The URL can be used to link to this page

0211-206 (RC)LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professionals Code, and my License is in full force and effect. License # Lic. Class Exp. Date 785443 B 10/31/2( Date Signature of Contractor OWNER -BUILDER DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: ( ) I, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work, and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business & Professionals Code). ( ) I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to,construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business & Professionals Code). ( ) I am exempt under Section , B&P.C. for this reason Date Signature of Owner WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: ( ) I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self -insure for workers' compensation, as provided for by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. ( ) I have and will maintain workers' compensation insurance, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier & policy no. are: Carrier SCF OF ARIZONA Policy No. 311058-3 (This section need not be completed if the permit valuation is for $100.00 or less). ( ) I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers' compensation laws of California, and agree that if I should become subject to the workers' compensation provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, I shall forthwith comply with those provisions. Date: Applicant Warning: Failure to secure Workers' Compensation coverage is unlawful and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000, in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor Code, interest and attorney's fees. IMPORTANT Application is hereby made to the Director of Building and Safety. for a permit subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth on his application. 1. Each person upon whose behalf this application is made & each person at whose request and for whose benefit work is performed under or pursuant to any permit issued as a result of this applicaton agrees to, & shall, indemnify & hold harmless the City of La Quinta, its officers, agents and employees. 2. Any permit issued as a result of this application becomes null and void if work is not commenced within 180 days from date of issuance of such permit, or cessation of work for 180 days will subject permit to cancellation. I certify that I have read this application and state that the above information is correct. I agree to comply with all City, and State laws relating to the building construction, and hereby authorize representatives of this City to enter upon the above-mentioned property for inspection purposes. Signature (Owner/Agent) Date BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT# 0211-206 DATE VALUATION LOT TRACT 515,000.00 JOB SITE ADDRESS 80..630 iR AVENUE 54 APN 772-320-006 OWNER CONTRACTOR/DESIGNER/EN (NEER ND LQP, LLC WESPAC CONSTRUCTION, INC. 81-100 AVENUE 53 9440 N. 26TH SIREET, #100 LA QUINTA CA 92253 PHOENIX AZ 85023 (602)956-1323 CBL9 3484 USE OF PERMIT COA/IlvIERCIAL REMODEL SUPPLEMENTAL TO PERMIT 0 0106.167 TO SHOW CHANGE OF OWNER/CONTRACTOR REMODEL OF 456 SF COMFORT STATION(#2) PER APPROVED PLANS. VALUATION 15.000.00 LS ESTI1dATED COST OF CONSTRUCTTON 15,000.00 PERAM FEE 3UAMARY PLAN CHECK FEE 101-000439-318 $105.00 SUPPLEMENTAL PERMIT FEE 101-000-423-000 $4.50 r SUB -TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AND PLAN CF= $109.50 LESS PRE -PAID FEES $0.00 TOTAL FERMU FEES DUE NOW $109.50 r7IIIIIII VIII III VIII IIII 21 IE RECEIPT DATE BY DATE FINALED INSPECTOR LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of F- Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and N W Professionals Code, and my License is in full force and effect. p M License # Lic. Class Exp. Date O LO785443 B 10/31/2( IrZ CE oZ r- Date Signature of Contractor - 0 ►� U � OWNER -BUILDER DECLARATION HUJ r- I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am exempt from the Contractor's U) License Law for the following reason: Z_ ( ) I, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work, and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business & Professionals Code). ( ) I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business & Professionals Code). co () I am exempt under Section , B&P.C. for this reason L N Date Signature of Owner ON 0) a Z WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLARATION o Z I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: r p () 1 have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self -insure for workers' X Llj compensation, as provided for by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the O J Q performance of the work for which this permit is issued. C0 Q I have and will maintain workers' compensation insurance, as required by O � Q Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier & policy no. are: `t Z Carrier SCF OF ARIZONA Policy No. 311058-3 co 5 r Ci Q (This section need not be completed if the permit valuation is for $100.00 or less). ( ) I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers' compensation laws of California, and agree that if I should become subject to the workers' compensation provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, I shall forthwith comply with those provisions. Date: Applicant Warning: Failure to secure Workers' Compensation coverage is unlawful and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000, in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor Code, interest and attorney's fees. IMPORTANT Application is hereby made to the Director of Building and Safety for a permit subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth on his application. 1. Each person upon whose behalf this application is made & each person at whose request and for whose benefit work is performed under or pursuant to any permit issued as a result of this applicaton agrees to, & shall, indemnify & hold harmless the City of La Quinta, its officers, agents and employees. 2. Any permit issued•as a result of this application becomes null and void if work is not commenced within 180 days from date of issuance of such permit, or cessation of work for 180 days will subject permit to cancellation. I certify that I have read this application and state that the above information is correct. I agree to comply with all City, and State laws relating to the building construction, and hereby authorize representatives of this City to enter upon the above-mentioned property for inspection purposes. Signature (Owner/Agent) Date BUILDING PERMIT PERMITH 0211-206 DATE VALUATION $15,000.00 LOT TRACT JOB SITE ADDRESS 80-6M V2 AVENUE E 54 APN ' 772-320-006 OWNER CONTRACTOR / DESIGNER / ENGINEER ND LQP, LLC WESPAC CONSTRUCTION, INC. 81-100 AVENUE 53 9440 N. 26TH ST=. #100 LAQUINTA CA 92253 PHOENIX AZ 85023 (602)956-1323 CBL# 3484 USE OF PERMIT COMMERCIAL REMODEL SUPPLEMENTAL TO PERMIT # 0106-167 TO SHOW CHANGE OF OWNER/CONTRACTORR, REMODEL OF 436 SF COMFORT STATIO14(#2) PER APPROVED PLANS. VALUATION 15,000.00 LS ESTII"TED COST OF CONSTRUCTION 15,000.00 PERAUT FEE SUAOAARY PLAN CHECK FEE 101-000439-318 1105.00 SUPPLEMENTAL PERMIT FEE 101-000-423-000 $4.50 SUB -TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AND PLAN CHECK $109.50 LESS PRE -PAID FEES $0.00 TOTAL PE10M FEES DUE NOW $109-50 I I IIIIIII VIII III VIII IIII 22 IE RECEIPT DATE BY DATE FINALED INSPECTOR a o s OF LA QUINTA RUI ®W & SAFETY DEPARTMENT coMOF rn orp 777-7012 o I CTION REQUEST LINE a v o 4 777-7153 Owner D 114P Us Z C Contract C NSRUCTION INC. Permit. Number 06 POST ON JOB IN CONSPICUOUS PLACE INSPECTOR MUST SIGN ALL APPLICABLE SPACES 80-630 1/2 AVENUE 54 JOB ADDRESS SUPPLEMENTAL TO PERMIT # 0106-167 TO SHOW CHANGE OF OWNER/CONTRACTOR. REMODEL OF 456 SF COMFORT STATION(#2) PER APPROVED PLANS. TYPE OF INSPECTION DATE INSP. TEMPORARY POWER SETBACKS U/G PLUMBING /WASTE U/G ELECTRICAL/ GROUNDING FOOTINGS / STEEL CONCRETE SLAB DO NOT POUR CONCRETE UNTIL ABOVE SIGNED ROOF NAIL / PRE-ROOF OWAY TO WRAP ING COMBINATION :. UGH ELECTRIC ROUGH PLUMBING ROUGH MECHANICAL INSULATION COVER NO WORK UNTIL ABOVE SIGNED INTERIOR GYP. BD: DRYWALL EXTERIOR LATH GAS TEST SEPTIC ABANDONMENT SEWER CONNECTION SEPTIC / GREASE INTERCEPTOR MASONRY INSPECTIONS FOOTINGS / STEEL BOND BEAM POOL / SPA / WATER FEATURE INSPECTIONS PRE-GUNITE / SETBACKS U/G PLUMBING U/G GAS U/G ELECTRICAL j PRE-PLASTER ALARMS / BARRIERS FINAL INSPECTIONS TEMP. USE OF PERMANENT POWER .. .-�` ELECTRICAL P' I IMBING. HANICAL a :i8LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT L6 a 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. FINAL / JOB COMPLETED ABOVE APPROVALS DO NOT INCLUDE RIGHT TO TURN ON UTILITIES OR OCCUPY BUILDING Earth Systems Southwest IIIIIIIIIIII 111 11111 IN 17 IE cc" SK OP�l I (to - 2(pvtz he 5l� C F .T A11c 2 5 CITY 0 -FLA aUITTA BUILDING & SAHTY DEPT. AP R 0\VI D - FOR CONSTRU" ION DATE 641BY r--�-�- fF�cE� Consulting Engineers and Geologists COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT P.O. BOX 980 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT, PHASE 1 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description...................................................................................................1 1.2 Site Description........................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work....................................................................................2 Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION.....................................................................4 2.1 Field Exploration...................................................................................................4 2.2 Laboratory Testing...................................................................................................5 Section3 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................6 3.1 Soil Conditions.................................................... .6 3.2 Groundwater........................................................................... 6 3.3 Geologic Setting ...................... ................................................................................. 6 3.4 Geologic Hazards.....................................................................................................7 3.4.1 Seismic Hazards...........................................................................................7 3.4.2 Secondary Hazards.......................................................................................8 3.4.3 Site Acceleration and UBC Seismic Coefficients........................................9 Section4 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................11 Section 5 RECOMMENDATIONS ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING.. 5.1 Site Development - Grading .............. 5.2 Excavations and Utility Trenches ...... 5.3 Slope Stability of Graded Slopes ....... STRUCTURES ............................................ 5.4 Foundations ......................................... 5.5 Slabs -on -Grade .................................. 5.6 Retaining Walls .................................. 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria ..................... 5.9 Pavements ........................................... ..................................................................12 ..................................................................12 ..................................................................12 ................................................................13 ..................................................................14 ..................................................................14 .................................................................14 ...........................----..................................15 .................................................................16 .................................................................17 .................................................................18 Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES..........................................20 6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations.............................................................20 6.2 Additional Services................................................................................................21 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................22 APPENDIX A Site Location Map Boring Location Map Table 1 Fault Parameters 1997 Uniform Building Code Seismic Parameters 2000 International Building Code Seismic Parameters Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST J 0% Earth Systems Consultants ti Southwest September 22, 2000 Country Club of the Desert P.O. Box 980 La Quinta, California 92253 Attention: Ms. Aimee Grana Project: Country Club of the Desert, Phase I La Quinta, California Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Dear Ms. Grana: 79-811 B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 We take pleasure to present this Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the proposed Phase I of the Country Club of the Desert to be located between 52nd and 54th Avenues, and Jefferson and Madison Streets in the City of La Quinta, California. This report presents our findings and recommendations for site grading and foundation design, incorporating the tentative information supplied to our office. This report should stand as a whole, and no part of the report should be excerpted or used to the exclusion of any other part. This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our agreement, dated August 22, 2000. Other services that may be required, such as plan review and grading observation are additional services and will be billed according to the Fee Schedule in effect at the time services are provided. Unless requested in writing, the client is responsible to distribute this report to the appropriate governing agency or other members of the design team. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact our office if there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations. J Respectfully submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS QRpFEssrp Southwest fi �LIy cn No. 2266 rn m Ex 6-30-04 J Shelton L. Stringer 4L G ;, `1�y °rFCx GE 2266 �%CQP TF OF CALF SER/sls/dac Distribution: 6/Country Club of the Desert J 1NTA File 2/BD File J September 22, 2000 - 1 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description This Geotechnical Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed Phase I of the Country Club of the Desert to be located between 52nd and 54th Avenues, and Jefferson and Madison Streets in the City of La Quinta, California. The project will ultimately consist of three, 18 -hole golf courses with about 766 residential units built on prepared pads. A clubhouse with parking facilities, pool, spa and driving range is proposed to be constructed at the northwestern portion of the project site. A maintenance facility will be constructed at the southwest corner of 52nd Avenue to 54th Avenue with three proposed auto or golf cart under crossings. Based on preliminary mass grading plans prepared by Dye Designs of Denver, Colorado, dated May 12, 2000, extensive mass -grading is proposed to construct the golf courses and "super" pads for the residential units. Fills as much as 20 feet are proposed at the ends of cul-de-sacs. Cuts as deep as 20 to 26 feet are proposed to construct several small lakes for the golf courses. Slopes as high as 30 to 32 feet with 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slopes are proposed. Overall, in excess of 4,000,000 cubic yards of earthwork is anticipated. The proposed clubhouse and residences are assumed to be one-story structures. We anticipate that the proposed structures will be of wood -frame construction and will be supported by conventional shallow continuous or pad footings. Site development will include mass grading, "super" building pad preparation, underground utility installation, street and parking lot construction, and golf course development. We used maximum column loads of 50 kips and a maximum wall loading of 3 kips per linear foot as a basis for the foundation recommendations for residences and the clubhouse. All loading is assumed to be dead plus actual live load. If actual structural loading is to exceed these assumed values, we might need to reevaluate the given recommendations. 1.2 Site Description The entire project site consists of approximately 900 acres of land consisting of most of Section 9, and the southern half and the western 80 -acres of the northern half Section 10, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino baseline and meridian (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The site is irregular in shape, and generally bounded by Jefferson Street and the Coachella (All American) Canal to the west, Avenue 52 to the north, agricultural properties and Monroe Street to the east and Avenue 54 to the south. The site is a mixture of undeveloped desert land, agricultural land, and ranches. The topography of the site was moderately undulating to flat. Artificial ponds are located in several portions of the site. No other significant surface drainage features were observed. The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 22 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to 29 feet below MSL. The project site consists primarily of formerly agricultural and undeveloped land associated with JEARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST i September 22, 2000 - 2 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 former ranches on the property. The Fowler Packing Ranch and the vineyards on the Majestic Property are the only two areas currently in use for agriculture as of the date of this report. Debris was observed in several portions of the project site. The debris appeared to consist �l primarily of green waste. Most of the debris appeared to be quite old, except for the material in the dry pond in the northeastern portion of the site, or the material actively being dumped by Arid Zone Farms Nursery in the western portion of the site. The vicinity around the site consists primarily of a mix of undeveloped, residential, and agricultural properties, with the All American Coachella Canal bordering the site to the northwest. Residences were associated with some of the agricultural land. There are underground and overhead utilities near and within the development area. These utility lines include but are not limited to domestic water, electric, sewer, and irrigation lines. Evidence j of an underground irrigation distribution system was observed in several portions of the site, including both onsite and regional distribution pipelines. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose for our services was to evaluate the site soil conditions and to provide professional opinions and recommendations regarding the proposed development of the site. The scope of work included the following: ➢ A general reconnaissance of the site. ➢ Shallow subsurface exploration by drilling 24 exploratory borings and four cone penetrometer (CPT) soundings to depths ranging from 31.5 to 50 feet. ➢ Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings. ➢ Review of selected published technical literature pertaining to the site and previous geotechnical reports prepared for prior conceptual developments for the properties conducted by Buena Engineers in 1989 and 1990. ➢ Engineering analysis and evaluation of the acquired data from the exploration and testing programs. ➢ A summary of our findings and recommendations in this written report. This report contains the following: ➢ Discussions on subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. 1 ➢ Discussions on regional and local geologic conditions. ➢ Discussions on geologic and seismic hazards. ➢ Graphic and tabulated results of laboratory tests and field studies. J ➢ Recommendations regarding: • Site development and grading criteria, • Excavation conditions and buried utility installations, J • Structure foundation type and design, • Allowable foundation bearing capacity and expected total and differential settlements, • Concrete slabs -on -grade, j • Lateral earth pressures and coefficients, J • Mitigation of the potential corrosivity of site soils to concrete and steel reinforcement, EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 -3 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 • Seismic design parameters, • Pavement structural sections. Not Contained In This Report: Although available through Earth Systems Consultants Southwest, the current scope of our services does not include: ➢ A corrosive study to determine cathodic protection of concrete or buried pipes. ➢ An environmental assessment. ➢ Investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property. ➢ Separate Phase I and Phase II Environment Site Assessment reports have been prepared by Earth Systems Consultants Southwest in 1998, 1999, and 2000. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST J J September 22, 2000 - 4 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Field Exploration Sail Borin-gs: Twenty-four exploratory borings were drilled to depths of about 31.5 feet below the existing ground surface to observe the soil profile and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. The borings were drilled on August 18 and 23, using 8 -inch outside diameter hollow - stem augers, and powered by a Mobile B61 truck -mounted drilling rig. The boring locations are shown on the boring location map, Figure 2, in Appendix A. The locations shown are approximate, established by pacing and sighting from existing topographic features. Samples were obtained within the test borings using a Standard Penetration (SPT) sampler (ASTM D 1586) and a Modified California (MC) ring sampler (ASTM D 3550 with shoe similar to ASTM D 1586). The SPT sampler has a 2 -inch outside diameter and a 1.38 -inch inside diameter. The MC sampler has a 3 -inch outside diameter and a 2.37 -inch inside diameter. The samples were obtained by driving the sampler with a 140 -pound downhole hammer dropping 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. Recovered soil samples were sealed in containers and returned to the laboratory. Bulk samples were also obtained from auger cuttings, representing a mixture of soils encountered at the depths noted. The final logs of the borings represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and the results of laboratory testing performed on the samples obtained during the subsurface investigation. The final logs are included in Appendix A of this report. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types although the transitions, however, may be gradational. CPT Soundings: Subsurface exploration was supplemented on August 28, 2000, using Fugro, Inc. of Santa Fe Springs, California to advance four electric cone penetrometer (CPT) soundings to an approximate depth of 50 feet. The soundings were made at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Figure 2, in Appendix A. CPT soundings provide a nearly continuous profile of the soil stratigraphy with readings every 5 cm (2 inch) in depth. Direct sampling for visual and physical confirmation of soil properties is generally recommended with CPT exploration in large geographical regions. The author of this report has generally confirmed accuracy of CPT interpretations from extensive work at numerous Imperial and Coachella Valley sites. The CPT exploration was conducted by hydraulically advancing an instrument 10 cm2 conical probe into the ground at a ground rate of 2 cm per second using a 23 -ton truck as a reaction mass. An electronic data acquisition system recorded a nearly continuous log of the resistance of the soil against the cone tip (Qc) and soil friction against the cone sleeve (Fs) as the probe was advanced. Empirical relationships (Robertson and Campanella, 1989) were applied to the data to give a nearly continuous profile of the soil stratigraphy. Interpretation of CPT data provides correlations for SPT blow count, phi (0) angle (soil friction angle), ultimate shear strength (Su) of clays, and soil type. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 - 5 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Interpretive logs of the CPT soundings are presented in Appendix A of this report. The stratification lines shown on the subsurface logs represent the approximate boundaries between the various strata. However, the transition from one stratum to another may be gradational. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Samples were reviewed along with field logs to select those that would be analyzed further. Those selected for laboratory testing include soils that would be exposed and used during grading, and those deemed to be within the influence of the proposed structure. Test results are presented in graphic and tabular form in Appendix B of this report. The tests were conducted in general accordance with the procedures of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other standardized methods as referenced below. Our testing program consisted of the following: } ➢ In-situ Moisture Content and Unit Dry Weight for the ring samples (ASTM D 2937). J i I ➢ Maximum density tests were performed to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of typical soils encountered (ASTM D 1557-91). ➢ Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422) to classify and evaluate soil composition. The gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by hydrometer and sieve analysis procedures. ➢ Consolidation (Collapse Potential) (ASTM D 2435 and D5333) to evaluate the compressibility and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential of the soil. ➢ Liquid and Plastic Limits tests to evaluate the plasticity and expansive nature of clayey soils. ➢ Chemical Analyses (Soluble Sulfates & Chlorides, pH, and Electrical Resistivity) to evaluate the potential adverse effects of the soil on concrete and steel. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 - 6 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Section 3 DISCUSSION rl 3.1 Soil Conditions The field exploration indicates that site soils consist primarily of an upper layer of silty sand to sandy silt soils (Unified Soil Classification Symbols of SM and ML). These soils are loose to medium dense. At depths greater than 5 feet, layers of clayey silt soils and some layers of sand were encountered. The boring and CPT logs provided in Appendix A include more detailed descriptions of the soils 1 encountered. The upper soils are visually classified to be in the very low expansion category in J accordance with Table 18A -I -B of the Uniform Building Code. Clayey silt soils are expected to be in the low expansion category. In and climatic regions, granular soils may have a potential to collapse upon wetting. Collapse (hydroconsolidation) may occur when the soluble cements (carbonates) in the soil matrix dissolve, causing the soil to densify from its loose configuration from deposition. Consolidation tests indicate 1 to 3% collapse upon inundation and is considered a slight to moderate site risk. The hydroconsolidation potential is commonly mitigated by recompaction of a zone beneath building pads. The site lies within a recognized blow sand hazard area. Fine particulate matter (PM10) can create an air quality hazard if dust is blowing. Watering the surface, planting grass or landscaping, or hardscape normally mitigates this hazard. 3.2 Groundwater Free groundwater was not encountered in the borings or CPT soundings during exploration. The depth to groundwater in the area is believed to be about 69 feet based on 1999 water well data obtained for the well near the former Colchest Ranch house from the Coachella Valley Water District. Groundwater levels may fluctuate with, irrigation, drainage, regional pumping from wells, and site grading. The development of perched groundwater is possible over clayey soil layers with heavy irrigation. 3.3 Geologic Setting J Regional Geology_: The site lies within the Coachella Valley, a part of the Colorado Desert geomorphic province. A significant feature within the Colorado Desert geomorphic province is the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is a large northwest -trending structural depression that J extends from San Gorgonio Pass, approximately 180 miles to the Gulf of California. Much of this depression in the area of the Salton Sea is below sea level. The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton Trough. The Coachella Valley Jcontains a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits that are Miocene to recent in age. Mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the northeast, foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 - 7 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 i Mesozoic granitic rocks. The San Andreas Fault zone within the Coachella Valley consists of the Garnet Hill Fault, the Banning Fault, and the Mission Creek Fault that traverse along the northeast margin of the valley. l Local Geotoy: The project site is located within the lower portion of the Coachella Valley. The r upper sediments within the lower valley consist of fine to coarse-grained sands with interbedded clays and silts, of aeolian (wind-blown), and alluvial (water -laid) origin. 3.4 Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards that may affect the region include seismic hazards (surface fault rupture, ground shaking, soil liquefaction, and other secondary earthquake -related hazards), slope instability, flooding, ground subsidence, and erosion. A discussion follows on the specific hazards to this site. 3.4.1 Seismic Hazards Seismic Sources: Our research of regional faulting indicates that several active faults or seismic zones lie within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the project site as shown on Table 1 in Appendix A. The primary seismic hazard to the site is strong groundshaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. The Maximum Magnitude Earthquake (Morar) listed is from published geologic information available for each fault (CDMG, 1996). The Morar corresponds to the maximum earthquake believed to be tectonically possible. Surface Fault Rupture: The project site does not lie within a currently delineated State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1994). Well -delineated fault lines cross through this region as shown on California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) maps (Jennings, 1994). Therefore, active fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site. While fault rupture would most likely occur along previously established fault traces, future fault rupture could occur at other locations. Historic Seismicity: Six historic seismic events (5.9 M or greater) have significantly affected the Coachella Valley this century. They are as follows: • Desert Hot Springs Earthquake - On December 4, 1948, a magnitude 6.5 ML (6.OMw) earthquake occurred east of Desert Hot Springs. This event was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area. • Palm Springs Earthquake - A magnitude 5.9 ML (6.2MW) earthquake occurred on July 8, 1986 in the Painted Hills causing minor surface creep of the Banning segment of the San Andreas Fault. This Jevent was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area and caused structural damage, as well as injuries. • Joshua Tree Earthquake - On April 22, 1992, a magnitude 6.1 ML (6.1MW) earthquake occurred in the mountains 9 miles east of Desert Hot Springs. Structural damage and minor injuries occurred in Jthe Palm Springs area as a result of this earthquake. • Landers & Big Bear Earthquakes - Early on June 28, 1992, a magnitude 7.5 Ms (7.3MW) earthquake occurred near Landers, the largest seismic event in Southern California for 40 years. Surface rupture ` occurred just south of the town of Yucca Valley and extended some 43 miles toward Barstow. About I three hours later, a magnitude 6.6 Ms (6.4MW) earthquake occurred near Big Bear Lake. No significant structural damage from these earthquakes was reported in the Palm Springs area. .J EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 - 8 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 I • Hector Mine Earthquake - On October 16, 1999, a magnitude 7.1Mw earthquake occurred on the Lavic Lake and Bullion Mountain Faults north of 29 Palms. This event while widely felt, no significant structural damage' has been reported in the Coachella Valley. Seismic Risk: While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, various agencies have j conducted statistical risk analyses. In 1996, the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed the latest generation of probabilistic seismic hazard maps for use in the 1997 UBC. We have used these maps in our evaluation of the seismic risk at the site. The Working Group of California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 1995) estimated a 22% conditional probability that a magnitude 7 or greater earthquake may occur between 1994 to 2024 along the Coachella segment of the San 1 Andreas Fault. The primary seismic risk at the site is a potential earthquake along the San Andreas Fault. Geologists believe that the San Andreas Fault has characteristic earthquakes that result from rupture of each fault segment. The estimated characteristic earthquake is magnitude 7.4 for the Southern Segment of the fault. This segment has the longest elapsed time since rupture than any other portion of the San Andreas Fault. The last rupture occurred about 1690 AD, based on dating by the USGS near Indio (WGCEP, 1995). This segment has also ruptured on about 1020, 1300, and 1450 AD, with an average recurrence interval of about 220 years. The San Andreas Fault may rupture in multiple segments producing a higher magnitude earthquake. Recent paleoseismic studies suggest that the San Bernardino Mountain Segment to the north and the 1 Coachella Segment may have both ruptured together in 1450 and 1690 AD (WGCEP, 1995). 3.4.2 Secondary Hazards Secondary seismic hazards related to ground shaking include soil liquefaction, ground deformation, areal subsidence, tsunamis, and seiches. The site is far inland so the hazard from tsunamis is non-existent. At the present time, no water storage reservoirs are located in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, hazards from seiches are considered negligible at this time. Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sudden shock (usually earthquake shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. In general, for the effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the surface, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface and the soils within the saturated zone must also be susceptible to liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction to occur at this site is considered low because the depth of 1 groundwater beneath the site exceeds 50 feet. No free groundwater was encountered in our J exploratory borings or CPT Soundings. Only the extreme southeastern part of the Phase 1 area lies within the Riverside County liquefaction study zone. Ground Deformation and Subsidence: Non -tectonic ground deformation consists of cracking of the ground with little to no displacement. This type of deformation is generally associated with differential shaking of two or more geologic units with differing engineering characteristics. Ground deformation may also be caused by liquefaction. As the site is relatively flat with consistent geologic material, and has a low potential for liquefaction, the potential for ground Jdeformation is also considered to be low. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 - 9 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 '-1 1 The potential for seismically induced ground subsidence is considered to be moderate at the site. _ Dry sands tend to settle and densify when subjected to strong earthquake shaking. The amount of 1 subsidence is dependent on relative density of the soil, groundshaking (cyclic shear strain), and s earthquake duration (number of strain cycles). Uncompacted fill areas may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement. Slope Instability: The site is currently relatively flat. Mass -grading will reshape the topography so that slopes are as high as 20 to 30 feet with up to 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) inclination will exist. Therefore, potential hazards from slope instability, landslides, or debris flows are considered negligible to low. Flooding: The project site does not lie within a designated FEMA 100 -year flood plane. The project site may be in an area where sheet flooding and erosion (especially on slopes) could occur. Significant grade changes are proposed for the site. Appropriate project design, construction, and maintenance can minimize the site sheet flooding potential. 3.4.3 Site Acceleration and UBC Seismic Coefficients Site Acceleration: The potential intensity of ground motion may be estimated the horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA), measured in "g" forces. Included in Table 1 are deterministic estimates of site acceleration from possible earthquakes at nearby faults. Ground motions are dependent primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the seismogenic (rupture) zone. Accelerations also are dependent upon attenuation by rock and soil deposits, direction of rupture, and type of fault. For these reasons, ground motions may vary considerably in the same general area. This variability can be expressed statistically by a standard deviation about a mean relationship. The PGA is an inconsistent scaling factor to compare to the UBC Z factor and is generally a poor indicator of potential structural damage during an earthquake. Important factors influencing the structural performance are the duration and frequency of strong ground motion, local subsurface conditions, soil -structure interaction, and structural details. Because of these factors, an effective peak acceleration (EPA) is used in structural design. The following table provides the probabilistic estimate of the PGA and EPA taken from the l 1996 CDMG/USGS seismic hazard maps. J J JEARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST I September 22, 2000 -10- -1 10- -1 Estimate of PGA and EPA from 1996 CDMG/USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Mans File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Risk Equivalent Return Period (years) -T PGA (g) ' Approximate EPA () z 10% exceedance in 50 years 475 0.49 0.45 Notes: 1. Based on a soft rock site, SBic and soil amplification factor of 1.0 for Soil Profile Type Sp. 2. Spectral acceleration (SA) at period of 0.3 seconds divided by 2.5 for 5% damping, as defined by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 1996). 1997 UBC Seismic Coefficients: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design are based on a Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) that has an earthquake ground motion with a 10% probability of occurrence in 50 years. The PGA and EPA estimates given above are provided for information on the seismic risk inherent in the UBC design. The following lists the seismic and site coefficients given in Chapter 16 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). 1997 UBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter 16 Seismic Provisions J Seismic ZoninS: The Seismic Safety Element of the 1984 Riverside County General Plan establishes groundshaking hazard zones. The majority of the project area is mapped in Ground l Shaking Zone IIB. Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance from causative faults and J underlying soil types. The site does not lie within the Liquefaction Hazard area established by this Seismic Safety Element. These groundshaking hazard zones are used in deciding suitability Jof land use. 2000 IBC Seismic Coefficients: For comparative purposes, the newly released 2000 JInternational Building Code (IBC) seismic and site coefficients are given in Appendix A. As of the issuance of this report, we are unaware when governing jurisdictions may adopt or modify the IBC provisions. _J EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST A Reference Seismic Zone: 4 Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone Factor, Z: 0.4 Table 16-I Soil Profile Type: SD Table 16-J Seismic Source Type: A Table 16-U Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source: 9.8 km = 6.1 miles (San Andreas Fault) Near Source Factor, Na: 1.01 Table 16-S Near Source Factor, Nv: 1.22 Table 16-T Seismic Coefficient, Ca: 0.44 = 0.44Na Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv: 0.78 = 0.64Nv Table 16-R J Seismic ZoninS: The Seismic Safety Element of the 1984 Riverside County General Plan establishes groundshaking hazard zones. The majority of the project area is mapped in Ground l Shaking Zone IIB. Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance from causative faults and J underlying soil types. The site does not lie within the Liquefaction Hazard area established by this Seismic Safety Element. These groundshaking hazard zones are used in deciding suitability Jof land use. 2000 IBC Seismic Coefficients: For comparative purposes, the newly released 2000 JInternational Building Code (IBC) seismic and site coefficients are given in Appendix A. As of the issuance of this report, we are unaware when governing jurisdictions may adopt or modify the IBC provisions. _J EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST A 7 September 22, 2000 - 11 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Section 4 CONCLUSIONS 1 The following is a summary of our conclusions and professional opinions based on the data obtained from a review of selected technical literature and the site evaluation. ➢ The primary geologic hazard relative to site development is severe ground shaking from earthquakes originating on nearby faults. In our opinion, a major seismic event originating on the _local segment of the San Andreas Fault zone would be the most likely cause of significant earthquake activity at the site within the estimated design life of the proposed development. ➢ The project site is in seismic Zone 4 as defined in the Uniform Building Code. A qualified professional who is aware of the site seismic setting should design any } permanent structure constructed on the site. ➢ Ground subsidence from seismic events or hydroconsolidation is a potential hazard in the Coachella Valley area. Adherence to the following grading and structural recommendations should reduce potential settlement problems from seismic forces, heavy rainfall or irrigation, flooding, and the weight of the intended structures. ➢ The soils are susceptible to wind and water erosion. Preventative measures to minimize seasonal flooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans. Dust control should also be implemented during construction. ➢ Other geologic hazards including ground rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced flooding, and landslides are considered low or negligible on this site. ➢ The upper soils were found to be relatively loose to medium dense silty sand to sandy silt overlying layers of clayey soils. In our opinion, the soils within building and structural areas will require over excavation and recompaction to improve bearing capacity and _ reduce settlement from static loading. Soils should be readily cut by normal grading equipment. ➢ Earth Systems Consultants Southwest (ESCSW) should provide geotechnical engineering services during project design, site development, excavation, grading, and foundation construction phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. ➢ Plans and specifications should be provided to ESCSW prior to grading. Plans should J include the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation details. Preferably, structural loads should be shown on the foundation plans. J i JEARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 - 12- File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Section 5 RECOMMENDATIONS SITE DEVELOPiNIENT AND GRADING 5.1 Site Development - Grading A representative of ESCSW should observe site grading and the bottom of excavations prior to placing fill. Local variations in soil conditions may warrant increasing the depth of recompaction and over -excavation. 1 Clearing and Grubbing: Prior to site grading existing vegetation, trees, large roots, old structure, J foundations, uncompacted fill, construction debris, trash, and abandoned underground utilities should be removed from the proposed building, structural, and pavement areas. The surface should be stripped of organic growth and removed from the construction area. Areas disturbed during demolition and clearing should be properly backfilled and compacted as described below. Non-structural (golf course) areas may be used as disposal areas for resulting debris as designated clearly on grading plans and approved by project owner, engineers and governing jurisdictions. Building Pad Preparation: Because of the non-uniform and under -compacted nature of the site soils, we recommend recompaction of soils in the building and structural areas. The existing surface soils within the building pad and structural areas should be over -excavated to 30 inches below existing grade or a minimum of 24 inches below the footing level (whichever is lower). The over -excavation should extend for 5 feet beyond the outer edge of exterior footings. The bottom of the sub -excavation should be scarified; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 90 % relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) for an additional depth of 12 inches. Moisture penetration to near optimum moisture should extend at least 5 feet below existing grade and be verified by testing. These recommendations are intended to provide a minimum of 48 and 36 inches of moisture conditioned and compacted soil beneath the floor slabs and footings, respectively. Auxilim Structure Sub de Preparation: Auxiliary structures such as garden or retaining walls should have the subgrade prepared similar to the building pad preparation recommendation given above. Except the lateral extent of the overexcavation need only to extend 2 feet beyond the face of the footing. y Settlement Monitors: In areas where fill depths are greater than 10 feet above existing grade, we J recommend the placement of settlement monitors (one for each general area) to monitor the post - grading settlement of the fill and underlying soils. Compression of the deep seated clayey soil may occur after grading, but is expected to stabilize relatively soon thereafter. Monitoring allows the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the movement (if any) and its potential impact on construction. _J Subgrade Preparation: In areas to receive non-structural fill, pavements, or hardscape, the ground surface should be scarified; moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90% relative J compaction (ASTM D 1557) for a depth of 24 inches below subgrade. Compaction should be verified by testing. JEARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 - 13 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Engineered Fill Soils: The native sand, silty sand, and sandy silt soil is suitable for use as engineered fill and utility trench backfill. The native soil should be placed in maximum 8 -inch lifts (loose) and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near its optimum moisture content. Compaction should be verified by testing. Clayey silt soils where encountered at depths generally below 8 -foot depth are less desirable soils and should not be placed within the upper 3 feet of finished subgrades for building pads or �i streets. i Imported fill soils (if required) should be non -expansive, granular soils meeting the USCS classifications of SM, SP -SM, or SW -SM with a maximum rock size of 3 inches and 5 to 35% passing the No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the import fill soils before hauling to the site. However, because of the potential variations within the borrow -� source, import soil will not prequalified by ESCSW. The imported fill should be placed in lifts jno greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near optimum moisture content. Shrinkage: The shrinkage factor for earthwork is expected to variably range from 5 to 20 percent for the majority of the excavated or scarified soils, but in the clayey soils and upper 4 feet of some areas it may range from 25 to 50%. This estimate is based on compactive effort to achieve an average relative compaction of about 92% and may vary with contractor methods. Subsidence is estimated to range from 0.1 to 0.3 feet. Losses from site clearing and removal of existing site improvements may affect earthwork quantity calculations and should be considered. Site Drainage: Positive drainage should be maintained away from the structures (5% for 5 feet minimum) to prevent ponding and subsequent saturation of the foundation soils. Gutters and downspouts should be considered as a means to convey water away from foundations if adequate drainage is not provided. Drainage should be maintained for paved areas. Water should not pond on or near paved areas. 5.2 Excavations and Utility Trenches 1 Excavations should be made in accordance with CaIOSHA requirements. Our site exploration and knowledge of the general area indicates there is a potential for caving of site excavations } (utilities, footings, etc.). Excavations within sandy soil should be kept moist, but not saturated, to reduce the potential of caving or sloughing. Where deep excavations over 4 feet deep are planned, lateral bracing or appropriate cut slopes of 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) should be provided. No surcharge loads from stockpiled soils or construction materials should be allowed within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope, equal to the depth of the excavation. JUtility Trenches: Backfill of utilities within road or public right-of-ways should be placed in conformance with the requirements of the governing agency (water district, public works --�' department, etc.) Utility trench backfill within private property should be placed in conformance with the provisions of this report. In general, service lines extending inside of property may be J backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Backfill operations should be observed and tested to monitor compliance with these recommendations. JEARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 7 September 22, 2000 - 14 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 i 5.3 Slope Stability of Graded Slopes Unprotected, permanent graded slopes should not be steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) to reduce wind and rain erosion. Protected slopes with ground cover may be as steep as 2:1. However, maintenance with motorized equipment may not be possible at this inclination. Fill ri slopes should be overfilled and trimmed back to competent material. Where slopes heights exceed 20 feet, with 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) slopes, post -construction engineering calculations should be performed to evaluate the stability using shear strength values obtained from soils composing the slopes. Erosion control measures should be considered for slopes steeper than 3:1 until the final ground cover (i.e., grass turf) is established. STRUCTURES In our professional opinion, the structure foundation can be supported on shallow foundations bearing on a zone of properly prepared and compacted soils placed as recommended in Section 5.1. The recommendations that follow are based on very low expansion category soils with the upper 3 feet of subgrade. 5.4 Foundations Footing design of widths, depths, and reinforcing are the responsibility of the Structural Engineer, considering the structural loading and the geotechnical parameters given in this report. A minimum footing depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade should be maintained. A representative of ESCSW should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Any loose soil or construction debris should be removed from footing excavations prior to placement of concrete. Conventional S read Foundations: Allowable soil bearing pressures are given below for foundations bearing on recompacted soils as described in Section 5.1. Allowable bearing pressures are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be neglected). ➢ Continuous wall foundations, 12 -inch minimum width and 12 inches below grade: 1500 psf for dead plus design live loads Allowable increases of 300 psf per each foot of additional footing width and 300 psf for each additional 0.5 foot of footing depth may be used up to a maximum value of 3000 psf. ➢ Isolated pad foundations, 2 x 2 foot minimum in plan and 18 inches below grade: 2000 psf for dead plus design live loads Allowable increases of 200 psf per each foot of additional footing width and 400 psf for each additional 0.5 foot of footing depth may be used up to a maximum value of 3000 psf. JA one-third (1/3) increase in the bearing pressure may be used when calculating resistance to wind or seismic loads. The allowable bearing values indicated are based on the anticipated J maximum loads stated in Section 1.1 of this report. If the anticipated loads exceed these values, the geotechnical engineer must reevaluate the allowable bearing values and the grading requirements. J JEARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 - 15 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 ! Minimum reinforcement for continuous wall footings should be two, No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, placed near the top and the bottom of the footing. This reinforcing is not intended to supersede any structural requirements provided by the structural engineer. Expected Settlement: Estimated total static settlement, based on footings founded on firm soils as recommended, should be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement between exterior and interior bearing members should be less than 1/2 -inch. Frictional and Lateral Coefficients: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on the base of foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation walls. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 of dead load may be used. An allowable passive equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf may also be used. These values include a factor of safety of 1.5. Passive resistance and frictional resistance may be used in combination if the friction coefficient is reduced to 0.23 of dead load forces. A one-third (1/3) increase in the passive pressure may be used when calculating resistance to wind or seismic loads. Lateral passive resistance is based on s the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations is properly compacted. 5.5 Slabs -on -Grade Subgrade: Concrete slabs -on -grade and flatwork should be supported by compacted soil placed in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report. Vapor Barrier: In areas of moisture sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor barrier should be installed to reduce moisture transmission from the subgrade soil to the slab. For these areas an impermeable membrane (10 -mil moisture barrier) should underlie the floor slabs. The membrane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to help protect it during construction and to aide in concrete curing. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete. Low -slump concrete should be used to help reduce the potential for concrete shrinkage. The effectiveness of the moisture barrier is dependent upon its quality, method of overlapping, its protection during construction, and the successful sealing of the barrier around utility lines. ` Slab thickness and reinforcement: Slab thickness and reinforcement of slab -on -grade are contingent on the recommendations of the structural engineer or architect and the expansion index of the supporting soil. Based upon our findings, a modulus of subgrade reaction of approximately 200 pounds per cubic inch can be used in concrete slab design for the expected very low expansion subgrade. Concrete slabs and flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. We suggest that the `J concrete slabs be reinforced, as specified by the project structural engineer, to resist cracking. Concrete floor slabs may either be monolithically placed with the foundations or doweled after J footing placement. The thickness and reinforcing given are not intended to supersede any structural requirements provided by the structural engineer. The project architect or geotechnical engineer should observe all reinforcing steel in slabs during placement of concrete to check for 1 proper location within the slab. Control Joints: Control joints should be provided in all concrete slabs -on -grade at a maximum J spacing of 36 times the slab thickness (12 feet maximum on -center, each way) as recommended by American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. All joints should form approximately square - I EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 - 16- File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 patterns to reduce the potential for randomly oriented, contraction cracks. Contraction joints in the slabs should be tooled at the time of the pour or saw cut (1/4 of slab depth) within 8 hours of �1 concrete placement. Construction (cold) joints should consist of thickened butt joints with one- half inch dowels at 18 -inches on center or a thickened keyed joint to resist vertical deflection at the joint. All construction joints in exterior flatwork should be sealed to reduce the potential of moisture or foreign material intrusion. These procedures will reduce the potential for randomly oriented cracks, but may not prevent them from occurring. Curing and uali Control: The contractor should take precautions to reduce the potential of ' curling of slabs in this and desert region using proper batching, placement, and curing methods. Curing is highly effected by temperature, wind, and humidity. Quality control procedures may be used including trial batch mix designs, batch plant inspection, and on-site special inspection and testing. Typically, for this type of construction and using 2500 -psi concrete, many of these 1 quality control procedures are not required. 5.6 Retaining Walls The following table presents lateral earth pressures for use in retaining wall design. The values are given as equivalent fluid pressures without surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressure. Lateral Pressures and Sliding Resistance 1 Granular Backfill Passive Pressure 375 pcf -level ground Active Pressure (cantilever walls) 35 pcf - level ground Able to rotate 0.1 % of structure height At -Rest Pressure (restrained walls) 55 pcf - level ground Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure 2 Acting at mid height of structure, 25H psf Where H is height of backfill in feet Base Lateral Sliding Resistance Dead load x Coefficient of Friction: 0.50 Notes: 1. These values are ultimate values. A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used in stability analysis except for dynamic earth pressure where a factor of safety of 1.2 is acceptable. 2. Dynamic pressures are based on the Mononobe-Okabe 1929 method, additive to active earth pressure. Walls retaining less than 6 feet of soil need not consider this increased pressure. Upward sloping backfill or surcharge loads from nearby footings can create larger lateral pressures. Should any walls be considered for retaining sloped backfill or placed next to foundations, our office should be contacted for recommended design parameters. Surcharge J loads should be considered if they exist within a zone between the face of the wall and a plane projected 45 degrees upward from the base of the wall. The increase in lateral earth pressure should be taken as 35% of the surcharge load within this zone. Retaining walls subjected to traffic loads should include a uniform surcharge load equivalent to at least 2 feet of native soil. Drainage: A backdrain or an equivalent system of backfill drainage should be incorporated into J the retaining wall design. Our firm can provide construction details when the specific application is determined. Backfill immediately behind the retaining structure should be a free -draining EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST _.l September 22, 2000 - 17- File No.: 07117-10 l 00-09-772 1 granular material. Waterproofing should be according to the Architect's specifications. Water should not be allowed to pond near the top of the wall. To accomplish this, the final backfill r� grade should be such that all water is diverted away from the retaining wall. Backfill Compaction: Compaction on the retained side of the wall within a horizontal distance equal to one wall height should be performed by hand -operated or other lightweight compaction equipment. This is intended to reduce potential locked -in lateral pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading equipment. Footing Subgrade Pre aration: The subgrade for footings should be prepared according to the auxiliary structure subgrade preparation given in Section 5.1. 5.7 Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete Selected chemical analyses for corrosivity were conducted on samples at the low chloride ion concentration. Sulfate ions can attack the cementitious material in concrete, causing weakening of the cement matrix and eventual deterioration by raveling. Chloride ions can cause corrosion of reinforcing steel. The Uniform Building Code does not require any special provisions for ' concrete for these low concentrations as tested. However, excavated soils from mass -grading may have higher sulfate and chloride ion concentrations. Additional soil chemical testing should be conducted on the building pad soils after mass -grading. A minimum concrete cover of three (3) inches should be provided around steel reinforcing or embedded components exposed to native soil or landscape water (to 18 inches above grade). Additionally, the concrete should be thoroughly vibrated during placement. Electrical resistivity testing of the soil suggests that the site soils may present a moderately severe potential for metal loss from electrochemical corrosion processes. Corrosion protection of steel can be achieved by using epoxy corrosion inhibitors, asphalt coatings, cathodic protection, or encapsulating with densely consolidated concrete. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted regarding mitigation of the corrosive effects of site soils on metals. 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria This site is subject to strong ground shaking due to potential fault movements along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. Engineered design and earthquake -resistant construction increase safety and allow development of seismic areas. The minimum seismic design should comply with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 using the `I seismic coefficients given in Section 3.4.3 of this report. The UBC seismic coefficients are based on scientific knowledge, engineering judgment, and compromise. Factors that play an important role in dynamic structural performance are: _ J (1) Effective peak acceleration (EPA), (2) Duration and predominant frequency of strong ground motion, I (3) Period of motion of the structure, (4) Soil -structure interaction, EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 7 j September 22, 2000 - 18 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 (5) Total resistance capacity of the system, (6) Redundancies, r (7) Inelastic load -deformation behavior, and 1 (8) Modification of damping and effective period as structures behave inelastically. Factors 5 to 8 are included in the structural ductility factor (R) that is used in deriving a reduced value for design base shear. If further information on seismic design is needed, a site-specific probabilistic seismic analysis should be conducted. The intent of the UBC lateral force requirements is to provide a structural design that will resist collapse to provide reasonable life safety from a major earthquake, but may experience some structural and nonstructural damage. A fundamental tenet of seismic design is that inelastic yielding is allowed to adapt to the seismic demand on the structure. In other words, damage is allowed. The UBC lateral force requirements should be considered a minimum design. The owner and the designer should evaluate the level of risk and performance that is acceptable. Performance based criteria could be set in the design. The design engineer has the responsibility to interpret and adapt the principles of seismic behavior and design to each structure using experience and sound judgment. The design engineer should exercise special care so that all components of the design are all fully met with attention to providing a continuous load path. An adequate quality assurance and control program is urged during project construction to verify that the design plans and good construction practices are followed. This is especially important for sites lying close to the major seismic sources. 5.9 Pavements _ Since no traffic loading were provided by the design engineer or owner, we have assumed traffic loading for comparative evaluation. The design engineer or owner should decide the appropriate traffic conditions for the pavements. Maintenance of proper drainage is necessary to prolong the service life of the pavements. Water should not pond on or near paved areas. The following table provides our recommendations for pavement sections. J J EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 1 l September 22, 2000 _19 - RECOMMENDED 19 - RECOMMENDED PAVEMENTS SECTIONS R -Value Sub -grade Soils - 40 (assumed) File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Design Method — CALTRANS 1995 Traffic Index (Assumed) Pavement Use Flexible Pavements Rigid Pavements Asphaltic Aggregate Concrete Base Thickness Thickness (Inches) (Inches) Portland Cement Concrete (Inches) Aggregate Base Thickness (Inches) 4.0 Auto Parkin Areas 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Residential Streets 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.5 Collector Road 3.5 6.5 --- --- 7.5 Secondary Road 4.5 7.0 --- Notes: 1. Asphaltic concrete should be Caltrans, Type B, 1/2 -in. or 3/4 -in. maximum -medium grading and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the 75 -blow Marshall density (ASTM D 1559) or equivalent. 2. Aggregate base should be Caltrans Class 2 (3/4 in. maximum) and compacted to a minimum of I95% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture. 3. All pavements should be placed on 12 inches of moisture -conditioned subgrade, compacted to a minimum of 90% of ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture. 1 4. Portland cement concrete should have a minimum of 3250 psi compressive strength @ 28 days. J 5. Equivalent Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) may be used instead of Caltrans specifications for asphaltic concrete and aggregate base. J J JEARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST J J September 22, 2000 -20- Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES 6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, our findings and recommendations are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. Variations in soil or groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our recommendations. Findings of this report are valid as of the issued date of the report. However, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they are from natural processes or works of man on this or adjoining properties. In addition, changes in applicable standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, 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 one year. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner, or the owner's representative, has the responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project so that they are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. The owner, or the owner's representative, also has the responsibility to take the necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors follow such recommendations. It is further understood that the owner or the owner's representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. As the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project, Earth Systems Consultants Southwest (ESCSW) has striven to provide our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time. No warranty or guarantee is express or implied. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and the Client's authorized agents. ESCSW should be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If ESCSW is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. Although available through ESCSW, the current scope of our services does not include an environmental assessment, or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 - 21 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 6.2 Additional Services This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program of client consultation, construction monitoring, and testing will be performed during the final design and construction phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining ESCSW as the geotechnical consultant from beginning to end of the project will provide continuity of services. The geotechnical engineering firm providing tests and observations shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Construction monitoring and testing would be additional services provided by our firm. The costs of these services are not included in our present fee arrangements, but can be obtained from our office. The recommended review, tests, and observations include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1 • Consultation during the final design stages of the project. �l ll 1 i J J J i ■ Review of the building and grading plans to observe that recommendations of our report have been properly implemented into the design. • Observation and testing during site preparation, grading and placement of engineered fill as required by UBC Sections 1701 and 3317 or local grading ordinances. • Consultation as required during construction. Appendices as cited are attached and complete this report. JEARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST J September 22, 2000 -22- REFERENCES File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Abrahamson, N., and Shedlock, K., editors, 1997, Ground motion attenuation relationships: Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 1, January 1997 special issue, 256 p. Blake, B.F., 1998a, FRISKSP v. 3.01b, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources, Users Manual, 191 p. Blake, B.F., 1998b, Preliminary Fault -Data for EQFAULT and FRISKSP, 71 p. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1993, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report; U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 93-509, 15 p. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1994, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report, Part 2, U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 94-127. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, and WWW Version. Envicom, Riverside County, 1976, Seismic Safety Element. Ellsworth, W.L., 1990, `Earthquake History, 1769-1989" in: The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p. Hart, E.W., and 1994 rev., Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 34 p. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. International Conference of Building Officials, 2000, International Building Code, 2000 Edition. Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1994, Prediction of Ground Motion in North America, in Proceedings of ATC -35 Seminar on New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion Estimation and Implications for Engineering Design Practice, Applied Technology Council, 1994. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Leinkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwarz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 96-08, 59 p. Proctor, Richard J. (1968), Geology of the Desert Hot Springs - Upper Coachella Valley Area, California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Special Report 94. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST September 22, 2000 -23- File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Riverside County (1984), Seismic Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan, Amended. Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California - Santa Ana Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Sieh, K., Stuiver, M., and Brillinger, D., 1989, A More Precise Chronology of Earthquakes Produced by the San Andreas Fault in Southern California: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 94, No. B 1, January 10, 1989, pp. 603-623. Sieh, Kerry, 1985, Earthquake Potentials Along The San Andreas Fault, Minutes of The National 1 Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, March 29-30, 1985, USGS Open File Report 85-507. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 1996, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. Tokimatsu, K, and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due To Earthquake Shaking, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, August 1987. Van de Kamp, P.C., 1973, Holocene Continental Sedimentation in the Salton Basin, California: A Reconnaissance, Geological Society of America, Vol. 84, March 1973. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 379-439. Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p. J i J JEARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 1 J J75 1 APPENDIX A Site Location Map Boring Location Map Table 1 Fault Parameters 1997 Uniform Building Code Seismic Parameters 2000 International Building Code Seismic Parameters Logs of Borings J J J - J J -2N, --� z v - � ` I wig n y1-•�,., -�. 11 �•i ..n �' ` \ i i 1 , -'- _ , i �� IIIIJ. I _ AVEnr — --' J 1 '.` - ' '� • ' � �._ _ 1 weli f �.. .. p , E.. ��` -- -- ILL Lk _ IMW _4 �_ :I 3 i-' _-.--- ta It ti g C � .•i°' y .i j i zc pG SO� ] • _ xuscs aumo• 7'Zejse IN re �N _t•, n u� =P�� A vir Al Ll -241 I �' `` .' r W•' - •^ �•'�1� . CJS- - .. It 1 - V. ,, �r:�._.• �z�. .y JET' E � -", .i Reference: La Quinta & Indio USGS Topographic Quadrangles Maps Figure 1 - Site Location Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Project No.: 07117-10 N Scale: 1" = 2,000', Earth Systems Consultants 0 2,000 4,000 �� Southwest 52nd Avenue 135,-CP,T-1 ='j. . •��s: ,: M.f:,,�i,.�_ -- �.,,,- " _ -- _��: :.�..�.eti=��•�� _ -r -.rte:-= -r.-r �T.-1, �•v. �xr..►:�`m-`'R'- - �- - �--"..---- �'�=r -- -�-. .-r__.r..:��=�—'-: _;:_ _ - - -�.� ^�.M Y_'v r+��..�r�.H�wiCiile'�.�.r�:t.Y-.l,i�----^'r - _-_ -F �v �• �..-�•�- vim- N'"L' «a� :- Y _ _ :^'N �[�---.�.•r---y��-_•`---� -- r�m+-�.. .....` �• Y •.sem-i—� 7�1 i'- .. �.- ;r".-�N,.L. - 'tet . f'./�. t '_ •1.I,- .•^�'- BTJ�I�iF^r 'r � p1 � :,.�+ - ray -. _ .' �� .�• - .. . ate• _ - - '�'i-- -_ - - � r- 'i .. - - �I -:1---'-+��-�_.� _ - _ _ _ ..- -s - _ -_ e. - - _ �A - B'18' ;�'. 1317-13 U) r B14 B13'� . �--_:;-- �- • ., •_ ��_- g12. _ _. 139 .131.1..: 147,C PT-3 B8U -13 k; BI, CPT-2 "��..--- .._ _ ...� �—:T =_ ::� - _� _ — — ...�.,.�. y....z.__ �. --�.� __may �-�� • � —�•- �—�•'--..... _ . 5th Avenue LEGEND ti? Approximate Boring or CPT Location Figure 2 - Exploration Locations Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Project No.: 07117-10 Scale: 1" = 800 feet 0 800 1,600 Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 4!1.2� Earth Systems Consultants tz Southwest i= CPT Sounding: CPT -1 Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO, Inc. LUProject Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Con( Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -ton reaction weight = Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000 I -- d Friction Ratio % Ti Resistance, Qc is lL Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy ( � p ( o 0 (Rob its & C II 1989 D /C 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 50 � f i End of Sounding @ 50.1 feet &M 400 e on ampane a, ) ensity ons istency Silty Sand to andy Silt very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense I Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense - 5 - Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand very dense f _ Sand to Silty Sand very dense ! Sand to Silty Sand dense 10 Sand to Silty Sand dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense { 15 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I { Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 1 _ Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense 20 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense _ Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 25 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt _ medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense , Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense 30 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 1 Sand to Silty Sand _ medium dense I I Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i 35 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense l Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense { Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 40 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I 45 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense _ Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I Sand medium dense 7 Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i 50 � f i End of Sounding @ 50.1 feet &M 400 Earth Systems Consultants �...;� out west P CPT Sounding: CPT -2 Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO, Inc. LuProject Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Cone Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -ton reaction weight Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000 W Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tst (Roberts & C II 1989 D ' /C ' t 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 on ampane a, ) ens,ty ons,s ency Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand verydense I Sand to Silty Sand very dense I Sand to Silty Sand very dense 5 Sand to Silty Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense { Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand dense 10 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I I Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense f 1 Sand to Silty Sand _ dense ; Sand to Silty Sand medium dense ! f 15 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I I Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense { 20 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense ; Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense 25 Sand to Silty Sand dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense ! Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard 30 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense f`f Overconsolidated Soil medium dense f 35 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt _ medium dense 1 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard j Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense { Silty Sand to Sandy Silt _ medium dense 40 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 1 Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand dense l Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand dense 45 Sand to Silty Sand _ dense f �� Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 1 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i Sand dense 50 I � End of Sounding @ 49.8 feet !� +�; Earth Systems Consultants p CPT Sounding: CPT -3 Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO, Inc. UJI Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Cone Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -ton reaction weight = Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000 tl Friction Ratio % Ti Resistance, Qc is IL Interpreted Sail Stratigraphy ( ) p (Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense { Sand to Silty Sand very dense 5 Sand to Silty Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Sand to Silty Sand dense j Sand very dense { I Sand very dense J 10 Sand very dense Sand verydense I Sand very dense f Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 15 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose f Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I ' Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose 20 Clay stiff Clay firm Clay stiff Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense _ l- 25 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff I Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense j77 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense! 1 30 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 1 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense j Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense _ 35 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense ! Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 1 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense j Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense f Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i 40 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff I. Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff I Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff { Clay very stiff 45 Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Silty Clay to Clay very stiff - { Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff I Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 50 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 1 End of Sounding @ 50.2 feet { I Earth Systems Consultants Southwest CPT Sounding: CPT -4 Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO, Inc. W LU Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Cone Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -ton reaction weight Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000 CL W Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tst) (Robertson & Campanella, 1989) DensitylConsistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 Sand to &lty gand very dense Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense T i Sand to Silty Sand very dense j 5 Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand dense 10 Sand very dense i Sand very dense Sand very dense Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i 15 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense —17 Sand dense 1 Sand dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 20 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense is Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sifty Clay to Clay very stiff Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose 25 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense j Silty Sand to Sandy Silt loose Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 30 Sand dense Sand dense Sand medium dense ! i Sand– medium dense Sand dense 35 Sand dense Sand dense Sand dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense f Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense 40 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Clay very stiff Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff 45 Clay very stiff -� Clay very stiff Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Silty Sand to Sandy Silt loose":7 f Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i - - ------------------ { 50 I I � End of Sounding @ 49.9 feet Earth Systems Consultants Southwest I i 79-3113 Country Club Drive. Bemiuda Dunes, CA 92201 Boring No: B I Drilling Date: August IS, 2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample ^ Type Penetration — Description of Units Page 1 of I L A Resistance U H e C] 'o Note: The stratification lines shown represent the n F- o (Blows/6") E v c approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend Q N O E :E Q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 0 j ML ■ 10,10,10 1I 93.4 — 5 5,5,10 1 1 85.6 �— 10 , 4,5,6 ;�.;•� 93.2 15 — 20 �t - 25 —� 30 1 J — 35 J — 40 f _J J — 45 - 50 M&IM 71 8e t SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp, with minor fine grained sand J 2.1 8.4 • ;? .. SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to t.5 medium grained, subround clasts { J i SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense dam i p, f laminated, with minor fine grained sand j 1 5.7 i { ; i I 4.2 TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I r Earth Systems Consultants 11.E ? Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (760) 345-1533 FAX (760) 345-731 s Boring No: B2 Drilling Date: August 1S, 2000 ProjectName: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample J Pagel ^ Type Penetration 1 .: B e Description of Units r A: Resistance a° U E u ' " ! Note: The stratification lines shown represent the P a 1 v' (Blows/6")! rn cn a v .y o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend A mo � I U i and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density �0 J� 5 J i 1.0 -S F lj r i F 15 j1 r 20 I i I 25 J — 30 `1 r J 35 i e r 40 J' 45 J J 50 5,5,5 SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp, laminated, with minor fine grained sand 95.9 2.6 � I j84.4 4.3 90.4 { 81.2 83.3 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts 1.3 1 2.9 SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dryto damp, laminated, with minor fine grained sand r 4.6 {}`• i I TOTALPTH: 21.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I i Earth Systems Consultants �►�� Southwest 79-311 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 D1...../7AMIIC_IQ— —i7c I—I Boring NO: B3 I 1.6 1' Drilling Date: August IS, 2000 ProjectName: Country Club of the Desert SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, moist, ' Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 82.0 9.6 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten ^ Sample Type Penetration a Description of Units Page 1 of 1 r A Resistance -0 U clasts 90.4 Note: The stratification lines shown represent the i 'I i1 n'o o (Blows/6") il` f 1 2.4 I c 2 approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend A m' Q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density V ' F 5,5,5 5 I 8,12,12 IL — 10 , 4,4,7 15 20 – 25 — 30 - 35 -40 - 45 - 50 4,4,10 ■ 5,6,6 I I i 7,8,11 ■ 5,7,9 I 10,12,20 1 9,10,10 SM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts 9L1 0.8 1m ML { 96.0 I 1.6 1' ~ SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, moist, ' jlaminated, with minor fine grained sand 82.0 9.6 I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, damp to dry, fine to medium grained, subround to subangular i 84.8 I I 6.8 i clasts 90.4 14.1 l i 'I i1 1 95.9 il` f 1 2.4 I I E I I 93.2 2.9 I 1 � �4 96.9 L9 4 i i _ SII SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, damp, f 92.1 1 4.3 ! laminated, with minor fine grained sand 1 TOTAL DEPTH: 41.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered 11 i J Earth Systems Consultants ++ 1 Southwest 79-811 B County Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone(760)345-1588 FAX (760)345-7315 Boring No: B4 i Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Project lame: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 1 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample Type Penetration 2 a Description of Units iPage 1 of 1 u E Resistance U 0 v E Note: The stratification lines shown represent the aai r3 Bl/6" v Z o approximate boundary bel peen soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend C] n I (Blows/6") Ca 1 U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density f 0 5 I — 10 r — 15 F- 20 L 25 f — 30 35 i 40 I L 45 �- 50 10,10,12 ML SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, 1 laminated, with minor fine grained sand and clay i j i TOTAL DEPTH: 41.5 feet f . No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered { ij i SM ! SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to f medium grained, subround clasts 7,7,11 :{ 89.5 1.2 . • 9,9,9 F 99.1 1.2 Ile �; • ` MUCL i CLAYEY If SILT: brown, stiff, moist, laminated, w� r 1 �•, � minor clay nodules ! 4,5,6 77.0 15.3 I SM j SILTY SAND: brown, mediumip dense, dry, fine to it 3,4 ,6 79.1 5,1 medium grained, subround clasts � i J MUCL SANDY CLAYEY SILT: brown, stiff, moist, laminated, low plasticity I + 6,8,8 �• ! 1 73.5 15.4 iMUCL I ! � e CLAYEY SILT: brown, very stiff, moist, medium � I plasticity, with minor silty sand lenses s 8,10,15 I • it rI".�• SM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to r .� medium grained, subround clasts 14,16 ,20 i SM J _; ! I SILTY SAND. brown, medium dense, dry, fine to 8,10,12 medium grained, subround clasts, with minor silt ;! L I and clay nodules 10,10,12 ML SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, 1 laminated, with minor fine grained sand and clay i j i TOTAL DEPTH: 41.5 feet f . No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered { ij Earth Systems Consultants .�� Southwest 1 J J 79-811 B County Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Pl—. l7ln% 7.14_14GC CA V /— 7 Boring No: B5 Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 4,5,6 ! Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample Type Penetration 89.6 15 - Description of Units Page 1 of 1 vResistance E U Q v i; � 'o Note: The stratification lines shown represent the , (Blows/6') .I.;' i approximate boundary between soil and/or rock- types Graphic Trend O m 0- o -i'•i"i Q 1 U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density r0 L Sim 4,4,4 87.1 LO 5 k , 5,5,7 .� 1 86.1 i 1.2 0.9 ■fay= 1.5 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround to subangular clasts TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i 40 1 I I — 45 A J i e 10 4,5,6 89.6 15 7,11,14 85.3 II , .I.;' i - I -i'•i"i I— 20 I 8,9,11 .'I.', 85.1 ' i I 25 30 l � _J i r 3s J r J' 0.9 ■fay= 1.5 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround to subangular clasts TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i 40 1 I I — 45 A J i e Earth Systems Consultants �r Southwest 79-81113 Country Club Drive, Bemmda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (7601 345-7315 Boring No: B3 Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten ^ Sample Type Penetration �' o Description of Units Page 1 of 1 t% s u Resistance o E rn U �� v v Q n y ❑ Note: The stratification lines shown represent the P A p m (Blows/6"). .7 o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend � C U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density —0 — SM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to ! medium grained, fossiliforus, subangular clasts r4,4,4 87.9 0.7 5 _ , I 4,5,6 .i ML 90.2 2.5 SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry IL SM SILTY SA ND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to — 10 1 6,7,8 : k 90.7 1.7 i medium grained, subangular clasts jf I :fji +— IS, 7,9,11 ';:C:.`_ 91.0 1.1 • 20 4,4,5 .! • 'S i.J::i� 3,4,6 30 35 1-40 — 45 — 50 ,6,6 i r I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet ! No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered 4 i J i i J J Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 79-311 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201 Phone (7601 315-I SRR PAY 1 -mm ij< 7v c Boring No: B9 Drilling Date: August IS, 2000 Project Name: Coulltry Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample Type Penetration '' , ` �_ Description of Units _Page 1 of 1 ¢, o v1 s A Resistance U v I c Note: The stratification lines shown represent the v E cn im •— N 4 o T ` o e approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend Q o (Blows/6") k 0 r 2 U I and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density U �- 5 1I 10 r r 15 20 h— 25 — 30 �— 35 i-- r 40 — 45 — 50 'I•i SM 3,3,4' 74.2 .1 ■ 6,8,10 I' i"•;'1 91.4 5,5,10 II ' 90.3 5,8,8 !'.1 87.7 '- 4,6,6 MUCL �:.t:� 4.4,5 .:i, i.• SM I E ' ; MUCL 5,5,7 ' ;••f 1.5 0 6.1 2.4 2.6 I SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry to damp, fine to medium grained, fossiliforus to five '• feet, subround to subangular clasts i• f I CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity, with minor silt 1 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subangular clasts CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered • - � I I iI I • - � I I ;t L�■, Earth Systems Consultants �•� Southwest 79-811 B County Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 9'-201 Boring NO: B10 Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample r— Type Penetration v o Description of Units Page l of li � v Resistance E - � � a ,� � Note: The stratification lines shown represent the a (Blows/6") rn o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend A m 01 f U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count pry Density — u 1 J t0 F �l I 15 I — 20 ` 1 L 25 J 1- — 30 J - J — 35 J — 40 j r 45 J� J L 50 1 F STv1 I: 4,5,5 f! 5'6.7 ■6,8,8 1 68,9 .i 4'6'8 5,7 ,7 `; t .4.01" 5,7,9 :�:; " SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts • 72.2 1.2 I fl 92.7 1.6 i l t I 91.7 3.0 I 87.3 TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i t Earth systems Consultants 1101rv/ Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 0 ',sm 5,8,8 5 8,12.12 IF 10 15fi I Borin- No: B11 Project barna: Country Club the Desert j 35 Drilling Datc: August 18, 2000 of Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 40 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 45 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample Type Penetration — Description of Units Page1 0 �fi Resistance 0 E U Cn M Z Q Note: The stratification lines shown represent the -3 (Blows/6") a 2 approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend M 0 U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 0 ',sm 5,8,8 5 8,12.12 IF 10 15fi I j 35 40 J° 45 50 5,8,8 ML 4,4,7 5,5,5 5,5.7 7,11,10 MUCL SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts 0.5 95.5 0.7 91.6 1.2 • SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor clay nodules Q CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity it TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered 11 k 1'Z 8'L8 1I 1 1 1 Z' l Il 17'S6 i } I I L'0 Z -S6 s se o »' ngur ns ' auteiS uini aui I I q P .P I aut3 'Lip 'asuap tumpaui 'umoiq :QNdS U -IIs WS 1'6'9 n 3 0 q �i („9/sMoli� K cn Co v —1 11 � puaii o!gduio saddl xaa jo1puu pos uaangaq daspunoq aluw!xojdde �1 f I ,e 8'L'9 i r d 4' . I I 1 • 1 l � i d n In L'9'S it OZ l l0 l aSsd I, 1'Z 8'L8 1I 1 1 1 Z' l Il 17'S6 i } I I L'0 Z -S6 s se o »' ngur ns ' auteiS uini aui I I q P .P I aut3 'Lip 'asuap tumpaui 'umoiq :QNdS U -IIs WS 1'6'9 n 3 0 q („9/sMoli� K cn Co v —1 0£ puaii o!gduio saddl xaa jo1puu pos uaangaq daspunoq aluw!xojdde o f I 8'L'9 r d SZ aq1 wasaldal uMogs sauil uoilsagpu�ls aq.L:a1c c d n In L'9'S aauelslsa21 OZ l l0 l aSsd sl!ufl 3o aoi lduasa(l o ° y 0 u01lullauad PCIAJ. 1'8'8 1 - - — L`9'9, umme -M pio.1 o :d8 pa.WBO l I 01 9'b'£ 0 I 0 dlisua4 1unoD mo18 luuopepuli9 aq dew uoi3!suuu ay1 pus n 3 0 q („9/sMoli� K cn Co v —1 0 puaii o!gduio saddl xaa jo1puu pos uaangaq daspunoq aluw!xojdde o r d aq1 wasaldal uMogs sauil uoilsagpu�ls aq.L:a1c c d n In o aauelslsa21 i l l0 l aSsd sl!ufl 3o aoi lduasa(l o ° �' u01lullauad PCIAJ. .� - - — aldwuS umme -M pio.1 o :d8 pa.WBO l Z alnS13 aaS :uo!1uao7 Supog 19 al!go1N :add.L Il!l4 01 -LI ILO :lagwnK 1oaf0id jaSnd wa1S nw110H A TOTOIN iiu!llud 113saa aql j gnlD tilunoo :awl laafad �UIJOg OOOZ'S1 1sn5ny :a1u4 Suillua � ff :ON S I EL-St'E 1090 Y+Vd BS91-5OE 1090 alloild IOZZ6 VJ'saun(I cpniwag'a.+uQ gnIJ,CnunoD 01 I8 -6L 1s9mt4j oS t� s4ue4insuoo sula;sAS 41M3 J J 1 r r L I -5 I I I 10 1 _} I I5 !_ 20 1 25 I i i t I� i 30 i _1 r i— 35 I IrJ L 40 I J � 45 rl J I= 50 Earth systems Consultants �' Southwest 79-811 B County Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Boring No: B6 i Drilling Date: August IS, 2000 Project Dame: Country Club of the Desert s Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 �i Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 6,8,11 �r I.,. Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample —� ^ Type Penetration ;fi o Description of Units Page 1 of 1 j s A Resistance Note: U _1 r.., 1 c c 0 M .y i The stratification lines shown represent the A m h o (Blows/6c ") Q v U j Trend androximate the transit on may be gradationaloundary between soilnd/or rock types glow Couraphnt Dry Density f k I 1 SM 3,4,5 .4,5,6 E �, SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subangular clasts • 88.4 04 88.0 1 0 8 • 0.9 1 v i 5,8,10 s 1 �i 4 6,8,11 �r I.,. SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subangular clasts • 88.4 04 88.0 1 0 8 • 0.9 1 v TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet 1 No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i 1' s � 1 �i I E ;fi a TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet 1 No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i 1' �I fF I 'E I s Earth systems Consultants \' Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Boring No: B12 Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Descrt ` Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample 1 l Type Penetration `o Description of Units Page 1 of 1 s 1' Resistance cC� c Q v y Note: The stratification lines shown represent the Q. F- Q T (Blows/6") a .� o - approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend Q m Nj U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density V —5 10 — 15 — 20 L 25 30 35 SM lf 9,10,10 7,8,8 ML 5,6,9 I If, 6'6'8 i i MLCL .i 7,7,7 I I �f jr 8,10,11 1 I I I l SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to 1 I medium grained, subround clasts 93.0 0.4 {97.2 �0.7 • r I 92.2 1.2 II SANDY SILT: brown medium dense d I ry, minor cls � nodules s j CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity i ! TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I I ri Earth Systems Consultants 7wl Southwest 79-811 B County Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX !7601 zac_7a i,; Boring No: B13 I Drilling Datc: August IS, 2000 Project lame: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hallow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample Type Penetration a Description of Units Page 1 of 1 Resistance U = eNote: "Ilse stratification lines shown represent the s E C] 'o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend Q © (Blotvs/6")i U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density U ,— 5 l pI 10 I- [— 15 l _1 20 �= 25 i 30 35 40 J — 45 50 4,4,4 4,5,5 5,5,5 5,6,6 6,9,8 SM 76.2 0.8 90.8 i 1.2 J. j MUCL I SM r, I..I MUCL f SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts I� ,I I E� I! i l SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts i a f SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity l TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet 1 No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered Earth Systems Consultants �►� ►� Southwest 79-811 B County Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 PhonWd 41345-1593 FAY17AM1j,;_-7i- Boring No: B14 Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten --- a pe Type Penetration o Description of Units Page I of 1 s A Resistance E U Cr e� M _ Note: The stratification lines shown represent the o (Blows/6")! >, �- I ] o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend Q m o i Q f U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 15 I � _ — 20 I_ 25 J l - I 30 �l 35 J — 40 - I 45 50 SM j 4,4,4 I 06,7,8 iF11M E:r-IF:M 3'2'2 4,6,7 { f MUCL 5,6,7 6,6,5 6,7,9 fi•.�..i•, SM � MUCL ' SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts 0.7 i 4 1.4 • i r it 4 14 SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity �I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts I il CLAYEY SILT: dark brown- stiff, moist, low TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered Earth Systems Consultants W Southwest Boring No: B15 ll, ProjectName: Country Club of the Desert I 'I Project Number: 07117-10 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Sample ^. Type Penetration 2o y Resistance O ! E Q E. �I U J j 5 J 10 L L f 15 1 20 w I 25 , l , _J - - 30 J Ll— 35 J J ' — 40 — 45 J- J �- 50 5,5,4 5,5,5 4,5,6 6,6,7 6,5,6 5,5,5 6,7,7 79-811 B County Club Dice, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone [7601 345-1588 FAX 170;411 lsc 7— c Drilling Date: August IS, 2000 Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Drill Type: Mobile 61 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Description of Units;'_Page Note: The stratification lines shown represent the approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 5M SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to j medium grained, subround clasts 98.1 1 0.2 =I I 81.3 3.2 i 'I MUCL 1 CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity, with sand SM a ,I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround to subangular clasts 'I �1 I • I } TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet I I� t I fl No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered 1 ll, { I 'I Earth Systems Consultants j *�►�� Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 I- 4,5,6 5 5,6,5 •- 10 4,4,4 i •- 15 Fill; 6,7,8 - 20 25 30 35 40 E4550 5,6,7 sM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to I 86.4 0.3 medium grained, subround clasts • 72.6 2.7 • • i SANDY SILT: dark brown, loose, dry, EE f SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to E C medium grained, subround to subangular clasts i �.J Ii ML i f s Boring No: Bl6 Drilling Date: August I S, 2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample ^ Type Penetration •mow „e Page I of 1 Description of Units r s Rcsistance c ° � U U v = �1a Note: The stratification lines shown represent the C. fl (Blows/6") T W j f 'o � approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend 0 0 Q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density I- 4,5,6 5 5,6,5 •- 10 4,4,4 i •- 15 Fill; 6,7,8 - 20 25 30 35 40 E4550 5,6,7 sM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to I 86.4 0.3 medium grained, subround clasts • 72.6 2.7 • • i SANDY SILT: dark brown, loose, dry, EE f SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to E C medium grained, subround to subangular clasts i �.J Ii ML i f s TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered 1 E Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201 Phone (7601345-1588 FAX X760]345 -711i Boring No: Biz Drilling Date: August 23, 2000 ProjectName: Country Club of the Desert 25 Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117- 10 JI Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 30 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample J I r L 35 i Type Penetration I r- 40 Page 1 of 1 Description of UnitsU4 L I Resistance J CIO U Q n J_ Note: The stratification lines shown represent the o u 7 (Blows/6"] Cn o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend Q x v C Q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 20 6,5,10 i I , 7,,10,10 I itI .6,7,10 i I 4,4,4 1 i I 5,5,6 f I i I ' 4,7,7 I { � I I i 5,6,7 ,J SM .1 ML sp-SNE SM .f:.j.l 211 1 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense dry, fine to E medium grained, subround clasts • 90.1 0.4 I j SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor 87.1 3.1 1 laminations I k � SAND: brown, medium dense, damp, fine to coarse i grained, with silt layers 103.3: 5.3 I • I I E, SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround to subangular clasts 1 i• SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry i I j l � f � f 1 I 1 I I I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I l I� I 25 L JI 30 J� J I r L 35 J� I r- 40 0 L J = 45 J_ 50 6,5,10 i I , 7,,10,10 I itI .6,7,10 i I 4,4,4 1 i I 5,5,6 f I i I ' 4,7,7 I { � I I i 5,6,7 ,J SM .1 ML sp-SNE SM .f:.j.l 211 1 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense dry, fine to E medium grained, subround clasts • 90.1 0.4 I j SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor 87.1 3.1 1 laminations I k � SAND: brown, medium dense, damp, fine to coarse i grained, with silt layers 103.3: 5.3 I • I I E, SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround to subangular clasts 1 i• SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry i I j l � f � f 1 I 1 I I I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I l I� I l � Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 79-8 11 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 m... BOrina No: B18 lame: Drilling Date: August 23, 2000 Project Country Club of the Desert 25 Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 - 30 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten J Sample � i J — 35 Type Penetration ! J Description Of Units Page 1 of 1 L v Resistance E Cn Cn 0 = Note: The stratification lines shown represent the aai A i Blowsr6" m vL 0 ) ri A C c CJ approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density ! SM f SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts 7,11,11 j 89.0 1.1 I' ML SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor `1I 9,11,12 87.1 2.8 laminations i ik I I ' SP -SM , SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse I' — 10 grained, round clasts, with silt ' • 719,11 E 115.7 1.4 MUCL l j I CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low 15 ! i plasticity, with minor sand 3,4,6 • ,I 20 I i f� 4,5,5 • IJ ff I I ; i SM I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to 6.7.8 !: 6,6,7 I medium grained, subround clasts lip E it I ;I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet 'I I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered f iI J 25 i � l J ! f - - 30 0 J � i J — 35 ! J Ir— 40 r I 4,5,5 • IJ ff I I ; i SM I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to 6.7.8 !: 6,6,7 I medium grained, subround clasts lip E it I ;I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet 'I I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered Earth Systems Consultants Wf rw Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Dri%e, Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201 Borin¢ No: B19 Drilling Date: August 23, 2000 Project Tame: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample Type Penetration y ` o Description of Units +Page 1 of 1 s v Resistance E U � Note: The stratification lines shown represent the E. 1 >, (Blows/6") _ —� J approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend Q N 2. 0 U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 5,8,10 ■ 6,9,8 ■ 6,6,7 4,4,5 f 6,8,8 j7 3,4,4 6,9,10 —J � 40 ( J J — 45 J 50 ML 1 SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, laminate( 89.0 1.0 I J MUCL I CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, damp to wet, clay II 83.4 114.0 nodules i i j 82.1 18.2 N j I SM � SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts 11. r I MIJCL i f CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low C I ! plasticity °+ I I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet I 1 I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I E � 4 Earth Systems Consultants —M—M, Southwest 79-811 B COLHUTY Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Pl-- /-7AA% 1AC ,can r. Borin- No: B20 Project qame: Country Club Desert 5,5,6 Drilling Date: August 23, 2000 of the MUCL Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 4,5,6 1 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample i Type Penetration rf: 6,7,8 o Description of Units nye Resistance E Cn U C/) W v cNote: The stratification lines shown represent the approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend QNU(Blows/6") co - and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density U 5 10 15 f i� i ML 4.6.7 85.1 5.5,7 82.3 7,8,9 MUCL 83.9 M SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp 4.1 2.6 CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, wet, low to 19.5 medium plasticity f SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry, laminated TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered 5,5,6 tl MUCL 4,5,6 rf: 6,7,8 M SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp 4.1 2.6 CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, wet, low to 19.5 medium plasticity f SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry, laminated TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered Oft Earth Systems Consultants �� Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Ph'—f7AM Ili- iiav eev Awa„ - Boring NO: B21 45 Drilling Datc: August 23, 2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample Type Penetration �' �, a Description of Units :Pagel of i A Resistance U U E V)G v c; o —v Note: The stratification nes sown re tion lihresent the P a ' 1 Q >, = lu 3 (Blows/6") Z' o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend a, o and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Y Bm Dry Density 4,6,6 5,6,8 5,5,5 4,4,4 4,4,5 6,7,8 ML MUCL ML MUCL SM X1 ! SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense, damp, ! laminated 62.6 4.0 • • ` I 87.4 3.5 • • CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, very stiff, wet, clay nodules 83.3 20.0 • = • SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry, laminated, with sand SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, j medium plasticity, with sand 4! f! ` 1 1jl i I , SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to I medium grained I .• I I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i E I I 1 45 50 ML MUCL ML MUCL SM X1 ! SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense, damp, ! laminated 62.6 4.0 • • ` I 87.4 3.5 • • CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, very stiff, wet, clay nodules 83.3 20.0 • = • SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry, laminated, with sand SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, j medium plasticity, with sand 4! f! ` 1 1jl i I , SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to I medium grained I .• I I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i E I I 1 Earth Systems Consultants f►� Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (740) 345-1539 FAX (760) 345-7315 Boring No: B22 Drilling Date: August 23, 2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample —' ^ Type Penetration ;;; V o Description of Units Fagg v L �' Resistance c E rn r c Q a Note: The stratification lines shown represent the Q1 0 (Blows/6") �, 2 approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend m 0 U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 0 ML SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense, dry, laminated i 4,5,6 64.0 I 3.6 • h !t 5 f 5,5,5 SM I•.•. '. SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to 88.5 .• I8 medium grained L C10 ' SP -SM 'I SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse subround layers grained, clasts, with clayey silt .••. , + • 6,7 ,8 :::: 104.3 4.1 i Mi SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dr r L 15 1' laminated with sand li I � 5,6,6 i' I Iril �1 SM i SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to 20 E -;�;I: medium grained �l nn L■! 3,4,5 i L .1 1� {i 25 8,8.15 .i +• l — 30 6,8,8 s I t — 35 ' !� TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet is —40 ' _ I I 1 I r I f I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i — 45 i E — 50-- f Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 79-81113 Countn• Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 93201 Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-7315 Boring No -X323 Project Dame: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Date: August 23, 2000 Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample` ^• I Type Penetration) B o Description of Units (Page 1 of 1 j r A v Resistance E U rn chi Q n �, c Note: The stratification lines shown represent the p B a O (Blows/6") rn approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend A m rA 2 p .e o U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Y 8 Dry Density 0 { ML SANDY SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense, dry, laminated, with sand 5,5,5 66.8 2.6 5 5,8,8 I 85.2 4.3 L E L s:P-s vt SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse t0 a grained, with silt 7,8,7 109.1 1.4 ,_ SM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to L 15 f:-1.' `j I medium grained 4,5,5 ' •i J I i f I- II •l 20 3,4,4 CL SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, mo' ` low to medium plasticity L 25 2'3'4: �— 30 2,2.3 I 35 L TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet L 40 1 f No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered 1 r l I 45 — 50 �j Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-7315 Boris No: B24 lame: Drilling Date: August 23, 2000 Project Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample ^ Type Penetration T_ o Description of Units !Page I of l s v Resistance Cn U c.. G n Note: The stratification lines shown represent the >, o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend CL. Q m 0 U 1 and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 4,5,5 ! 4.4,5 7,8,8 4,4,4 5,6,6 4,5,6 4,4,5 ML ! ; SILT: brown, loose to medium dense, dry to damp, laminated 71.9 ; 3.3 • I i ii 85.7 2.1 • ' SM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained j 100.2 2.9 1 r • l MLCL CLAY -EY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low ? E plasticity, i — i i. SMSILTY SAND: brown, medium dense dry, ' ,fine to medium grained 1: + i I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet i 1 1 ' No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i E i i j Country Club of the Desert Table 1 Fault Parameters & Deterministic Estimates of Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PCAs 07117-10 Fault Name or Seismic Zone Distance from Site (mi) (km) Fault Type UBC Maximum Magnitude Mmax (Mw) Avg Slip Rate (mm/yr) Avg Return Period (yrs) Fault Length (km) Date of Last Rupture (year) Largest Historic Event >5.5M (year) Mean Site PGA (g) Reference Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (2) (2) 2) (5) 6) San Andreas - Coachella Valley 6.1 9.8 SS A 7.1 25 220 95 c.1690 0.36 San Andreas - Southern (C V +S B M) 6.1 9.8 SS A 7.4 24 220 203 c. 1690 0.41 San Andreas - Mission Crk. Branch 7.8 12.6 SS A 7.1 25 220 95 6.5 1948 0.31 San Andreas - Banning Branch 7.8 12.6 SS A 7.1 10 220 98 6.2 1986 0.31 San Jacinto (Hot Spgs - Buck Ridge) 16 26 SS C 6.5 2 354 70 6.3 1937 0.12 Blue Cut 16 26 SS C 6.8 1 760 30 -- 0.14 San Jacinto -Anza 20 33 SS A 7.2 12 250 90 1918 6.8 1918 0.15 Burnt Mountain 20 33 SS B 6.4 0.6 5000 20 1992 7.3 1992 0.09 San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 21 34 SS B 6.8 4 175 40 1968 6.5 1968 0.11 Eureka Peak 21 34 SS B 6.4 0.6 5000 19 1992 6.1 1992 0.09 San Andreas - San Bernardino Mtn. 22 35 SS A 7.3 24 433 107 1812 7.0 1812 0.15 Morongo 32 51 SS C 6.5 0.6 1170 23 5.5 1947 0.06 San Jacinto - Borrego Mountain 33 53 SS B 6.6 4 175 29 6.5 1942 0.06 Pinto Mountain 33 53 SS B 7.0 2.5 500 73 0.08 Emerson So. - Copper Mtn. 34 54 SS B 6.9 0.6 5000 54 - 0.07 Pisgah -Bullion Mtn. -Mesquite Lk 35 57 SS B 7.0 0.6 5000 88 1999 7.1 1999 0.07 Landers 35 57 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 83 1992 7.3 1992 0.09 San Jacinto -San Jacinto Valley 39 62 SS B 6.9 12 83 42 6.8 1899 0.06 Brawley Seismic Zone 39 62 SS B 6.4 25 24 42 5.9 1981 0.05 Earthquake Valley 39 62 SS B 6.5 2 351 20 0.05 Elsinore - Julian 43 70 SS A 7.1 5 340 75 0.06 Johnson Valley (Northern) 46 74 SS B 6.7 0.6 5000 36 - 0.05 Elmore Ranch 47 75 SS B 6.6 1 225 29 1987 5.9 1987 0.04 North Frontal Fault Zone (East) 47 75 DS B 6.7 0.5 1730 27 0.05 Calico -Hidalgo 47 76 SS B 7.1 0.6 5000 95 0.06 Elsinore - Temecula 48 78 SS B 6.8 5 240 42 0.05 Elsinore -Coyote Mountain 49 79 SS B 6.8 4 625 38 0.05 San Jacinto - Superstition Mountain 51 81 SS B 6.6 5 500 23 c.1440 - 0.04 San Jacinto - Superstition Hills 51 83 SS B 6.6 4 250 22 1987 6.5 1987 0.04 Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman Spgs 52 84 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 149 0.06 North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 59 95 DS B 7.0 1 1310 50 0.05 Helendale - S. Lockhardt 60 96 SS B 7.1 0.6 5000 97 0.04 San Jacinto -San Bernardino 61 99 SS B 6.7 12 100 35 6.0 1923 0.03 -� Notes: 1. Jennings (1994) and CDMG (1996) 2. CDMG & USGS (1996), SS = Strike -Slip, DS = Dip Slip 3. ICBO (1997), where Type A faults: Mmax > 7 and slip rate >5 mm/yr &Type C faults: Mmax <6.5 and slip rate < 2 mm/yr 4. CDMG (1996) based on Wells & Coppersmith (1994), Mw = moment magnitude 5. Modified from Ellsworth Catalog (1990) in USGS Professional Paper 1515 6. The estimates of the mean Site PGA are based on the following attenuation relationships: Average of: (1) 1997 Boore, Joyner & Fumal; (2) 1997 Sadigh et al; (3) 1997 Campbell (mean plus sigma values are about 1.6 times higher) Based on Site Coordinates: 33.671 N Latitude, 116.252 W Longtude and Site Soil Type D EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert B5 2 Unit Moisture USCS Sample Depth Dry Content Group Location (feet) Density (pcf) (%) Symbol B5 2 87.1 1.0 SM B5 5 86.1 1.2 SM B5 10 89.6 0.9 SM B5 15 85.3 1.3 SM B5 20 85.1 1.5 SM B6 2 88.4 0.4 SM B6 5 88.0 0.8 SM B6 10 91.2 0.9 SM B6 15 91.9 1.5 SM B6 20 96.8 2.6 SM B7 2 95.2 0.7 SM B7 5 95.4 1.2 SM B7 10 87.8 2.1 SM B7 15 95.2 1.3 SM B8 2 87.9 0.7 SM B8 5 90.2 2.5 ML B8 10 90.7 1.7 SM B8 15 91.0 1.1 SM B9 2 74.2 1.5 SM B9 5 91.4 6.1 SM B9 10 90.3 2.4 SM B9 15 87.7 2.6 SM B10 2 72.2 1.2 SM B10 5 92.7 1.6 SM B10 10 91.7 3.0 SM File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert BIO 15 Unit Moisture USCS Sample Depth Dry Content Group Location (feet) Density (pcf) (%) Symbol BIO 15 87.3 2.7 SM B11 2 --- 0.5 SM B11 5 95.5 0.7 SM B11 10 91.6 1.2 SM B12 2 93.0 0.4 SM B 12 5 97.2 0.7 SM B12 10 92.2 1.2 SM B13 2 76.2 0.8 SM B 13 5 90.8 1.2 SM B14 2 75.1 0.7 SM B14 5 86.8 1.4 SM B 15 2 98.1 0.2 SM B15 5 81.3 3.2 SM B16 2 86.4 0.3 SM B 16 5 72.6 2.7 SM B 17 2 90.1 0.4 SM B17 5 87.1 3.1 ML B17 10 103.3 5.3 SP -SM B18 2 89.0 1.1 SM B18 5 87.1 2.8 ML B18 10 115.7 1.4 SP -SM B 19 2 89.0 1.0 SM B19 5 83.4 4.0 ML/CL B 19 10 82.1 18.2 ML/CL IS3MHIMS SJNVIlf1SNOD SW31SAS H.LdVg M -9I olgLl 00' i (Das) pouad Das OL -0 :s j 07 S'l 0'L 9'0 0'0 :os 6£•0 007 :aomoS lInrl otuzsioS jueoUugiS IsosolD "d-91 aIgU ANV9'0 = SL -0 A3 L17.0 06' l tt,'0 rD 0'0 1-9I olqul £17.0 08• l :1013VI aomoS reaN S-91 olge.L 10'1 EN 917.0 Of L 8'6 Z'0 fl -91 olgEZ 617'0 09' L :a�Z aomoS oiwspS f -9I olqui a co Z9'0 09• L 17'0 Z :1010E3 auoZ otuzstaS rn 99'0 017' L :auoZ oTuzsiaS Vo 09'0 0£' L i; D 99'0 OZ' L 0 LL'0 WL 9'0 CD 81'0 00' L @ 98'0 06'0 L6'0 08.0 8 0 cn L L' L OL'0 LL•L 0£•0 WL OZ'O 0 L l L' L 17l'0 89'0 90.0 Z'L 917.0 00'0 wniloadS esuodsaH 01jejg;u91eAmb3 oen L66L ( ) (09s)1 es pouad M -9I olgLl 00' i :I `iolov j oouLIioduzl oiuispS Das OL -0 :s j Das t j-0 :os SNI S S+ A 3) uioq;nos - ssaipuy uES :aomoS lInrl otuzsioS jueoUugiS IsosolD "d-91 aIgU ANV9'0 = SL -0 A3 ::juatotJQOD oiuisiaS a -9I alges ENtt,'0 = tt,'0 rD quatoUj000 otuzs. 1-9I olqul ZZ -I AN :1013VI aomoS reaN S-91 olge.L 10'1 EN :iolml aomoS luoX saltui I'9 = Lu)I 8'6 :aomoS otuisiaS uMoux of aourISIQ IsasolZ) fl -91 olgEZ :a�Z aomoS oiwspS f -9I olqui a S :adiZ algo-id ItoS I -9I alge.L 17'0 Z :1010E3 auoZ otuzstaS Z-91 ainat3 :auoZ oTuzsiaS s-daLaIvvudd DIL ias (aaa) MOD ONIQ'IIflg MOJINfl L661 OI -LI ILO :,ON QH liosaQ aip 3o gnlo AijunoD :aumN loafoad Project Name: Country Club of the Desert File No.: 1.00 g 07117-10 1 -second Spectral Response SDI 0.60 g 2000 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) SEISMIC PARAMETERS Seismic Category = 0.2*SDI/SDs D 0.60 sec Table 1613.3(1) Site Class 0.70 D 0.80 Table 1615.1.1 Latitude: 0.67 33.671 N 1.10 Longitude: 1.20 -116.252 W 0.46 Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) 0.43 Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Reponse Ss 1.50 g Figure1615(3) 1 second Spectral Response S1 0.60 g Figure1615(4) Site Coefficient Fa 1.00 Table 1615.1.2(1) Site Coefficient F„ 1.50 Table 1615.1.2(2) SMs 1.50 g = Fa*Ss SMI 0.90 g = Fv*SI Desim Earthquake Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Reponse SDs 1.00 g = 2/3*SMs 1 -second Spectral Response SDI 0.60 g = 2/3*SMI To 0.12 sec = 0.2*SDI/SDs Ts 0.60 sec = SDI/SDs Seismic Importance Factor IE 1.00 Table 1604.5 2000 IBC Equivalent Elastic Static Response Spectrum 1.2 1.0 CD m 0 0.8 Q Z 0.6 U 0.4 m CL U) W; 0.0r I 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Period (sec) 1 EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST J Period Sa T(sec) (g) 0.00 0.40 0.05 0.65 0.12 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.70 0.86 0.80 0.75 0.90 0.67 1.00 0.60 1.10 0.55 1.20 0.50 1.30 0.46 1.40 0.43 1.50 0.40 1.60 0.38 1.70 0.35 1.80 0.33 1.90 0.32 2.00 0.30 2.20 0.27 File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert B20 2 Unit Moisture USCS Sample Depth Dry Content Group Location (feet) Density (pcf) (%) Symbol B20 2 85.1 4.1 ML B20 5 82.3 2.6 ML B20 10 83.9 19.5 ML/CL B21 2 62.6 4.0 ML B21 5 87.4 3.5 ML B21 10 83.3 20.0 ML/CL B22 2 64.0 3.6 ML B22 5 88.5 1.8 SM B22 10 104.3 4.1 SP -SM B23 2 66.8 2.6 ML B23 5 85.2 4.3 ML B23 10 109.1 1.4 SP -SM B24 2 71.9 3.3 ML B24 5 85.7 2.1 ML B24 10 100.2 2.9 SM File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert BI 2 Unit Moisture USCS Sample Depth Dry Content Group Location (feet) Density (pcf) (%) Symbol BI 2 93.4 2.1 SM BI 5 85.6 8.4 ML B1 10 93.2 1.5 SM BI 15 77.7 5.7 ML B1 20 86.8 4.2 ML B2 2 95.9 2.6 ML B2 5 84.4 4.3 ML B2 10 90.4 1.3 SM B2 15 81.2 2.9 ML B2 20 83.3 4.6 ML B3 2 91.1 0.8 SM B3 5 96.0 1.6 SM B3 10 82.0 9.6 ML B3 15 84.8 6.8 SM B3 20 90.4 4.1 SM B3 25 95.9 2.4 SM B3 30 93.2 2.9 SM B3 35 96.9 1.5 SM B3 40 92.1 4.3 ML B4 2 89.5 1.2 ML B4 5 99.1 1.2 SM B4 10 77.0 15.3 ML/CL B4 15 79.1 5.1 SM B4 20 73.5 15.4 ML/CL IS3MHIf]OS SINVI IfISNOD SNl31SAS HINV3 (ww) aziS apiued 100'0 10'0 VO 1 0 Ol Oz 01: Ob 09 rj„ OL 08 06 OOl (poipaui ialawolpAq pap Aq lualuoo Arlo) SS OOZ# 8 :(U0.131tu £) sula % 08 OOi# Lb 4US % 96 OS# St, :PUBS % 66 0£# 0 :laAUJf) % OO 1 91# 001 8# 001 t# OOI ,'8/£ OOI .,Z/l 001 AI/£ OO I ill 001 "Z/I-1 Suissud azis Mond anaiS ('IIS ;PS SpurS mopduosaQ laa3 S-0 @ I QI aldum,S :pasaQ aig3o gnlo tilunoD :aureN Qof zztl-a WISV SISA'Ivuv azis :I IDI.LHVCI OOOZ `ZZ 1aqulaldoS 01 -LI ILO :*ON N!J um 0 Ol Oz 01: Ob 09 rj„ OL 08 06 OOl (poipaui ialawolpAq pap Aq lualuoo Arlo) SS OOZ# 8 :(U0.131tu £) sula % 08 OOi# Lb 4US % 96 OS# St, :PUBS % 66 0£# 0 :laAUJf) % OO 1 91# 001 8# 001 t# OOI ,'8/£ OOI .,Z/l 001 AI/£ OO I ill 001 "Z/I-1 Suissud azis Mond anaiS ('IIS ;PS SpurS mopduosaQ laa3 S-0 @ I QI aldum,S :pasaQ aig3o gnlo tilunoD :aureN Qof zztl-a WISV SISA'Ivuv azis :I IDI.LHVCI OOOZ `ZZ 1aqulaldoS 01 -LI ILO :*ON N!J File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B5 @ 5 Feet Description: Silty Sand: Fine (SNI) Sieve Percent Size Passing 1-1/2" 100 1" 100 3/4" 100 1/2" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 #8 100 #16 100 % Gravel: 0 #30 100 % Sand: 76 #50 94 % Silt: 20 #100 62 % Clay (3 micron): 4 #200 24 (Clay content by short hydrometer method) 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size (mm) EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B6 @ 20 Feet Description: Silty Sand: Fine w/ Silt Lenses (SM) Sieve Size % Passing By Hydrometer Method: 3" 100 Particle Size % Passing 100 90 80 70 60 e .y 50 C- 40 20 10 0 2" 100 59 Micron 20 1-1/2" 100 23 Micron 11 111 100 13 Micron 9 3/4" 100 7 Micron 8 1/2" 100 5 Micron 6 3/8" 100 3.3 Micron 6 #4 100 2.7 Micron 5 #8 100 1.4 Micron 1 #16 100 #30 100 % Gravel: 0 #50 97 % Sand: 75 #100 67 % Silt: 20 #200 25 % Clay (3 micron): 5 00 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size (mm) EARTH SYSTEMS CONULTANTS SOUTHWEST File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B7 @ 0-5 Feet Description: Silty Sand: Fine (SM) Sieve Percent Size Passing 1-1/2" 100 1" 100 3/4" 100 1/2" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 #8 100 #16 100 % Gravel: 0 #30 99 % Sand: 76 #50 90 % Silt: 19 #100 58 % Clay (3 micron): 5 #200 24 (Clay content by short hydrometer method) 100 90 80 70 60 50 e v a 40 30 20 10 0 loo 10 1 0.1 Particle Size ( mm) EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 0.01 0.001 MINE liimmiiom 0 MEEME1111011111111M 11110 MINE ME 11111111 oil M111111111=111MINE MINEEJ��- 'I loo 10 1 0.1 Particle Size ( mm) EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 0.01 0.001 File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B19 @ 5 Feet Description: Clayey Silt (CL/ML), with sand Sieve Size % Passing By Hydrometer Method: 3" 100 Particle Size % Passing 2" 100 42 Micron 81 1-1/2" 100 19 Micron 50 1" 100 12 Micron 39 3/4" 100 6 Micron 27 1/2" 100 4 Micron 23 3/8" 100 3.2 Micron 19 #4 100 2.6 Micron 17 #8 100 1.4 Micron 6 #16 99 #30 99 % Gravel: 0 #50 99 % Sand: 15 #100 97 % Silt: 68 #200 85 % Clay (3 micron): 17 100 90 80 70 60 2 50 a 0 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size (mm) EARTH SYSTEMS CONULTANTS SOUTHWEST MINI W1 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size (mm) EARTH SYSTEMS CONULTANTS SOUTHWEST File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B20 @ 15 Feet MR I Description: Clayey Silt (CL/ML) 1111 Sieve Size % Passing By Hydrometer Method: 3" 100 Particle Size % Passing 2" 100 42 Micron 83 1-1/2" 100 16 Micron 75 1 " 100 10 Micron 62 3/4" 100 6 Micron 46 1/2" 100 4 Micron 38 3/8" 100 3.0 Micron 32 94 100 2.5 Micron 29 #8 100 1.3 Micron 10 #16 100 #30 99 % Gravel: 0 #50 99 % Sand: 10 #100 96 % Silt: 61 #200 90 % Clay (2 micron): 29 100 90 80 70 60 �2 s0 a 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 Particle Size (mm) EARTH SYSTEMS CONULTANTS SOUTHWEST 0.01 0.001 MR I 1111 oil loll 100 10 1 0.1 Particle Size (mm) EARTH SYSTEMS CONULTANTS SOUTHWEST 0.01 0.001 File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 CONSOLIDATION TE, T ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333 Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density: 88.2 pcf 136 @ 20 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 0.4% Silty Sand: F w/ Silt Lenses (SM) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 0.890 Hydrocollapse: 2.6% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram O Before Saturation Hydrocollapse I ■ After Saturation--*—RPhnund Trend 2 1 0 -1 -2 -8 0.1 I.0 10.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST G j� Sol B EMEM 0.1 I.0 10.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST File No.: 0 7117- 10 September 22, 2000 CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333 Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density: 79.3 pcf B19 @ 5 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 4.0% Clayey Silt (MUCL) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 1.102 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 c -4 bD C R -5 S U c -6 v �+ -7 a, -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 Hydrocollapse: 2.5% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram O Before Saturation Hydrocollapse ■ After Saturation W RPhnund Trend 0.1 1.0 10.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST ME NINON NONE ONE MEN Now MNMM ONE ONE MEN IMEME111 IS IN 010111 NONE ENRON MONSON NOMINEES 0.1 1.0 10.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333 Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density: 74.6 pcf B20 @ 10 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 19.5% Clayey Silt (CUML) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 1.233 -8 Hydrocollapse: 0.9% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram O Before Saturation Hydrocollapse i ■ After Saturation---W—RPhnund f Trend 0.1 1.0 10.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST IN ROSE! SON! NOON ON IEEE NMI MEMO IINNIVI 0.1 1.0 10.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 CD—NSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333 Country Club of the Desert B24 @ 5 Feet Silty Sand: F w/ Silt Lenses Ring Sample 2 I 0 -1 -2 Initial Dry Density: 85.3 pcf Initial Moisture, %: 2.1% Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 0.955 Hydrocollapse: 1.8% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram O Before Saturation Hydrocollapse ■ After Saturation w Pp.hnund Trend 0.1 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 10.0 MOOSE G ME 10111 ME 11MMIMIKEN MEMO 1110 IMOME E10111 ME ME moons ON MEMO ME 1011111111 ME MEN ME I MOOSE IMEMIME- MIME 0.1 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 10.0 File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PLASTICITY INDEX ASTM D-4318 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B20 @ 15 Feet Soil Description: Clayey Silt (CL/ML) DATA SUMMARY TEST RESULTS Number of Blows: 32 28 22 LIQUID LIMIT 40 Water Content, % 39.0 39.4 40.5 PLASTIC LIMIT 27 Plastic Limit: 26.7 27.5 PLASTICITY INDEX 13 Flow Index 41.0 40.5 i �= 40.0 o 39.5 I w 3 39.0 38.5 10 Number of Blows 100 Plasticity Chart 70 7= 7 60 _ X 50 40 •s` 30 y W a 20 i - - 1 1 II AH 10'ZI —�— 0 i ML 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 MAXIMUNI DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified) Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Procedure Used: A Sample ID: B5 @ 5 Feet Prep. Method: Moist Location: Native Rammer Type: Mechanical Description: Silty Sand: Gray Brown; Fine (SM) Sieve Size % Retained Maximum Density: 105.5 pef 3/4" 0.0 Optimum Moisture: 15.5% 3/8" 0.0 #4 0.0 140- 13- 40 135 I l i1 Al l i I I I 1 11! I ! ? I <----- Zero Air Voids Lines,! sg =2.65, 2,70, 2,75 130 I I I I ? I I I I i I 1 125 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■n�� ■■■■■ ■■■O ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■BY� ■■■■ ■■■■■ IMMERSE ■■■W■®��►■■■■■■■p■ G■0■ ■■■■ ■■■■N r1'■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■■ ■0■■ W=MM ■■■■ ■■■■■ �� ■■■��■�� 0■� Wim■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■►� �■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■■■■■ ��■ ■■■■ ■■!■■■■■■ ■■■ME■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■1 ■■► '■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■r ■■■■► 1.■■�■ EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified) Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Procedure Used: A Sample ID: B7 @ 0-5 Feet Prep. Method: Moist Location: Native Rammer Type: Mechanical Description: Silty Sand: Gray Brown; Fine (SM) Sieve Size % Retained Maximum Density: 106 pcf 3/4" 0.0 Optimum Moisture: 15.5% 3/8" 0.0 #4 0.0 140 135 130 125 w u 120 A 115 110 105 ■■■■■■■■�7�vVoids■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■fAN■■■■■■■■ ■ ■W■■■■W► ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ rnv■■ ■■■■ ■■®■■■■ 100+ 0 5 10 15 20 Moisture Content, percent EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 25 30 ■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■ink ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■® ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ 100+ 0 5 10 15 20 Moisture Content, percent EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 25 30 ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■!� why■■■■ ■■■■■■■■t ■ N 4■■■■■ 100+ 0 5 10 15 20 Moisture Content, percent EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 25 30 01 x O O cn w Ln C14 �1 U) VM CC) En O+ N R+ 3 I � o Iz al U) In �' I Ei 0 ,+ � � I En , to 0 IU fJ� U H a I .) ' to � O I Pa of 1 a r I o H !-I c O R+ I Pa I OD �+ 1 Iz o ,, I z 44 \ o � O r w ) Ln � Ln 00 1.1 N O O G •� 0 O M N d' �4 x a C� C0 0; 00 - >a �N N N _ N N O O O O > w ya rl ON 44 O O A N A o H �+ U � U U 0 az w F�4-3 CD Ln Ea as 0o CD U A a D O A PaUIU I O Z tso1� U O a1 a f.o 4-) t~ I co H 'O 1 -rl S4 O r- 0 1~ O) 0 N t0 O ul mr- U)