with all involved parties, completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records, writing the monitoring report, and evaluating cultural resources.
Duration: September 2022 —April 2023
Deteriorated Pole Replace Program MSUP
Southern California Edison :: Inyo, Sierra, Sequoia, Angeles, and San Bernardino National Forest, CA Project Manager. Ms. McMullin provides project management to support all pedestrian surveys and monitoring assignments for this program. The work areas include Inyo, Sierra, Sequoia, Angeles, and San Bernardino National Forest.
Her responsibilities included maintaining communication with all involved parties, fulfilling staffing requests, tracking the project's progress, writing DPRs and reports, analyzing data and creating maps through GIS, provided peer review of deliverables, and submitting all deliverables to the client.
Duration: April 2022 — Present
Ivanpah-Control Site Testing and Laboratory Support
Southern California Edison :: Inyo and Kern Counties, CA Staff Archaeologist. Ms. McMullin participated in cultural surveying, excavation, and laboratory sorting and cataloging for the demolition and replacement of Southern California Edison's existing 115 kV transmission lines in Lone Pine, Inyo County and lnyokern, Kern County.
Duration: March 1, 2022 — April 12, 2022 (350 hrs.)
Palomino Business Park
Caprocks Partners :: Riverside County, CA
Staff Archaeologist. Ms. McMullin provided cultural and paleontological resource monitoring services during the ground - disturbing phases of the project. The Palomino Business Park Project is redeveloping approximately 110 acres of land within the City of Norco for a new business park that will include industrial, commercial, and office uses. The project includes the construction of approximately 2,050,000 square feet of new building space and related onsite and offsite improvements.
Duration: January 2022 — April 2022
2 1-581
Heavy Tree Removal Program
Southern California Edison :: Sequoia, Sierra, Inyo, San Bernardino, and Los Padres National Forests Staff Archaeologist. Ms. McMullin performs cultural resources monitoring and survey while coordinating with tree crews, biologists, and SCE lead representatives. This program is a result of the CPUC's mandate that utilities eliminate public hazards associated with dead, dying, and diseased trees within utility corridors, of which the USDA Forest Service found that up to 30% of native and non-native trees within SCE's service territory has been adversely affected by drought conditions and beetle infestations.
Duration: 2021— Present
Fountain Valley Residential Phase !Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: City of Fountain Valley, Orange County Project Manager and GIS Specialist: Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological report.
Duration: January 2021 —July 2021
Line Clearing and Vegetation Management
Southern California Edison :: National Park Service (NPS) SUP along the Salt Creek 12 kV Transmission Line, Sequoia and Kings (SEKI) National Park, Tulare County.
Field Director. Ms. McMullin managed a crew and conducted archaeological field survey for SCE vegetation management activities located on lands administered by the NPS. Duties include surveying, identifying, and recording historic and prehistoric resources along multiple landscapes and contexts, and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records daily.
Duration: January 2021, January 2022
Gonzalez Solar Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: City of Reedley, Fresno County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological report.
Duration: January 2021 —July 2021
Seaton and Cajalco Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Unincorporated area near City of Perris, Riverside County Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: April 2021— October 2021
4200 W Valley Blvd Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Pomona, Los Angeles County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: April 2021 —July 2021
Redlands Mall Redevelopment I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Redlands, San Bernardino County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS 3 1-582
record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: April 2021— May 2021
Florence Avenue Townhomes Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Santa Fe Springs, Los Angeles County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: April 2021 —June 2021
Rolling Greens Way Phase 1 Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Unincorporated Los Angeles County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: May 2021 -August 2021
Pacifica Cottonwood Phase !Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Moreno Valley, Riverside County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: May 2021 -June 2022
Stover and Adler Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Unincorporated San Bernardino County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: June 2021 -October 2021
5770 Industrial Parkway Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Unincorporated San Bernardino County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: July 2021 -October 2021
Stover and Adler Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Unincorporated San Bernardino County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: June 2021 -October 2021
4 1-583
Santa Ana and Calabash Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: City of Fontana, San Bernardino County Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: July 2021 -October 2021
Kings CSG 3 Solar LLCPhase I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Unincorporated Kings County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: October 2021- January 2022
Belago Park I Cultural and Paleontological Assessment
EPD Solutions :: Moreno Valley, Riverside County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: December 2020 -December 2022
Cabazon Residential Phase! Cultural and Paleontological Assessment EPD Solutions :: Unincorporated Riverside County
Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, field survey and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the cultural and paleontological reports and DPRs.
Duration: November 2020 -October 2021
Redlands Transit Village Specific Plan
City of Redlands :: Redlands, CA, San Bernardino County.
Assistant Project Manager and GIS Specialist. Ms. McMullin provided Project Management support to facilitate the CHRIS record search, NAHC outreach, paleontological record search, and GIS support. She is responsible for conducting the above -mentioned outreach, background research, and co-authored the Specific Plan report.
Duration: November 2020 — February 2021
Creek Fire Restoration Emergency Work
Southern California Edison :: Sierra National Forest, CA Staff Archaeologist. Ms. McMullin provided archaeological support including field surveys, monitoring support for emergency fire restoration activities, including line clearing and tree work along SCE's right-of-way (ROW) due to recent fires in the Sierra National Forest (SNF). Her duties included maintaining communication with prime consultant and construction crews, performing testing alongside Forest Archaeologists, attendance of project meetings, and completing and submitting paperwork, photographic records, and Survey123 to the client in a timely matter.
Duration: October 2020 — December 2020
CWA 10030 Transmission Line Rating and Remediation (TLRR)/Ivanpah-Coolwater-Kramer-Inyokern Project Southern California Edison :: BLM and Private Lands, Inyo, LA, and San Bernardino Counties Staff Archaeologist. Ms. McMullin provided archaeological support to prime contractor's Field Directors for this project.
She was lead field archaeologist on her survey crew. Duties included surveying, identifying, and recording historic and prehistoric resources along multiple landscapes and contexts. She used tablets to create in field Series 523 forms and 5 1-584
collect spatial data using Collector and sub meter geodes. Ms. McMullin was responsible for maintaining cultural data for both new and previously recorded resources.
Duration: June 2019 — February 2020
Deteriorated Pole Replace Program
Southern California Edison :: Sequoia, Sierra, Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino County, Private land, BLM Land Field Technician. Ms. McMullin provides field support to complete archaeological field surveys, monitoring, and testing for the program. Her responsibilities included maintaining communication with all involved parties and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records. In addition, Ms. McMullin assisted with preparation of California State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms for the Project.
Duration: 2019 — Present
Blackfriary Archaeological Field School, Trim, County Meath, Ireland.
Bioarchaeology Supervisor. Ms. McMullin supervised and instructed students on methods and techniques during this excavation. Her duties included identifying human remains, identifying faunal remains, identifying grave cuts and grave fill, excavating human burials, mapping burials using Nikon total station, planning burials, and filling out all paperwork including grave fill, grave cut, and burial sheets. Ms. McMullin also assisted in post -excavation efforts of burials, including washing, bagging, and properly storing burials.
Duration: 2021 (200 hrs), 2022 (200 hrs)
Mesoamerican Archaeology Lab, California State University, Los Angeles.
Lab Manager and Graduate Student. Ms. McMullin manages the Lab under the supervision of Dr. James Brady. Her duties include cataloguing, organizing, and identifying bone and bone fragments from the skeletal collection of Midnight Terror Cave excavation. The collection includes over 10,000 bones of disarticulated and commingled remains. Ms. McMullin's thesis research centers around using various long bone measurements to determine probable sex. Ms. McMullin was also in charge of supervising and teaching students the methods and techniques for identification and cataloging of skeletal remains.
Duration: 2018 — Present (300 hrs)
Blackfriary Archaeological Field School, Trim, County Meath, Ireland.
Student Internship. Ms. McMullin was part of a team performing bioarchaeological and landscape archaeological excavations in Ireland. One of her duties involved supervising students and assisting supervisors during these excavations.
Ms. McMullin also participated in zooarchaeology and community archaeology workshops. Her duties for the workshops included site planning, artifact cataloging, identify human remains, identify faunal remains, survey, record data, record coordinates, site plans, elevation drawings, total station, post -excavation, clean artifacts, assist students, and community outreach.
Duration: 2018 (240 hrs)
Bioarchaeology Lab, California State University, Los Angeles.
Research Assistant. Ms. McMullin worked under the supervision of Dr. Christine Lee in the Bioarchaeology Lab. Her duties involved determining biological profiles of skeletal remains including age, sex, race, and paleopathologies.
Duration: 2017 (50 hrs)
6 1-585
MATERIAL CULTURE
CONSULTING
HANNAH JOHNSTON, MSc
STAFF ARCHAEOLOGIST 11
PROFILE
Hannah Johnston is an archaeologist with over four years of academic research and field experience and a year of professional experience in cultural resource management. Ms. Johnston has worked on projects subject to Federal, State, and local government regulations within California. She has participated in monitoring, survey, and excavation efforts as a crew member in California. Ms. Johnston is experienced in field work and osteology. In addition, she has conducted laboratory analysis of artifacts and faunal remains from California's coastal region.
Operations and Maintenance Program
Southern California Edison :: Sequoia National Forest, CA Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston provides monitoring and survey support during excavations for the SCE Operations and Maintenance Program. Ms.
Johnston's responsibilities includes maintaining communication with all involved parties and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records.
Duration: August 2023
Operations and Maintenance Program
Southern California Edison :: Inyo National Forest, Bishop, CA Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston provides monitoring and survey support during excavations for the SCE Operations and Maintenance Program for the TROW CEMA Silverpeak-Wyman Canyon Circuit. Ms. Johnston's responsibilities includes maintaining communication with all involved parties and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records.
Duration: August 2023
Environmental Clearance Program
Southern California Edison :: Angeles National Forrest, CA Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston was part of a team that surveyed 30 poles within the Angeles National Forest for the SCE Environmental Clearance Program. Ms. Johntson's responsibilities includes maintaining communication with all involved parties and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records.
Duration: July 2023
MEP040-4 Bishop Survey
Southern California Edison :: Inyo County, CA
Staff Archaeologist. Under the direction of a permitted Field Director, Ms.
Johnston was part of a team that conducted two (2) 10 -day cultural resources survey across multiple land designations including BLM, CDFW, and Private Lands within the Bishop area. Ms. Johnston's duties included operating GIS applications to record spatial data, complete paperwork and photos, and assist with uploading daily data.
Duration: June —July 2023
EXPERIENCE
2 years CRM
2 years Academia
EDUCATION
M.Sc. Professional Human
Osteoarcheology
University of Reading United Kingdom,
2022
B.A. Anthropology
California State University Los Angeles
2020
CERTIFICATIONS
• First Aid and CPR certified
• GIS Basics Training (Esri)
• ArcGIS Online Basics (Esri)
• ArcGIS Pro Basics (Esri)
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
• Association of American Physical
Anthropologists (AAPA)
• American Anthropological
Association (AAA)
• British Association for Biological
Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology
(BABAO)
• Western Social Science Association
(WSSA)
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. 1 2701 N. Towne Ave., Suite B, Pomona CA 91767 1 w www.materialcl
Operations and Maintenance Program
Southern California Edison :: Ventura and Kern County
Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston provides monitoring and survey support during excavations for the SCE Operations and Maintenance Program. Ms. Johntson's responsibilities includes maintaining communication with all involved parties and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records.
Duration: June 2023 — Present
San Jacinto CCP Program
Southern California Edison :: San Jacinto, CA
Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston provides monitoring and survey support during excavations for pole installation and trenching. Ms. Johntson's responsibilities includes maintaining communication with all involved parties and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records.
Duration: September 2022 — Present
1-15 Logistics Center
City of Fontana :: Fontana, CA
Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston is performing archaeological monitoring during ground -disturbing activities. Ms.
Johnstons' responsibilities include maintaining communication with all involved parties and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records. The Project includes the development and operation of a 1,175,720 -square foot logistics facility on approximately 76 acres (Logistics Site); the realignment of a segment of Lytle Creek Road from the western Project boundary eastward to a new intersection with Sierra Avenue; and the annexation of 152 acres (Annexation Area or Project Area), inclusive of the 76 -acre Logistics Site.
Duration: May 2023 — Present
Grid Resiliency Project and Plant Betterment Project
Southern California Edison :: Bureau of Land Management, Bishop Field Office and Private Property, CA Staff Archaeologist. Under the direction of a permitted Field Director, Ms. Johnston was part of a team that conducted cultural resources survey of 17.25 acres and performed site recording for SCE's Grid Resiliency Project and Plant Betterment Project on lands administered by BLM Bishop and Private Property. Ms. Johnston's duties included operating GIS applications to record spatial data, complete paperwork and photos, and assist with uploading daily data.
Duration: October 2022 — November 2022
Rincon Athos Solar Project
Desert City, Riverside County, CA
Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston provided cultural resource monitoring services during ground disturbing phases of the project. Her responsibilities included maintaining communication with all involved parties along with completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records for the client daily.
Duration: 2021
Deteriorated Pole Replace Program
Southern California Edison :: Sequoia, San Bernardino, Angeles, and Los Padres National Forest, CA Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston provides cultural resource monitoring services during ground disturbing phases of the project. Her responsibilities include maintaining communication with all involved parties and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records.
Duration: 2021— 2022
Poles and Wires Survey Program
Southern California Edison :: Inyo National Forest, CA
Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston provided survey, monitoring, and site testing support. Her responsibilities included maintaining communication with all involved parties and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records.
Duration: April 2021
2 1-587
San Marcos Bridge Removal Project
City of San Marcos :: San Marcos, CA
Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston provided cultural resource monitoring services during ground disturbing phases of the project. Her responsibilities included maintaining communication with all involved parties and completing and submitting paperwork and photographic records.
Duration: 2021
4200 Valley Blvd.
Pomona, CA
Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston surveyed 13.84 arches for the future development of a new Class -A speculation industrial building. Her duties included survey activities, completing all associated field paperwork, recording new resources, photography, and post -processing of forms.
Duration: July 2021
Cabazon Residential
Core5 Industrial Partners :: City of Cabazon, CA
Staff Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston surveyed 22 acres for a future housing development of 121 homes on a mostly undeveloped parcel. Her duties included survey activities, completing all associated field paperwork, recording new resources, photography, and post -processing of forms.
Duration: May 2021
Santa Monica Mountain Range Excavation
California State University :: Los Angeles, CA
Field Archaeologist. Ms. Johnston's studies and tasks included coastal archaeology, Native American studies, zooarchaeology, landscape archaeology, excavation, analyzing soil composition, site planning, cataloging, survey, total station, recording data and GIS coordinates, sieving, and cleaning artifacts.
Duration: 2018
Spike Island Excavation
Institute of Field Research :: Spike Island off County Cork, Ireland Field Bioarchaeologist. Ms. Johnston's studies and tasks included bioarchaeology, excavation, site planning, cataloging, recording data, site plans, photogrammetry, point mapping, total station, cleaning bones and artifacts, identifying human remains, and paleopathology.
Duration: 2018
Coastal Archaeology Lab
California State University :: Los Angeles, CA
Lab Assistant. Ms. Johnston's duties included sieving, measuring, cataloging, and sorting faunal remains and organic material.
Duration: 2018 - 2020
Forensic Anthropology Lab
California State University :: Los Angeles, CA
Lab Assistant. Ms. Johnston's duties included organizing the bone collection, practicing compiling biological profiles, and identification of trauma and disease.
Duration: 2019 - 2020
Mesoamerican Archaeology Lab
California State University :: Los Angeles, CA
Lab Assistant. Ms. Johnston's duties included research of subadult remains from Midnight Terror Cave site to compare to other Mesoamerican sites for an honors thesis on human child sacrifice.
Duration: 2019 — 2020
3 1-588
Appendix B:
Western Science
Center Record Search
Results
E. -WESTERN SCIENCE CENTER
Paleontology Record Search Request
The Western Science requires the following information in order to perform a paleontological record search for upcoming mitigation projects. Please provide the following as well as a .kml, .kmz file, or detailed map of the project location. Western Science Center will be returned approximately two weeks from the date this form is received and will contain a map and letter indicating paleontological sensitivity and any known Western Science Center fossil localities within the proposed project area. The fee for standard paleontological record searches is $150; the Western Science Center reserves the right to increase fees for large or extensive requests.
Date: 2-2-2024
Contact Information:
Name: Erika McMullin
Email: [email protected]
Company & Address: Material Culture Consulting, Inc.
2701-B N. Towne Ave. Pomona, CA 91766
Phone: 909-967-8216
Invoice Should Be Sent To: [email protected], [email protected] Project Information:
Project Name and Number: MCC Peterson Road
Project Location (include City, County, Township, Range, and Sections to the level known):
City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County.
Quad: Cathedral City; Township 05S Range 05E, Sect. 20
Map Type Included:
❑ .KML file
.KMZ file 2 Detailed Map
Please send this form and project map to Western Science Center Collections Technician Brittney Elizabeth Stoneburg at [email protected] ver. 13 May 2022
1-590
O
WESTERN SCIENCE CENrI1ER
March 6th, 2024
Material Culture Consulting
Erika McMullin
2701-B North Towne Avenue
Pomona, CA 91767
Dear Ms. McMulllin,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Peterson Road Project in the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, CA. The project area is located on the eastern side of Peterson Road on Township 5 South, Range 5 East, Section 20 of the Cathedral City, CA USGS
7.5 minute quadrangle.
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial sand and gravel from the Holocene epoch (Dibblee and Minch 2008). Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, but material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching Pleistocene alluvial sediments would increase.
The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, or extends beyond the current project bounds into the neighboring Pleistocene units, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should be observed.
If you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Brittney Elizabeth Stoneburg, MSc
Collections Manager
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org 1-591
Peterson Road Project
project area + 1 mile radius
MitkWIFEC
. (i V'Afira7--ffiff
r'
m EI .I r 2021 • .ir,r_i
Legend
f 1 Mile Radius
rn: pre -Cenozoic rnetasedirnentary and metavolcanic rocks undivided (Early Proterozoic to Cretaceous) / Peterson Road Project
0: Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits (Pliocene to Holocene) Oa lap :7kcAritrpiCaufir
4ry
2' Lr9 0 _ .
1-592
Page Intentionally Blank
PETERSON ROAD RANCHO MIRAGE
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix F
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
Page Intentionally Blank
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Crossings at Peterson Road
39360 Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
April 2, 2024
Prepared For:
A0742 Rancho Mirage, L.P.
2000 E Fourth Street #205
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Project Number 24-02-11
Prepared by:
Weis Environmental, LLC
1938 Kellogg Avenue, Suite 116
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 585-7070
www.weisenviro.com
4Weis
ENVIRONMENTAL
April 2, 2024
A0742 Rancho Mirage, L.P.
2000 E Fourth Street #205
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Crossings at Peterson Road
39360 Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
Project Number 24-02-011
Dear Mr. Irving:
1938 Kellogg Avenue, Suite 116, Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 585-7070
www.weisenviro.com
Weis Environmental, LLC has completed the contracted environmental consulting services for the above -referenced project. The services were performed in accordance with our proposal and agreement fully executed by all parties. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been performed in accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, ASTM Designation E1527-21 and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Part 312. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding this report or if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Weis Environmental, LLC
Daniel Weis. R.E.H.S.
Environmental Manager
1-597
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Scope of the Assessment 1
1.3 Limitations and Exceptions 2
1.4 Special Terms and Conditions 3
1.5 Limiting Conditions and Deviations 3
1.6 Data Failure and Data Gaps 3
1.7 Reliance 3
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4
2.1 Location and Legal Description 4
2.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics 4
2.3 Current Use of the Site 4
2.4 Description of Site Improvements 4
2.5 Utilities 4
2.6 Description of Adjoining Properties 5
3.0 PHYSICAL SETTING 6
3.1 Topography 6
3.2 Hydrology 6
3.3 Geology 6
3.4 Hydrogeology 7
3.5 Oil and Gas Exploration 7
4.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION 8
4.1 Title Records 8
4.2 Environmental Liens 8
4.3 Activity and Use Limitations 8
4.4 Specialized or Actual Knowledge or Experience 8
4.5 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information 8
4.6 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues 8
4.7 Owner, Property Manager and Occupant Information 9
4.8 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA 9
4.9 Proceedings Involving the Site 9
4.10 Other Provided Documents 9
5.0 REGULATORY RECORDS REVIEW 10
5.1 Standard ASTM Regulatory Database Search 10
5.2 Non-ASTM Regulatory Database Search 12
5.3 Regulatory Agency File Reviews 12
6.0 HISTORICAL RESOURCE REVIEW 14
6.1 Aerial Photographs 14
6.3 City Directories 15
6.4 Topographic Maps 15
6.5 Other Historical Sources 15
1-598
7.0 SITE RECONAISSANCE 17
7.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions 17
7.2 Current General Site and Vicinity Characteristics 17
7.3 Indications of Past Site and Vicinity Uses 17
7.4 Site -Specific Observations 17
8.0 INTERVIEWS 19
8.1 Site Owner 19
8.2 Key Site Manager 19
8.3 Current Occupants 19
8.4 Local Government Official 19
8.5 Other Parties 19
9.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES — NON -SCOPE ASTM CONSIDERATIONS 20
10.0 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS 21
11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22
12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT 23
13.0 ASSUMPTIONS 24
14.0 DEFINITIONS
15.0 REFERENCES
25 28
15.1 Documents, Plans and Reports 28
15.2 Personal Communications 28
15.3 Agencies Consulted 28
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Topographic Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
User Provided Information (Not Used)
Regulatory Database Report
Regulatory Agency Records
Historical Resources
Photographs
Interview Questionnaire
Qualifications
1-599
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the methods and findings of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property identified as Crossings at Peterson Road, located at 39360 Peterson Road, in the City of Rancho Mirage, California (Site) performed in conformance with the contract/agreement for this assignment and the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-21 and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) as published in 40 CFR Part 312. EPA promulgated the AAI rule that became effective in November 2006 and the EPA has indicated that the ASTM E1527-21 practice is consistent with the requirements of AAI and may be used to comply with the provisions of the AAI rule.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the ASTM E1527-21 practice (framework for this Phase I ESA) is to define good commercial and customary practice in the United States of America for conducting an ESA of a parcel of real estate with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Title 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 9601) and petroleum products. As such, this practice is intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on CERCLA liability (hereinafter, the "landowner liability protections," or "LLPs"): that is, the practice that constitutes all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial and customary practice as defined at 42 U.S.C. Section 9601(35)(B).
In defining a standard of good commercial and customary practice for conducting this Phase I ESA of the Site, the goal of the processes established by the ASTM E1527-21 practice is to identify, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions. The term recognized environmental condition is defined as (1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. In addition, controlled recognized environmental conditions, historical recognized environmental conditions and/or de minimis conditions, if identified during the completion of the assessment, are discussed herein. Definitions of these terms and other key terminology relevant to the practice are included in Section 14.0 of this report.
1.2 Scope of the Assessment
In general terms, this Phase I ESA included the acquisition of readily available/accessible and practically reviewable regulatory records and historical information, a subject property reconnaissance, interviews and preparation of this written report of findings. A more detailed description of the four primary components of the Phase I ESA is presented below.
Records Review - A review of Federal, State, Tribal and local standard ASTM and non-ASTM regulatory databases for a myriad of environmental identifiers including but not limited to properties with underground storage tanks (USTs), properties with leaking USTs, properties that have reported spills/releases that did not occur from a leaking UST, businesses that utilize hazardous materials and/or Phase I Environmental Site Assessment April 2, 2024
Crossings at Peterson Road, Rancho Mirage, California