The URL can be used to link to this page

10281 (ELEC)4 P.O. BOX 1504 No. 10281 Building 78-105 CALLE ESTADO Address 46-751 1/2 ADAMS LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Owner DAY CONSTRUCTION BUILDING: TYPE CONST. OCC: GRP. Mailing AddreSP8448 WARD ST. A.P. Number City Zip Tel. FOUNTAIN VAL EY 92708 17144963-0971 Legal Description Project Description CONSTRUCTION TRAILER AND TEMP POWER POLE FOR WALMART Contractor DAY CONSTRUCTION Address SAME City Zip Tel.: State Lic. City & Classif. 61G64 Lic. # 213 Sq. Ft. Size 400 No. No. Dw. Stories Units Arch., Engr., Designer New ❑ Add ❑ Alter ❑ Repair ❑ "Demolition ❑ Address Tel. City Zip State Lic. # LICENSED CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of. Division 3 of thgg Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effe � ,.1r, /'- C /C '� �r� ir" T� ✓%' J.. ��' .1 SIGNATURE DATE OWNER -BUILDER DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: (Sec. 7031.5,Business and Professions Code: Any city or county which requires a permit to thconstruct, after, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its issuance also requires e applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law, Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, or that. he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by 'any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500). ❑ 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, Buisness and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or Improves thereon and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for safe. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner -builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale.) Estimated Valuation PERMIT AMOUNT Plan Chk. Dep. Plan Chk. Bal. Const.Y ec ! {�( • (� Mech. _ - Electrical 3 • �' Plumbing ❑ I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to con- struct the project. (Sec. 7044, Business and -Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who contracts for such projects with a contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law.) O I am exempt under Sec. B. 8 P.C. for this reason S.M.I. Grading Driveway Enc. Date Owner Infrastructure WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I have a certificate of consent to self -insure, or a certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance, ora certified copy thereof. (Sec. 3800, Labor Code.) Policy No. Company Copy Is filed with the city. ❑ Certified copy is hereby furnished. 1•�,� ' ` "�� fT 1 4� y 11.50 00 TOTAL $ 13 Cl • E1 C� CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE REMARKS (This section need not be completed If the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) valuation or less.) I certify that in the performance of thq 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 Date Owner NOTICE TO APPLICANT: If, after making this Certificate of Exemption you should become subject to the Workers' Compensation provisions of the Labor Code, you must forthwith comply with such provisions or this permit shall be deemed revoked. ZONE: BY: Minimum Setback Distances: Front Setback from Center Line Rear Setback from Rear Prop. Line CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY Ihereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. (Sec. 3097, Civil Code.) Side Street Setback from Center Line Side Setback from Property Line Lender's Name FINAL DATE INSPECTOR Lender's Address This is a building permit when properly filled out, signed and validated, and is subject to expiration if work thereunder is suspended for 180 days. I certify that I have read this application and state that the above information is correct. I agree to comply with all city and county ordinances and state laws relating to building construction, and hereby authorize representatives -of this city to enter the above-. mentioned property for inspection purposes. Issued by: Validated by: Date Permit Signature of applicant Date Mailing Address Validation: City, State, Zip CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE NO. ELECTRICAL FEES NO. PLUMBING FEES IST FL. SO. FT. ® $ 2ND FL. SO. FT. POR. SO. FT. ® GAR. SO. FT. r@ CARP. SO. FT. WALL SO. FT. SO FT ® ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION $ UNITS MOBILEHOME SVC. POWER OUTLET YARD SPKLR SYSTEM BAR SINK ROOF DRAINS DRAINAGE PIPING DRINKING FOUNTAIN, URINAL WATER PIPING NOTE: Not to be used as property tax valuation BONDING FLOOR DRAIN MECHANICAL FEES FORMS WATER SOFTENER VENT SYSTEM FAN EVAP.COOL HOOD SIGN WASHER(AUTO)(DISH) APPLIANCE DRYER GAS (ROUGH) GARBAGE DISPOSAL FURNACE UNIT WALL FLOOR SUSPENDED OTHER APPJEOUIP. LAUNDRYTRAY AIR HANDLING UNIT CFM TEMP. POLE KITCHEN SINK ABSORPTION SYSTEM B.T.U. TEMP USE PERMIT SVC WATER CLOSET' COMPRESSOR HP POLE, TEM/PERM LAVATORY HEATING SYSTEM FORCED GRAVITY AMPERES SERV ENT SHOWER BOILER B.T.U. SO. FT. ® c BATH TUB SO. FT. ® c WATER HEATER MAX. HEATER OUTPUT, B.T.U. SO. FT. RESID ® 1% c SEWAGE DISPOSAL SO.FT.GAR ® 3Yic HOUSE SEWER REMARKS: GAS PIPING PERMIT FEE PERMIT FEE PERMIT FEE DBL TOTAL FEES MICRO FEE MECH.FEE PL.CK.FEE CONST. FEE ELECT. FEE SMI FEE PLUMB. FEE STRUCTURE PLUMBING ELECTRICAL HEATING & AIR COND. SOLAR SETBACK GROUND PLUMBING UNDERGROUND A.C. UNIT COLL. AREA SLAB GRADE ROUGH PLUMB. BONDING HEATING (ROUGH) STORAGE TANK FORMS SEWER OR SEPTIC TANK ROUGH WIRING DUCT WORK ROCK STORAGE FOUND. REINF. GAS (ROUGH) METER LOOP HEATING (FINAL) OTHER APPJEOUIP. REINF. STEEL GAS (FINAL) TEMP. POLE GROUT WATER HEATER SERVICE FINAL INSP. BOND BEAM WATER SYSTEM GRADING cu. yd. $ plus x$ =$ LUMBER GR. FINAL INSP. FRAMING FINAL INSP. ROOFING REMARKS: VENTILATION FIRE ZONE ROOFING FIREPLACE SPARK ARRESTOR GAR. FIREWALL LATHING MESH INSULATION/SOUND FINISH GRADING FINAL INSPECTION CERT. OCC. FENCE FINAL INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURES/INITIALS GARDEN WALL FINAL FIBREBONDm V State of California Plan Approval Model: D-5209 115-5"x 20'-.0" x..91-0" Equipment Shelter CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION Manufactured by: Fibrebond Corporation. 1300 Davenport Drive Minden, Louisiana 71055 (Voice) 318-377-1030/800-824-2614 (Fax) 318-371-9208 (E-mail) projectI@fibrebond.com www.fibrebond.com Branch Facility: Fibrebond West, Inc. 299 Beck Avenue Fairfield, California 94533 (Voice) 707-421-1065 (Fax) 707-421-0845 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE DATE JUL 2 8'00. RADCAPPROVED OCT'3 1`0 1 APPROVAL NO. RAD - 533/1 .1 AD-533/11 78 ENVELOPE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE COMPLIANCE CALCULATION PROGRAM PUBLIC REVIEW VERSION 2.2 ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 with proposed Addenda f & m ►ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN OF NEW BUILDINGS EXCEPT LOW-RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 4ICIT'19 Bakersfield CA BUILDING: D5209CA CODE <B,C,H>: Both Heated and Cooled DATE: 7/18/00 ENVSTD Public Review Version 2.2 - January 1993 WEIGHTED AVERAGE CRITERIA ----------N------NE------E-----SE------S-----SW------W-----NW- --------------- WL AREA 174.0 102.7 174.0 102.7 0.000 0.219 GL AREA 0 0 0 0 WWR WWR SCx 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.500 PF 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 VLT 0 0 0 0 0.000 N/A Uof 0 0 0 0 0.000 1.230 WALL Uol 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.090 0.179 HC 1 1 1 1 1 1.000 1 INS POSI 2 2 2 2 N/A N/A EQUIP 1 .6 .6 .6 .6 0.600 0.600 LIGHTS 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.100 3.100 DLCF 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 ------- ---------------------- L 0 A D S---------------------- -TOTAL- ------- HEATING 0.093 0.186 0.392 0.192 0.864< 4.377 COOLING 12.553 7.526 12.493 7.806 40.379< 66.181 TOTAL 112.647 7.712 •12.885 7.999 141.242< 70.558 ********** PASSES EXTERIOR WALL TOTAL CRITERIA ********** OTHER ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS ENVSTD Public Review Version 2.2 - January 1993 CRITERIA MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF ROOF AREA IN SKYLIGHTS: DESIGN MAXIMUM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percentage of Roof Area in Skylights: Visible Transmittance of Skylight Design Lighting Footcandles of Space (30, 50, 70) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE Uo: MAXIMUM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Roof 0.05 < 0.062 Wall Adjacent to Unconditioned Space 0.09 < 0.286 Floor Over Unconditioned Space 1 0.134 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE R -VALUE: MINIMUM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wall Below Below Grade 0.0 R -Value of Concrete Slab Insulation Heated or Unheated Slab (H/U) Horizontal or Vertical Insulation Position/ r, aC �•.T''� ' •I •rl •,' ,• ;Y3 pepth or Width of Insulation (24, 36, or48�: z '1 -=•r=====____- ********* PASSES OTHER ENVELOPE.,.R ** A* • - ,E (; t. 0-0. : r.: OF CA's -\k t �_` Job 11'-5" x 20' Shelter D-5209 State of California. client Fibrebond Cor oration DC1-DC2 ARK jJob No. 1 310.58 Date 7/19/00 jPaqe DC1 STRUCTURAL CALCULATION INDEX ITEM PAGE Design Criteria DC1-DC2 Floor Design F1 -F2 Roof Design R1 Wall Design W1 -W2 Building Lateral L1 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 2277 FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD, SUITE 320 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825 (916) 924-7024 FAX (916) 924-7034 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA: 1: Design Code: 1997 UBC 2. Type of Construction: Concrete. Ribbed Roof, Floor, and Walls 3. Design Live Loads: a. Roof 100 psf b. Floor 120 psf 4. Foundation: FOUNDATION DESIGN BY OTHERS 5 Lateral Loads: a. Wind 100 mph b. Seismic Zone 4 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE DATE itll 2 3 '00 APPROVED OCT 31 '01 APPROVAL NO RAD; 533/1178 Exposure C . �Q�,oFFss/oN cZ, JOHN D. �G c� ANOENMA Exp. 12/31/02 STRUCTURAL;' �l�TFOF CAUFO��\� �QROFE ..... lF W\JOHN D •. y • AN N 0. : 3 Exp. 12/31/02 .STRUCTURAL �lgjFOF CALIFO��\P APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE DATE JUL 2 8 '00APP o RADCO D OCT 31'01 APPROVAL NO. RAD: 533/1178 DCI • Design Criteria.xls Job 11'-5" x 20' Shelter D-5209 State of California Client Fibrebond Corporation B ARK IJob No. 310.58 Date 7/19/00 1 Page DC2 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 2277 FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD, SUITE 320 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825 .(916) 924-7024 FAX (916) 924-7034 Decking Ribs.IaCeaf ROOF LOADS (psfl 1.5 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 2277 FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD, SUITE 320 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825 .(916) 924-7024 FAX (916) 924-7034 WltlL=llz4u9 Decking Ribs.IaCeaf L " :e:::r::a:::is .......... Roofing 1.5 1.5 2 1/2" light wt. Conc. Slab 25.0 25.0 '1':,: .5" X 4" light wt. Conc. ribs at 24" o.c. 1.8 Foam 1.0 5 Ceiling 1.5 2.8 ::€:::::::::-2.$i 06 Mechanical & Electrical Misc. 1.5 1.4 0! Live Load Reducible for Area 120.01 12 0. 0 Dead Load 28.0 4 1. 0 Live Load 100.0 ............ ........ 100.01 .. 10*0 Total Load 1 128.01141.0 .. i, WltlL=llz4u9 Deckinq Ribs L " :e:::r::a:::is .......... Flooring 1.5 25.0 2"- light wt. Conc. Slab .20.0- 20..0 '1':,: 5" X 4" lig t wt. Conc. ribs at 24" o.c. 1.8 Foam 1.0 5 Misc. 1.5 1.2 06 Dead Load 23.0 32.0 0! Live Load Reducible for Area 120.01 12 0. 0 I Total Load 1 143.01 152.0jjjj�jj!*!j3�.Oj WltlL=llz4u9 RPOFESS/ JOHN 0. Fy ANDE2.S Exp. 12/31/02 % STRUCTURAL ...... OFC Z??,OFESS I fJOHN o uj �. 0 10 Exp. 12/31102 %'STRUCTURAL OC2 - Design Loads.xls Decking Ribs rl 2" normal wt. Conc. Skin 25.0 25.0 6" X 2" normal wt. Conc. ribs at 48" o. 3.1 '1':,: Wall Board 1.8 Foam 0.5 5 Misc. 1.0 0.6 06 Dead Load 26.0, 31.0::::m::;: : ::.0: RPOFESS/ JOHN 0. Fy ANDE2.S Exp. 12/31/02 % STRUCTURAL ...... OFC Z??,OFESS I fJOHN o uj �. 0 10 Exp. 12/31102 %'STRUCTURAL OC2 - Design Loads.xls Job 11'-5" x 20' Shelter D-5209 State of California Client Fibrebond Corporation By ARK jJob No. 310.58 Date 7/19/00 IPaqe F1 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 2277 FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD, SUITE 320 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825 ti (916) 924-7024 FAX (916) 924-7034 FLOOR DESIGN: Design Live Load = 120 psf Shelter Width = 11.42 ft. aAs ' Fy F'c = 5,000 psi PM1N. = 0.0033 = 85 ' F'c ' b Fy = 60,000 psi PEIAL, = 0.0335 MOLT. ALLOW. - 4 ' As ' Fy (d - a/2) = 0.9 PMAx. = 0.0252 B = 0.80 2" Slab Design: . LMAx = 24 ' t = 4.00 ft. ONE END CONTINUOUS L = ' 2.0 ft. b = 12 in. t = 2.0 in. d = 0.75 in. DL= 23 x 1.4 = 32.2 PLF LL= 120.0 x 1.7 = 204.0 PLF TL= 143 236.2 PLF B = 1.0 ft. WULT = 236 PLF MULT. = WULT ' L2 / 9 = 0.105 ft. kips ONE END CONTINUOUS With 6x6 - D5xD5 WWF at mid -depth As = 0.10 in 2 P = 0.0111 OKAY a = 0.118 in. MuLr.ALLow. = 0.311 ft. kips > 0.105 OKAY Use 2" Slab with 6x6 - D5xD5 WWF 3/4" Clear each face Rib Design: L.bend;r,q= 11.00 ft. badge beam= 5.0 in, L,hear 10.58 ft. br;b = 5.0 in. t = 6.0 in. d = 4.875 in. DL= 32.0 x 1.4 = 44.8 PLF LL = 120.0 x 1.7 = 204.0 PLF TL = 152.0 248.8 PLF B = 2.00 ft. WULT = 498 PLF MULT. = WULT ' L2 /8 7.53 ft. kips SIMPLE SPAN With #6 Bottom As = 0.44 in 2 a = 0.2588 b = 24 in.. c"= 0.3235 c < flange thickness Rectangular Beam analysis: Asf = 2.692 a = 0.2588 pr = .0.1104 P = 0.0038 OKAY 0.75 pb = 0.0225 p,, = 0.0181 OKAY MULT. ALLOW. = 9.40 ft. kips > 7.53 OKAY Shear analysis: Equation (11-5) VC = 3.54 kips • 0 Vc = 3.01 kips MULT. = 1.07 ft. kips (at distance 'd' from end of support) VULT. = 2.43 kips < 3.01 OKAY Use 5" Wide x 6" Deep Ribs @ 24" o.c. . with #6 Bottom 9 t�Q JOHN D. • Fy c (AND E( 0 Exp. 12/31/02 .0 •'. STRUCTURAL � �l7lFOF C Q�OfESS1pN� •JOHN 0. ANDiiefi=N Exp. 12/31/02 %;STRUCTURAL �lgjFOF CAL\F��\P 11'•5" Floor FI - Floor Design.zls 4 Job 11'-5" x 20' Shelter D-5209 State of California Client Fibrebond Corporation By ARK lJob No. 1 310.58 Date 1 7/19/00 Pae I R1 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 2277 FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD, SUITE 320 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825 (916) 924-7024 FAX (916) 924-7034 ROOF DESIGN: Design Live Load = 100 psf OKAY a= - 0.118 in. Shelter Wldth = 11.42 ft. 0.093 OKAY As - Fy F'c = 5,000 psi PMIN• = 0.0033 a= 24 in. 3/4" Clear each face c = 0.3235 Rib Design: L = 85 - Fc - b Fy = 60,000 psi pa„L. = 0:0335 MULT. ALLOW. _ @ ' As ' Fy ( d - a/2) = 0.9 PMAx. = 0.0252 6.0 In. DL= 8 = 0.80 PLF 2" Slab Design: LMAx = 24 ' t = 4.00 ft. ONE END CONTINUOUS L = 2.0 ft. 9.0 In. TL= 141.0 b = 12 in. t = 2.0 in. d = 0.75 in. DL= 28 x 1.4 = 39.2 PLF 0.1256 LL= 100.0 x 1.7 = 170.0 PLF ft. kips TL= 128 209.2 PLF 6.55 B = 1.0 ft. wuLT = 209 PLF wuLT " L2 / 10 MOLT. = wuLT ' L2 / 9 = 0.093 ft. kips ONE END CONTINUOUS With 6x6 - D5xD5 WWF at mid -depth As = . 0.10 int 13= 0.0111 OKAY a= - 0.118 in. MULT. ALAW. = 0.311 ft. kips > 0.093 OKAY Use 2" Slab with 6x6 - D5xD5 WWF b = 24 in. 3/4" Clear each face c = 0.3235 Rib Design: L = 11.08 ft. Midspan: 3/8 Span: bW = 4.0 in. 1/4 Span: t,.d pae = 7.0 In. twig. = 6.0 In. DL= 41.0 'x 1:4 = 57,4 PLF Le�efiang = 2.0 In. LL= 100.0 X'1.7= 170.0 PLF edgebeam= 9.0 In. TL= 141.0 227.4 PLF As( = 2.833 B = . 2.0 ft. 2.833 wuLT = 455 PLF Pr = 0.1256 Mid Span MULT. = wuLT • L2 / 8 6.98 ft. kips SIMPLE SPAN 3/8 Span MULT. = wuLT ' L2 / 9 6.55 ft. kips 0.0216 1/4 Span MULT. = wuLT " L2 / 10 5.24 ft. kips 0.2588 rA,jQ ,OfESSI0 ✓�c�,� •."JOHN D ' •,Fy ANDE O ' 9 o Exp. 12/31/02 STRUCTURAL.• s�'"e ..O JOHN DFESS/ON lF . .Iy U • A c� Or_• NDE No. 910 ; Exp. 12/31/02 •. STRUCTURAL �lgIFOF With #6 Bottom As = 0.44 in2 a = 0.2588 b = 24 in. c = 0.3235 c < flange thickness d trial = 5.075 in. Midspan: 3/8 Span: 1/4 Span: Face of edge beam + distance 'd': Rectangular Beam analysis: 1.3854 2.7708 4.7021 d eff. = 5.875 in. d eff. = 5.639 in. d eff. = 5.403 in. d eff. = 5.075 in. Asf = 2.833 As( = 2.833 As( = 2.833 Asr = 2.833 Pf = 0.1206 Pr = 0.1256 pf = 0.1311pr = 0.1396 0.75 Pb = 0.0193 0.75 Pb = 0.0199 0.75 Pb = 0.0206 0.75 pb = 0.0216 a = 0.2588 a = 0.2588 a = 0.2588 a = 0.2588 p = 0.0031 OKAY p = 0.0033 OKAY p = 0.0034 OKAY p = 0.0036 OKAY p,,, = 0.0187 OKAY pr„ = 0.0195 OKAY pW = 0.0204 OKAY pw = 0.0217 OKAY MUALLOW. = 11.38 ft. kips M,, ALLOW = 10.91 ft. kips muALLOW= 10.44 ft. kips m,, ALLOW = 9.79 ft. kips MULT. = 6.98 ft. kips MOLT. = 6.55 ft. kips MULT. = 5.24 ft. kips MULT. = 1:96 ft. kips OKAY OKAY OKAY OKAY Shear analysis: Equation (11-4) �Vc = 2.21 kips Vc = 2.16.kips OVC = 2.12 kips VOLT. = 0.00 kips VOLT. = 0.63 kips VOLT. = 1.26 kips OKAY OKAY OKAY Use 4" Wide x 6" to 7" Deep Ribs @ 24' with 96 Bottom Vc = 2.27 kips VOLT. = 2.14 kips OKAY TYOical Roof R I . Rnnf nniian .Ic Job 11'-5" x 20' Shelter D-5209 State of California Client Fibrebond Corporation B ARK Job No. 310.58 Date 7/19/00 Pae W1 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 2277 FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD, SUITE 320 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825 (916) 924-7024 FAX (916) 924-7034 LATERAL LOADS TO WALL ELEMENTS: Design Wind Pressure On Elements (1997 UBC 1620) ��oQp,OFESS/pN9l c�, ••JOHN.D�••'•.F'G tiANDF G, Exp. 12/31/0-9 STRUCTURAL ��gIF�F CAUFO��\P Cq = 1.11 Pressure Coefficient for Wall Elements NOTE: Cq has been reduced for 36 SF area Cq = 1.3 for buildings ( see page L1 ) Ce = 0.62 @ Exposure "B" Height, Exposure, Gust Factor 1.06 @ Exposure "C" Height, Exposure, Gust Factor MPH Basic Wind Speed % = .00256 ( MPH )Z Wind Stagnation Pressure I = 1.15 Importance Factor P = CeCggj = Design Load Wind Loads for Elements Use 15 psf minimum design load. Wind Speed_ Design Load ( psf ) Ex . B Ex . C 70 9.9 17.0 80 13.0 22.2 90 16.4 28.1 100 20.3 34.6 110 24.5 41.9 120 29.2 49.9 Q�OFESSIp ' JOHN D. . Exp. 12/31/02 STRUCTURAL �lgIFOF CAUFO��\P Seismic Element (1997 UBC 1632.2 Simplified Design of Elements) Seismic Zone 4 ap = 1.0 RP = 3.0 Near Source Factor (Na) 1.3 Ca = 0.57 with SD Soil Profile Occupancy Importance Factor 1p = 1.5 hx= Element height hr= Roof Height h„ = 9 ft hr = 9 ft Fp = ( apCalp / Rp ) * ( 1 + 3 h,/hr) * Wp = 1.14 Wp Strength Design Fp max = 4.0 ( Ca IP Wp ) = 3.432 Wp Strength Design Fp min = 0.7 (Ca Ip Wp) = 0.60 Wp Strength Design Fp = Fp STRENGTH DESIGN / 1.4 = 0.82 Wp Working Stress W SEISMIC WORKING STRESS = 0.82 * 31.0 = 25.3 psf W1 • Lateral Loads to Wall Elements.zls Job 11'-5" x 20' Shelter D-5209 State of California Client Fibrebond Corporation By ARK jJob No. 1 310.58 Date 7/19/00 IPage W2 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 2277 FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD, SUITE 320 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825 (916) 924-7024 FAX (916) 924-7034 �oQ?,OFESS/pygl ,\k, •JOHN D Fy AND S.; • No o� • No. 10 ; y * Exp. 12/31/02 •; %STRUCTURAL . ��glFpF CAUF��\P Q�OFESS/pl c�Q • JOHN D ' ,Fy AND G, Exp. 12/31/02 .STRUCTURAL pF CAUF��\� WALL DESIGN: Wind Load= 34.6 psf 100 H, EXP. C - - Wall Height= 9.00 ft. a = As * Fy Fc = 5,000 psi PMIN. = 0.0033 .85.* Fc * b Fy = 60,000 psi PEAL. = 0.0335 MOLT. ALLOW. - ` AS * Fy ( d - a/2) = 0.9 pmAx. = 0.0252 R = 0.80 2" Slab Design: LMAx ':".24 * t = 4.00 ft. ONE END CONTINUOUS L = 4.0 ft. b = 12 in. t = 2.0 in. d = 0.75 in. WIND LOAD=. 34..6 x 1.4 = 48.4 PLF B = 1.0 ft. WULT = 48 PLF MOLT. - WULT *.L2 / 9 = 0.086 ft. kips ONE END CONTINUOUS With 6x6 - D5xD5 WWF at mid -depth AS = 0.10 in 2 P= 0.0111 OKAY a= 0.118 in. MULT. ALLOW. - 0.311 ft. kips > 0.086 OKAY Use 2" Slab with 6x6 - D5xD5 WWF 5/8" Clear each face minumum Rib Design: L. 9.00 ft. b = 6.0 in. t = 4.0 in. d = 3.00 in. WIND LOAD = 34.6 x 1.3 45.0 PLF B = 4.0 ft. WULT = 180 PLF MULT. = WULT * L2 / 8 = 1.82 ft. kips SIMPLE SPAN #6 1. F. & WWF 0. F. _ As= 0.15 in 2 P = 0.0083 OKAY a = 0.353 in. MULT. ALLOW. _ 1.91 ft. kips > 1.82 OKAY Use 6" Wide x 4"Deep Ribs @ 48" o.c. - with #6 I.F. & WWF O.F. 100C W2 - Wall Design.xls Job 11'-5" x 20' Shelter D-5209 State of California Client Fibrebond Corporation By ARK jJob No. 310.58 Date 7/19/00 1 Pae L1 ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 2277 FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD, SUITE 320 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825 .(916) 924-7024 FAX (916) 924-7034 QROFESS/pNq! JOHN O. •Fy Design Wind Pressure (1997 UBC 1620) , . ANo N ,•..C) Basic Wind Speed 100 mph Exposure C Importance Factor 1.15 Pressure Coefficient 1.3 Height Ce P 0 to 15 ft. 1.06 40.6 psf Wind Stagnation Pressure:. : Exp. 12/31/02 = g STRUCTURAL 70 mph 75 mph 80 mph 90 mph 100 TF�FCALIEO��\� 12.6 14.5 16.4 20.8 25. Combined Height., Exposure & Gust Factor: B C D 0.62 1.06.- 1.39 Seismic Element (1997 UBC 1632.2 Simplified Design of Elements) Seismic Zone 4 ap = 1.0 Rp = 3.0 Near Source Factor (Na) 1 Ca = 0.44 with SD Soil Profile Occupancy Importance Factor Ip = 1.5. Concrete shear wall R= 4.50 V=(3.0 x C,,/R) x W= 0.293 W VWS= V/1.4 0.210 W oQ�LOFESS/qql •JOHN 0. •,Fy Z . AN,,�,�c' o t0 " Exp.12/31!02 := . STRUCTURAL . ��gTFpF CALIE��\P Building Weights .. Width Thick Length Weight psf Roof 11.75 0.58 20.33 41.00 = Floor 11.42 0.50 20.00 30.00 = Height = Long Wall 9.00 0.33 19.33 31.00 = Long Wall 9.00 0.33 19.33 31.00 = Short Wall 9.00 0.33 11.42 31.00 = Short Wall 9.00 0.33 11.42 31.00 = Total Long Direction bldg Overturning h = roof + floor + wall height = OTM wind = P`w"h2/2 = 23530 OTM seis =. VWS[(Wr'h)+(2`W11+2'WI2)/2+(Wf'.25)] .38427 0.00 *RM= (Wr+2`Wl1)"U2+WI2".17+WI2`L 248957 Short Long Direction bldg Overturning 9 796 Wr 6 850 Wf 5 394 WI1 5 394 3 185 WI2 3 185 33804 10.08 Controls 38427 No Uplift OTM wind = P'L''h2/2 = 41220 Controls OTM seis = VWS[(Wr''h)+(2*WI1+2"WI2)/2+(Wf'.25)] 38427 41220 0.67 'RM= (Wr+2•WI2)'w/2+WI1'.t/2+WI1'w 102627 No Uplift I 1 - Ai iilrlinn I Afprgl xIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GLOBAL GEO-ENG/NEER/NG, /NC. July 16, 2001 Project 1057-04 o2wireless Solutions 8300 Utica Avenue, Suite 245 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Mr. Arthur Hayes Construction Manager Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Verizon Wireless Site: La Quinta State Highway 111 & Washington Street �uiilta,`California References: (See Appendix A) Dear Mr. Hayes: 1. INTRODUCTION a) In. accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation for the proposed wireless development at the project location referenced above. b) We understand that the proposed improvements will consist of installation of a new 65 - foot high monopalm cellular antenna and a new 12 -foot by 20 -foot equipment shelter. C) This development will be utilized for wireless transmission and will not be inhabited. d) The project plans, consisting of half size unsigned sheets prepared by Velocitel Inc., were provided to us and generally' depict the proposed development and general conditions of the Property. .1 CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUC ION DATE 2� I BY 2712 Dow Avenue, Suite B, Tustin California 92780 Office (714) 505-8040 Fax (714) 505-8043 o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 ' Project 1057-04 Pag@ 2 2. SCOPE The scope of services we provided is as follows: ' a) Preliminary planning and preparation; b Review of availableeotechnical reports eports and maps pertaining to the property; ' c) Field exploration consisting of drilling one boring to a depth of 30 feet, using a truck -mounted, 8 -inch diameter, hollow -stem auger drill rig; ' d) Obtaining in-situ and bulk samples for classification and laboratory testing; e) Laboratory testing of selected samples considered representative of site conditioning ' in order derive relevant engineering properties; t f) Geological and engineering analyses of the field and laboratory data; g) Preparation of a final geotechnical report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations pertaining to: i) grading; ' ii) processing of soils; iii) foundation type(s); iv) foundation depths; ' v) bearingcapacity; ' vi) expansivity; ' .vii) corrosivity; viii resistivity; ix) sulphate and chloride content and cement type; X) shrinkage factor, subsidence; xi) slabs -on -grade; o2wireless Solutions July *16, 2001 Project 1057-04 Page 3 xii) settlement; xiii) retaining walls (if proposed in the future): • active pressure; • at -rest pressure; • passive resistance; • coefficient of friction; xiv) seismic characteristics; xv) drainage and ground water; xvi) liquefaction. 3. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration program is given in Appendix B, which includes the Log of Boring. 4. LABORATORY TESTING A description of the laboratory testing and the results is presented in Appendix C. 5. SITE DESCRIPTION 5.1 Location a) The subject site is located north of Highway 111 approximately midway between Washington Street and Adam Street in the City of La Quinta, California. More specifically, the proposed development area is situated at the northeastern corner of Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Well Site No. 5712, which is located at the rear of an existing retail center. The CVWD Whitewater Storm Channel exists approximately 50 feet north of the subject site. b) The approximate site location is shown on the Location Map, Figure 1. 5.2 Surface Conditions a) The CVWD well site, which is enclosed by a 5± foot high masonry block wall and gate, is currently occupied by a 10 foot by 10 foot well house, an above ground storage tank, a transformer and a few sheds. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i LOCATIONMAP BASE MAP: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, N La Quinta Quadrangle, 1980 O 2000 0 2000 4000 R T H SCALE FEET State Highway 111 and Washington Street GLOBAL GEO-ENG/NEER/NG, INC. La Quinta, California GEOLOGIC AND SOILS ENGINEERING TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Date: July 2001 Figure No: Project No.: 1057-04 1 If Ll Trailer I r Nx 1.9 } i � , 'tit •^ tt__ wel A. I y t .` _ •.: /:' ,ti•. t_,, �, Jr �� 1 '. 1/ tS� X1.1 1 -�J mi 44. _: �a- 4•• f '� � Fr � ail i `.. �'•r ..: '1��■ Y • 4� 1 l �+' ( J f f T.•. '' 30 R 4 BASE MAP: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, N La Quinta Quadrangle, 1980 O 2000 0 2000 4000 R T H SCALE FEET State Highway 111 and Washington Street GLOBAL GEO-ENG/NEER/NG, INC. La Quinta, California GEOLOGIC AND SOILS ENGINEERING TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Date: July 2001 Figure No: Project No.: 1057-04 1 m m = = m m m m m m = r m m o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 Project 1057-04 Page 4 b) The well site pad is flat, but elevated approximately 1-2 feet above the surrounding adjacent ground surfaces. The topography of the surrounding area is relatively flat with a slight gradient to the southeast. Vegetation within the proposed development area consists of scattered weeds and two palm trees. c) Drainage at the site consists of sheet flow run-off of incident rainfall derived from within the property boundaries and surrounding up -gradient areas. Surface drainage within the site area is predominantly to the southeast toward the Salton Sea. Geology 5.3.1 Regional Geologic Setting The project site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province in Southern California. Geologic structures within this province are characterized by a northwest -trending topographic range that terminates .directly against the Transverse Ranges to the north. The inland portions of the province include several high mountain ranges, underlain by igneous, metasedimentary, and metavolcanic rock of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic age. The coastal portion is defined by clastic marine and non -marine terraces of the upper Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary age. Structurally, the province is regarded as an uplifted and westward tilted range, which has been faulted and broken up into several smaller sub -parallel blocks. The Peninsular Ranges province is both bounded and transected by several major fault zones. Principal faults include the San Andreas, -San Jacinto, Newport - Inglewood and the Whittier -Elsinore Fault Zones. 5.3.2 Local Geologic Setting In general, the project site area is underlain by recent -aged alluvium. 5.4 ' Subsurface Conditions 5.4.1 Fill ' a) Fill soils were encountered in the upper six feet of our drilled excavation. 5.3 b) The well site pad is flat, but elevated approximately 1-2 feet above the surrounding adjacent ground surfaces. The topography of the surrounding area is relatively flat with a slight gradient to the southeast. Vegetation within the proposed development area consists of scattered weeds and two palm trees. c) Drainage at the site consists of sheet flow run-off of incident rainfall derived from within the property boundaries and surrounding up -gradient areas. Surface drainage within the site area is predominantly to the southeast toward the Salton Sea. Geology 5.3.1 Regional Geologic Setting The project site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province in Southern California. Geologic structures within this province are characterized by a northwest -trending topographic range that terminates .directly against the Transverse Ranges to the north. The inland portions of the province include several high mountain ranges, underlain by igneous, metasedimentary, and metavolcanic rock of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic age. The coastal portion is defined by clastic marine and non -marine terraces of the upper Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary age. Structurally, the province is regarded as an uplifted and westward tilted range, which has been faulted and broken up into several smaller sub -parallel blocks. The Peninsular Ranges province is both bounded and transected by several major fault zones. Principal faults include the San Andreas, -San Jacinto, Newport - Inglewood and the Whittier -Elsinore Fault Zones. 5.3.2 Local Geologic Setting In general, the project site area is underlain by recent -aged alluvium. 5.4 ' Subsurface Conditions 5.4.1 Fill ' a) Fill soils were encountered in the upper six feet of our drilled excavation. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 Project 1057-04 Page 5 6. 5.4.2 Alluvium a) Recent -aged alluvial soils, consisting of SAND and Sandy SILT, was encountered below the fill to the maximum explored depth of 30 feet. b) The SAND exposed in our exploration was generally observed to be fine grained, tan to light brown, dry to slightly moist, and loose to medium dense. c) A thin layer of Sandy SILT, encountered at a depth of 17 feet below ground surface, was found to be light brown, slightly moist and medium stiff. 5.4.2 . Groundwater No groundwater or seepage was encountered in our boring during the course of this investigation. POTENTIAL SEISMIC HAZARDS 6.1 General a) The property is located in the general proximity of several active and potentially active faults, which are typical for sites in the Southern California region. Earthquakes occurring on active faults within a 70 -mile radius are capable of generating ground shaking of engineering significance to the proposed construction. b) In Southern California, most of the seismic damage to manmade structures results from ground shaking and, to a lesser degree, from liquefaction and ground rupture caused by earthquakes along active fault zones. In general, the greater the magnitude of the earthquake, the greater the potential damage. o2w,ireless Solutions July 16, 2001 ' Project 1057-04 Page 6 6.2 Ground Surface Rupture The Property is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone; however, during historic times, a number of major earthquakes have occurred along active faults in Southern California. The closest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, located at a distance of about 5.4 miles northeast of the project site. Other active faults include the San Jacinto and Landers Faults, located at distances of about 21 and 32 miles, ' respectively, from the Property. Due to the distance of the closest active fault to the site, ground rupture is not considered a significant hazard at the site. ' 6.3 Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis a) We performed a deterministic seismic hazard analysis using the computer program EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and UCSEIS (Blake, 2000). The program computes the peak ground acceleration and the maximum magnitude earthquakes on each of the faults found within a user specified ' radius. The computation of the peak acceleration is based on the closest distance between the site and each digitized fault and a user specified attenuation relationship. For our analysis, we used a 70 -mile radius and the attenuation relationships developed by Boore, et al, (1997). Peak ground acceleration for the Property is 0.43g. ' b) Figure 2 shows the geographical relationships among the site locations, nearby faults and the epicenters of significant occurrences. Figure 3 gives the seismic parameters affecting the subject site. The project site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone; however, during historic times, a number of major earthquakes have occurred along the active faults in Southern California. From the seismic history of the region and ' proximity, the San Andreas Fault has the greatest potential for causing earthquake damage related to ground shaking at this site. 1 11 los: srole •� —Is. IN tooll � M7J9 199 \ `>r r S A f\.N D E iR N A A D 1 N 0 ON loss file S A NST !IA R B _A I -- --- �-) 1'0•., i fM! r� T��T �� ♦ \ �,f O1930 hluw ress •rte ♦q:•. f ♦ Oravr i0 .. roll •d� T OI R a•� 1 '� , 1812 M 7 un •� rf�'6► �f ��f I .. it �� 0 •I l 0 S? A N G E E S♦a7. G ♦`i�.` a0 fwtur• ♦ la• rOII "MI \. M&7 1492 '•I 14444-! ..!rAr. 174!M7.6 �1 ♦'t• • If2! •., MAI. Ifdl 1 i f loss 41 t _-MAN at r ..�r"r• LOS f20 IA69ro �~ •� a r _/—� I!. W ., A•u W P V• 1 AN6Cl — I • r tN.l... .. )w Ar h4rl ` v �• • ..••••••• u rr•7 p :4 :.5•• r 13 c• mis u cF4 '::• o •::,:' �:3 ,antes 1 y `R A N O E L_ � R3 I D E 41 d'• 'ft• .0 Ole MAJOR EARTHQUAKES AND RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS IN THE w4i%•, iT�3 , r� Lf� \' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION EXPLANATION \` '• ;\ ACTIVE FAULTS 1899 EARTHQUAKE LOCATIONS M7+ \0Approximate epicentral area of earthquakes that �\♦ "�r� occurred 1769-1933. magnitudes not recorded by M&3 `'•, 1 Total length of fault zone that breaks instrumentsrior to 1906 were estimated from \ Is 4. Halocene deposits or that has had p ;iaavr I Y, '•E '•• R 1 A L I e reports assigned on Intensity VII (Modified S A N 0 1 C 0 seismic activity. Marcell scale) or greater; this is roughly equivalent to t Richter M 6.0. 31 moderates -earthquakes, 7 major and one great earthquake (1857) were reported in the 14ss 1942 \ �f Fault segment with surface rupture 164 -year period 1769-1933. Yu •� during an historic earthquake, or with 1952 ' Maa- aseismic fault creep. M7.7\0 Earthquake epicenters since 1933, plotted from SAN instruments. 33 moderate" and five major DIEGO A IF,9Rlh - O Halocene volcanic activity earthquakes were in the 66 -year period 1933 to 1999. _ LIFF��RRNIG L� (Amboy, Pisgah, Cerro Prieto and Salton -Bp p Buttes `nl�Orrro �• **Code recommendations by the Structural Engineers Association of California define a great earthquake as one that has a Richter Magnitude of II4' 7 %or greater; a major earthquake 7 to 7 Y.; a moderate earthquake 6 to 7. H 4Y Compiled by Richard J. Proctor mainly from published and unpublished data of the California Division of Mines and Geology; Calllomla 614.11, ' 1 Department of Water Resources Bulletin 116-2 (1964); selections from bulletins of the Geological and Seismological Societies ofAmedca•, from C.F. Richter, Elementary Seismology (1966); and the National Atlas, p. 66, and from Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities- SSA Bulletin V 96. Highway 111 and Washington Street GLOBAL GEO-EENG/NEER/NG, INC. La Quinta, California GEOLOGIC AND SOILS ENGINEERING Date: July 2001 Figure No: TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 2 Project No: 1057-04 i M M OEM M M M M MM M M M M a TABLE OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS PARAMETERS RICHTER DISTANCE DURATION OF REFERENCE: POTENTIAL DISTANCE FROM MAGNITUDE AND YEAR OF FROM SITE TO EPICENTER OF PEAK GROUND MAXIMUM DESIGN RICHTER STRONG SITE INTENSITY CAUSATIVE SITE TO FAULT HISTORICAL HISTORICAL ACCELERATION MAGNITUDE SHAKING AT MODIFIED BLAKE, T.F. (ML) EARTHQUAKE EARTHQUAKE (PGA.) (Mm")FAULT SITE (SEC) MERCALLI EQFAULT EQSEARCH WITHIN 70 MI. WITHIN 70 MI. San Andreas 6'S re et al Fault(South of 5.4 12/4/48 16 0.43 7.4 30 X 1997 (Soil) 199 Garlock Fault) 6.0 21 San Jacinto 21 3/25/37 0.15 7.2 26 VIII " Fault Zone 6.2 30 3/19/54 Landers Fault 32 7'6 - 35 0.12 7.3 26 VII " 6/28/92 Pinto Mountain 29 NA NA 0.11 7.0 24 VII " Fault North Frontal 37 NA NA 0.09 6.7 21 VII " Zone Elsinore Fault 44 6'0 63 0.08 7.1 24 VII " 5/15/10 State Highway 111 and Washington Street GLOBAL GEO-ENGINEERING, INC. La Quinta, California Date: July 2001 GEOLOGIC AND SOILS ENGINEERING, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Project No.: 1057-04 Figure No.: 3 o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 ' Project 1057-04 -Page 7 7. LIQUEFACTION ' a) Liquefaction is the phenomenon where saturated soils develop high pore water pressures during seismic shaking and behave like a fluid. This phenomenon generally occurs in coastal areas of high seismicity, where ground water is shallow ' and loose granular soils or hydraulic fill soils subject to liquefaction are present. Liquefaction events may be manifested by formation of sand boils and mud spouts at the ground surface, seepage of water through cracks in the ground and quicksand - like conditions over large areas. For liquefaction to develop loose granular soils below the ground water table need to be present and shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration must occur. When liquefaction does occur, the surface structures may ' settle in to the ground or tilt excessively or significant settlement of the structures may occur. b) A qualitative evaluation of liquefaction potential was not performed, as part of this study, because no structures for human occupancy are proposed for the subject ' development and no ground water was encountered within the upper 30 feet of the surface. The potential for liquefaction is considered to be nil. ' 8. 'CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 General a It * is our opinion that the site will be suitable for the proposed p p posed cellular development from a geotechnical aspect, assuming that our recommendations are incorporated in the project plan designs and specifications, and are implemented during construction. b) We are of the opinion that the monopalm antenna tower can be supported on a drilled cast -in-place caisson and the shelter foundations may be supported on competent fill soils. C) We are also of the opinion that with due and reasonable precautions, the required grading will not endanger adjacent property nor will grading be ' affected adversely by adjoining property. d) The design recommendations in the report should be reviewed during the grading phase when soil conditions in the excavations become exposed. e) The final grading plans and foundation plans/design loads should be reviewed by the Soil Engineer. ' o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 Project 1057-04 Rage 8 8.2 Gradin ' 8.2.1 Processing of On -Site Soils ' a) The subgrade soils are not considered adequate as foundation material and should not be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below the footings and extending laterally for a distance of 2 foot beyond ' the edges of the footings. b) Wherever structural fills are to be placed, the upper 6 to 8 inches of the subgrade should, after stripping or overexcavation, first be I. scarified and reworked. C) The slab -on -grades and pavement should be underlain by at least 12 inches of compacted fill. ' d) Any loosening of reworked or native material, consequent to the passage of construction traffic, weathering, etc., should be made good prior to further construction. e) The depths of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Soil Engineer during construction. Any surface or subsurface ' obstructions, or any variation of site materials or conditions encountered during grading should be brought immediately to the attention of the Soil Engineer for proper exposure, removal or ' processing, as directed. No underground obstructions or facilities should remain in any structural areas. Depressions and/or cavities created as a result of the removal of obstructions should be backfilled ' properly with suitable materials, and compacted. 8.3 Material Selection ' a After the site has been stripped of any debris, vegetation and organic soils, ' excavated on-site soils are considered satisfactory for reuse in the construction of on —site fills, with the following provisions: ' i) the organic content does not exceed 3 percent by volume; ii) large size rocks greater than 8 inches in diameter should not be ' incorporated in compacted fill; ' o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 ' Project 1057-04 Page 9 iii) rocks greater than 4 inches in diameter should not be incorporated in compacted fill to within 1 foot of the underside of the footings and ' slabs. ' b) All imported fills, if used, should have very low -to -low expansion potential, should have less than 20 percent passing through #200 sieve, should have plasticity index of less than 15 and should be free of any organic and ' deleterious matter. 8.4 Compaction Requirements ' a) Reworking/compaction shall include moisture-conditioning/drying as needed to bring the soils to slightly above the optimum moisture content. All ' reworked soils and structural fills should be densified to achieve at least 90 percent relative compaction with reference to laboratory compaction standard. The optimum moisture content and maximum dry density should ' be determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1557. t b) Fill should be compacted in lifts not exceeding 8 inches (loose). A sufficient number of field and laboratory compaction tests should be performed during construction to verify minimum compaction requirements. Jetting of trench ' backfill is not recommended. 8.5 Excavating Conditions ' a) Excavation of on-site materials will P require special considerations and will require standard to heavy-duty earthmoving or trenching equipment. ' b Seepage and ground water were not encountered. Dewatering will not be required. ' 8.6 Shrinkage ' For preliminary earthwork calculations, an average shrinkage factor of 5 to 10 percent is recommended for the subgrade soils (this does not include handling losses). 8.7 Expansivity ' a) The expansion potential for existing on-site soils is considered to be Low by observation. Any imported material or doubtful material exposed during ' grading should be evaluated for expansivity. o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 Project 1057-04 Page 10 v b) The soil expansion potential for specific areas should be determined during the final stages of rough grading. 8.8 Sulphate Content a) The sulphate content of a representative sample of the soil resulted less than 0.2%. This does not typify a high sulphate condition. However, Type V Portland cement is recommended for the construction. 8.9 b) The fill materials should be tested for their sulphate content during the final stage of rough grading. Utility Trenching a) The walls of temporary construction trenches in fill should stand nearly vertical, with only minor sloughing, provided the total depth does not exceed 4 feet (approximately). Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes may be required, if greater depths are necessary. b) Trenches should be located so as not to impair the bearing capacity or to cause settlement under foundations. As a guide, trenches should be clear of a 45 -degree plane, extending outward and downward from the edge of foundations. C) Existing soils may be utilized for trenching backfill, provided they are free of organic materials. d) All work associated with trench shoring must conform to the state and federal safety codes. 8.10 Surface Drainage Provisions Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to the ' buildings to direct surface water run-off away from structural foundations and to suitable discharge facilities. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 Project 1057-04 Page 11 8.11 Gradiniz Control All grading and earthwork should be performed under the observation of a Soil Engineer in order to achieve proper subgrade preparation, selection of satisfactory materials, placement and compaction of all structural fill and installation of piles. Sufficient notification prior to stripping and earthwork construction is essential to make certain that the work will be adequately observed and tested. 8.12 Slab -on -Grade a) Concrete floor slabs may be founded on the reworked existing soils or compacted fill. The subgrade should be proof -rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, unyielding surface, especially if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic. b) If a floor covering that would be critically affected by moisture is to be used, a plastic vapor barrier is recommended. This sheeting should be covered with two inches of SAND. C) It is recommended that #3 bars on 18 -inch center, both ways, be provided as minimum reinforcement in slabs -on -grade. Joints should be provided and slabs should be at least 4 inches thick. d) Use a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 lb/in'- e) The FFL should be at least 6 inches above highest adjacent grade. 8.13 Spread Foundations The proposed structures can be founded on shallow spread footings. The criteria presented as follows should be adopted: 8.13.1 Dimensions/Embedment Depths Number of Stories Minimum Width Minimum Footing Minimum Embedment (floors supported) (ft.) Thickness Below Lowest Adjacent (in.) Finished Surface (ft.) 1 1.0 6 1.5 o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 Project 1057-04 Page 12 8.13.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity Embedment Depth (ft.) Allowable Bearing Capacity (lb/ft) 1.5 1,800 (Notes: • These values may be increased by one-third in the case of short -duration loads, such as induced by wind or seismic forces. • At least 2x#4 bars should be provided in wall footings, one on top and one at the bottom. • In the event that footings are founded in structural fills consisting of imported materials, the allowable bearing capacities will depend on the type of these materials, and should be re-evaluated. • Bearing capacities should be re-evaluated when loads have been obtained and footings sized during the preliminary design. • Planter areas should not be sited adjacent to walls. • Footing excavations should be observed by the Soil Engineer. • It should be insured that the embedment depths do not become reduced or adversely affected by erosion, softening, planting, digging, etc. 8.13.3 Settlements Total and differential settlements under spread footings are expected.to be within tolerable limits and are not expected to exceed'/4 and '/z inches, respectively. 8.14 Deep Foundations a) It is anticipated that the monopole will 'be supported on a deepened foundation system consisting of a cast—in-place caisson pile, founded into competent native soils. It is estimated that the minimum diameter of the caisson will be 36 -inches. o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 Project 1057-04 Page 13 b) Caving of the exploratory boring did occur during the subsurface exploration. Special provisions should be taken into account during the drilling process of the caisson to mitigate the effects of caving. c)' If required, specific pile dimensions, recommendations and other construction related procedures will be provided when design loads have been finalized by others. 8.15 Lateral Pressures a) The following lateral pressures are recommended for the design of retaining structures. b) Friction coefficient: 0.35 (includes a Factor of Safety of 1.5). C) These values apply to the existing soil, and to compacted backfill generated from in-situ material. Imported material should be evaluated separately. It is recommended that where feasible, imported granular backfill be utilized, for a width equal to approximately one-quarter the wall height, and not less than 1.5 feet. d) Backfill should be placed under engineering control. e) Subdrains should be provided behind retaining walls. Pressure (Ib/ftz/ft depth) Lateral Force Soil Profile Unrestrained Rigidly Supported Wall Wall Active Pressure Level 38 - At -Rest Pressure Level - 65 Passive Resistance (ignore upper 1.5 ft.) Level 300 - b) Friction coefficient: 0.35 (includes a Factor of Safety of 1.5). C) These values apply to the existing soil, and to compacted backfill generated from in-situ material. Imported material should be evaluated separately. It is recommended that where feasible, imported granular backfill be utilized, for a width equal to approximately one-quarter the wall height, and not less than 1.5 feet. d) Backfill should be placed under engineering control. e) Subdrains should be provided behind retaining walls. o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 Project 1057-04 Page 14 8.16 Seismic Coefficient For seismic analysis of the proposed regeneration project in accordance with the seismic provisions of UBC 1997, we recommend the following: ITEM VALUE REFERENCE Soil Profile Type Sd UBC Table 16J Seismic Source Type A UBC Table 16U Near Source Factor -Na 1.1 UBC Table 16S Near Source Factor -N„ 1.3 UBC Table 16T Seismic Coefficient -Ca 0.46 UBC Table 16Q Seismic Coefficient -C„ 0.83 UBC Table 16R Peak Ground Acceleration 0.43g EQFAULT (Blake 1999) 8.17 Soil Corrosivity a) Sulfate and chloride tests were performed on one sample of the near -surface materials. The results of the tests indicate water-soluble sulfate content of 0.052% and chlorides of 0.031 %, suggesting that sulfate and chloride attack hazard is low for the near -surface soils. Type V cement and a water to cement ratio of 0.5 would be appropriate for design of the concrete slab -on - grade. b) The minimum electrical resistivity of the near -surface soils is less than 200 ohm -cm. To evaluate the corrosion potential of near -surface soils, we used the following correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosion potential: Electrical Resistivity, ohm -cm Corrosion Potential Less than 1,000 Severe 1,000 to 2,000 Corrosive 2,000 to 10,000 Moderate Greater than 10,000 Mild C-) Based on these data, it is our opinion that general onsite near -surface soils have a severely corrosive potential for buried metal. This potential should be considered in the design of any underground metal utilities. Sulfate and corrosivity test results are presented in Appendix C. ' o2wireless Solutions July 16, 2001 Project 1057-04 Page 15 9. LIMITATIONS a) Soils and bedrock over an area show variations in geological structure, type, strength and other properties from what can be observed, sampled and tested from specimens extracted from necessarily limited exploratory borings. Therefore, there are natural '- limitations inherent in making geologic and soil engineering studies and analyses. Our findings, interpretations, analyses and recommendations are based on ' observation, laboratory data and our professional experience; and the projections we make are professional judgments conforming to the usual standards of the profession. No other warranty is herein expressed or implied. ' b) In the event that during construction, conditions are exposed which are significantly different from those described in this report, they should be brought to the attention ' of the Soil Engineer. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, GLOBAL GEO-ENGINEERING; IN .. -- , 1 QpcFEss Vfe KA Mohan B. pasani Principal Geotechnical E RGE 2301 (Exp. March 31, 2003) MBU/KBY:kby/dd Enclosures: U ^ `I�•� 3�� Location Map References Field Exploration Unified Soils Classification System Boring Location Plan Log of Boring Laboratory Testing evin 7Younf Principal Geologist RG 7225 (Exp. October 31, 2003) - Figure 1 - Appendix A - Appendix B Figure B-1 Figure B-2 Figure B-3 - Appendix C I Project 1057-04 ' APPENDIX A References 1. Blake, T. F., 1989, (Updated 2000) "EQFAULT: A Computer Program for the ' Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Fault, " User Manual and Program; ' 2. Blake, T. F., 1989, (Updated 1999) "EQSEARCH.- A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalogs, " User Manual and Program; ' "A 3. Blake, T.F., 1999, UBCSEIS, 2000, Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources", User Manual and Program, 53p; ' "Equations 4. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, for the Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work": Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 128-153; ' 5. California Department of Water Resources, July 1964, "Coachella Valley Investigation", Bulletin No. 108; 6. Greensfelder, Roger W., 1974, `Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California ": California Division of Mines and Geology, M. S. 23, (explanation 12 pages); ' 7. United States Geological Survey, 1980, 7.5 -Minute Topographic Map, La Quinta Quadrangle. I ' Project 1057-04 ' APPENDIX B Field Exploration a) ' The site was explored on June 29, 2001 utilizing an 8 -inch diameter truck -mounted, B-53 hollow drill stem auger rig, to excavate one boring to a maximum depth of 30 feet below the ' existing ground surface. The boring was subsequently backfilled. b) The soils encountered in the boring was logged and sampled by our Engineering Geologist. ' The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System ' described in Figure B-1. The approximate location of the boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan, Figure B-2. The Log of Boring for this investigation is presented in Figure ' B-3. The log, as presented, is based on the field tog q , modified as required from the results of ' the laboratory tests. Driven ring and bulk samples were obtained from the excavations for laboratory inspection and testing. The depths at which the samples were obtained are indicated on the logs. ' c) The number of blows of the hammer during sampling was recorded, together with the depth of penetration, the driving weight and the height of fall. The blows required per foot of penetration for given samples are indicated on the logs. These blow counts provide a ' measure of the density and consistency of the soil. d) No groundwater or seepage was encountered within the drilled boring. e) Minor caving did occur as indicated on the log. UNIFIED SOILS CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487) PRIMARY DIVISION GROUP SYMBOL SECONDARY DIVISIONS Very loose 0-4 Clean GW Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixture, little or no fines y N O L N U)r ; _ `—° W CU caN m Gravels <5%fines GP Poorly graded ravels or ravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines Y9 9 9 Q) , m N o •� Gravel with GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixture. Non -plastic fines. L o `� ` Fines Over 30 Over 4 Qo o GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures. Plastic fines m OL w Clean Sands SW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. Wm: cn t t0N DM o = 'c :5a Loo a5 ,y (<5% fines) SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. Qz OU `—° u) 2! w E 3[ Sands with SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures. Non -Plastic fines. Fines SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures. Plastic fines. o ~ ZML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, siltyor clayey fine Z< U) = sands or clayey silts, with slight plasticity CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy 'ffi (D U) >.o N� O :J > M �_ v w d clays, siltyclays, lean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. (n •� E `r' 00 J uJ w N o MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty _Z < s c !Z' z H Losoils, <} J<Z elastic silts. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays c CU C7 m W U) o W < �U 5X2 ~ LL o zi OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. E Highly Organic SOIIS PT Peat and other highly organic soils. CLASSIFICATION BASED ON FIELD TESTS PENETRATION RESISTANCE (PR) Sands and Gravels Relative Density Blows/foot Very loose 0-4 Loose 4-10 Medium Dense 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very Dense Over 50 60 50 x 40 ? 30 U N 20 a 10 0 0 10 CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA BASED ON LAB TESTS 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit Plasticity chart for laboratory -Classification of Fine-grained soils 'Numbers of blows of 140 Ib hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 -inch O.D. (1 3/8 in. I.D.) Split Barrel sampler (ASTM -1568 Standard Penetration Test) "Unconfined Compressive strength in tons/sq. ft. Read from pocket penetrometer GW and SW — C„= D6o/D,o greater than 4 for GW and 6 for SW; Cc. = (D30) 2/D,ox D6o between 1 and 3 GP and SP — Clean gravel or sand not meeting requirement for GW and SW GM and SM —Atterberg limit below "A" line or P.I. less than 4 GC and SC — Atterberg limit above "A" line P. 1. greater than 7 CLASSIFICATION OF EARTH MATERIAL IS BASED ON FIELD INSPECTION AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLY LABORATORY ANALYSIS UNLESS SO STATED. Fines (Silty or Clay) Fine Sand Medium Sand Coarse Sand Fine Gravel Coarse Gravel Cobbles Boulders Sieve Sizes 200 40 10 4 '/." 3' 10" Op♦o�.�� ei�°pr�fe! eio♦�+�sn sne i�GEOLOGIC AND SOILSCALIFORNIA State Highway 111 and Washington Street La Quinta, California Date: July 2001 1 Figure No.: Project No.: 1057-04 W Clays and Silts Consistency Blows/foot' Strength" Very Soft 0-2 0 % Soft 2-4 '/a '/, Firm 4-8 Yz-1 Stiff 8-15 1-2 Very Stiff 15-30 .2-4 Hard Over 30 Over 4 CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA BASED ON LAB TESTS 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit Plasticity chart for laboratory -Classification of Fine-grained soils 'Numbers of blows of 140 Ib hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 -inch O.D. (1 3/8 in. I.D.) Split Barrel sampler (ASTM -1568 Standard Penetration Test) "Unconfined Compressive strength in tons/sq. ft. Read from pocket penetrometer GW and SW — C„= D6o/D,o greater than 4 for GW and 6 for SW; Cc. = (D30) 2/D,ox D6o between 1 and 3 GP and SP — Clean gravel or sand not meeting requirement for GW and SW GM and SM —Atterberg limit below "A" line or P.I. less than 4 GC and SC — Atterberg limit above "A" line P. 1. greater than 7 CLASSIFICATION OF EARTH MATERIAL IS BASED ON FIELD INSPECTION AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLY LABORATORY ANALYSIS UNLESS SO STATED. Fines (Silty or Clay) Fine Sand Medium Sand Coarse Sand Fine Gravel Coarse Gravel Cobbles Boulders Sieve Sizes 200 40 10 4 '/." 3' 10" Op♦o�.�� ei�°pr�fe! eio♦�+�sn sne i�GEOLOGIC AND SOILSCALIFORNIA State Highway 111 and Washington Street La Quinta, California Date: July 2001 1 Figure No.: Project No.: 1057-04 W BORING LOCATION PLAN 4 C TAll�►D \tet`yt GATES 1G .[CESS c �•. POOER U.C. CWO `• ; •• ,'• L ' �\ 1 e. CCNq . ' x':�•\�\•�• \�L PROPOSED V -O' w10E w.4 [ATF ` ' \� �.� • �� '~' \.\`� , � \ . \; �J• �A \ r PROPOSED CPS ANTENNA i°unar — \'.PROPOSED MTER , T"RCAL OF 2. fTO BE wmTmto a7 rEmjM ' �.\o�aa TER qua cv.O -PROPOSED e•_O 14 To MATCH am SHELTER, TO w __0ROPOm 2W-4 AREA ENCLOSED SLUMP RED `PROPOSED UA. 1< PROPOSED 63* -o* MGM 'l\1(� '•\AMIEWMS rOYNiEO O r01 91C R PROPOSEDIRRIG TtOM SYSTEM .T '�La r. '�• q ,�� ERtsrt. r0 DE wortAR4[D of ice`°• 'T� \ �\,` tiFA ' � �\ KEY N B-1 U Boring Location, showing total depth, R 30' 30 0 30 60 T H SCALE FEET State Highway 111 and Washington Street GLOBAL GEO-ENG/NEER/NG, /NC. La Quinta, California GEOLOGIC AND SOILS ENGINEERING Date: July 2001 Figure No: TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA g j Project No.: 1057-04 B-2 1 11 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger I GLOBAL GED-ENG/NEER/NG, /NC. LOG OF TEST PIT B-1 Sampling Method Ring =0-1C SXN=a�Ma,crm•c Hammer Weight (lbs.) 140 lbs. Hammer Drop (in.) : 30 in. Date : June 29, 2001 Logged By : KBY Depth to Groundwater : None Encountered Elevation : -75 feet 'Highway 111 and Washington Total Depth of Boring : 30 feet La Quinta, California Diameter of Boring :8" Drilling Company Glodich Drilling Project No. 1057-04 Drilling Rig : B-53 HSA N L CL07 Ul .� T N Depth y in CL E E '0 o Z 3 O t v DESCRIPTION Feet m 07 m rn a� iL o a m O C7 0 Silty SAND/SAND: fine-grained, tan to light brown, dry to slightly Bulk moist, medium dense Ring 1.9 103.6 30 SM/SP 5 Ring 1.8 82.8 67 FILL SAND: fine-grained, tan to light brown, dry, loose to medium dense ® Ring N/R N/R 18 10 ® Ring 6.6 99.1 12 'SP 15 ® Ring 5.5 84.9 13 Sandy SILT: light brown, slightly moist, medium stiff MIL 20 SAND: fine-grained, light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense ® Ring 1.0 90.2 21 25 SP Ring N/R N/R 25 ALLUVIUM 30. Bottom o Boring at 30 feet Notes: 1) Caving to 25 feet 2) No Seepage or Groundwater Encountered 357 3) Boring backfilled and capped with AC patch 4 N/R - No Recovery Figure B-3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project 1057-04 APPENDIX C 'Laboratory Testing Program The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of, the soils. Samples representative of those obtained in the field were tested as described below. a) Moisture -Density Moisture -density information usually provides a gross indication of soil consistency. Local variations at the time of the investigation can be delineated, and a correlation obtained between soils found on this site and nearby sites. The dry unit weights and field moisture contents were determined for selected samples. The results are shown on the Log of Boring. b) Compaction A representative soil samples was tested in the laboratory to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, using the ASTM D1557 compaction test method. This test procedure requires 25 blows of a 10 -pound hammer falling a height of 18 inches on each of five layers, in a 1/30 cubic foot cylinder. The results of the test are presented below: Sample Depth Soil Optimum Moisture Maximum Boring No. (ft.) Description Content Dry Density Ib/ft B-1 0-37 Silty SAND/SAND 10.0 I 120.0 If 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix C Project 1057-04 Page 19 C) Direct Shear Direct shear tests were conducted on relatively undisturbed samples, using a direct shear machine at a constant rate of strain. Variable normal or confining loads are applied vertically and the soil shear strengths are obtained at these loads. The angle of internal friction and the cohesion are then evaluated. The samples were tasted at saturated moisture contents. The test results are shown in terms of the Coulomb shear strength parameters, as shown below: d) Sulfate Content A representative soil sample was analyzed for their sulphate content in accordance with California Test Method CA417. The results are given below: Boring No. Sample Depth Soil Coulomb Angle of (ft.) Boring No: Sample Depth Soil Cohesion Internal Peak/ (ft.) Description(lb/ft')Friction 0 Residual B-1 11 'SAND 200 29 Peak 100 28 Residual d) Sulfate Content A representative soil sample was analyzed for their sulphate content in accordance with California Test Method CA417. The results are given below: Boring No. Sample Depth Soil Sulphate Content (ft.) Description B-1 0-3 E. —T Silty SAND/SAND 0.052 Appendix C Project 1057-04 Page 20 e) Chloride Content A representative soil sample was analyzed for chloride content in accordance with California Test Method CA422. The results are given below: Boring No. Sample Depth Soil Chloride Content (ft.) Description (Ohm -cm) B-1 0-3 Silty SAND/SAND <200 B-1 0-3 Silty SAND/SAND 0.031 Resistivity A representative soil sample was analyzed in accordance with California Test Method CA643 to determine the minimum resistivity. The result is provided below: Boring No. Sample Depth Soil Minimum Resistivity (ft.) Description (Ohm -cm) B-1 0-3 Silty SAND/SAND <200