Loading...
0012-109 (RPL)U) (V W r- d � ' W o Z CCD O. o H(D J Waw U) Z M L0 N O C'4 U °) CL : Z lr �FZO X W -LL mUU O ��� Z CIS 5 r- C3 Q J 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 xp.,Date 777602 Cr53 <----- blbate/,-^ 5" ©signature of Contractof- -�"�' a ��E'>,�-* •_• 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.O. 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. (+l 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 7p Policy No. M�1Mx" ION ON VIL (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 agrd'e that if I should become subject to the workers' compensation pr6visions off ection 3700 of4e Labor CCtie, I. shall fort with comply with those provision's. ,.. .. _, trate: Warning: Failure to secure Workers' Compensation coverage is unlawful and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000, in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor Code, interest and attorney's fees. IMPORTANT Application is hereby made to the Director of Building and Safety for a permit subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth on his application. 1. Each person upon whose behalf this application is made & each person.at whose request and for whose.benefit work is performed. under or pursuant to any permit issued asa result of this applicaton agrees to, & shall, indemnify & hold harmless the City of La Quinta, its officers, agents and employees. 2. Any permit issued as a result of this application becomes null and void if work is not commenced within 180 days from date of issuance of •such permit, or cessation of work for 180 days will subject permit to cancellation. I certify that I have read this application and state that the above information is correct. I agree to comply with all City, and S.te laws relating to the building construction, and hereby authorize representatives ofathis City to enter'upon the above-mentioned property'for inspep�t n purposes. 1ignature (Owner/Agent) / l✓ yDate,! if. Gf. ' 1. BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT# DATE �, y'ALUATION LOT �.�x��.d�D TRACT JOB SITE t i APN ADDRESS ' �7-190 ,A,N".CrITI DA tie'+` ".,*AGA OWNER CONTRACTOR/DESIGNER/ENGINEER ERTC" MOS "MALT :L -HEV : 001...9.114C 77.190AVk P V AQA - 70.1 60'Ct$' D121R0,JkD#3 L,A,A. CPY.l14nik C'J's 922.13 �. -INCHO 3v9 RACM, CA 92270 060)831.0860 C: ALH 3735 USE OF PERMIT 1)OOL.AMf011 UPA I't�CS�.'3.r"��. FA.IyPsE:N57� A3riv?tis'1S S2�E39�I.. �G? 1'!1 I'R.EIC,`l: /� i' i'I:IrA.}.l.sA; TER JNSPi<P'lA` ON. P001, I~QUI2'.MM RTIC LOS1)btf1:1H NOT INC°LtjDJUM M THIS PERMIT, POM l NDIOR, SPA .TX ..BXr 3I.,000.0r.,Y PkWITI ME FIUMMAW 2'3-.lNC'k22:CK FE'S ;101e-000,439-;3214 CCiVSTR,UCTIQN t+'EE 101-000-418.000 ��313.Qa MEC HAMICAL FRE -- POOL 101-000-421-000 1-000-, 422.000 •824, 0 RIAC9',R•IC:AL, d'XX -• Pool., 0.1 r660 -410 -LICK 141.00 3� F1.Ir1A>423THOI{ER- POOV 101.000.419.000 ; $27,00 VEG 15 200.0 f . � � (gi � �, ION RTIB»10T'� 1. C;C'?1�•�€ YO'C" AMD d�i.rgM C?X, IMS PRE AYfi RMO $0.00 .tY3-IAL rmm#'n�- s XDup, now RECEIPT DATE B. '1 %1f DATE LFQ O INSPECTOR It o9C OV INSPECTION RECORD OPERATION DATE INSPECTOR OPERATION DATE INSPECTOR BUILDING APPROVALS MECHANICAL APPROVALS Set Backs Underground Ducts Forms & Footings Ducts Slab Grade Return Air Steel Combustion Air Roof Deck Exhaust Fans O.K. to Wrap F.A.U. Framing Compressor Insulation Vents Fireplace P.L. Grills Fireplace T.O. Fans 6 Controls Party Wall Insulation Condensate Lines Party Wall Firewall Exterior Lath Drywall - Int. Lath Final Final POOLS - SPAS BLOCKWALL APPROVALS Steel Set Backs Electric Bond Footings - Main Drain Bond Beam Approval to Cover Equipment Location Underground Electric Underground Plbg. Test Final Gas Piping PLUMBING APPROVALS Gas Test Electric Final Waste Lines Heater Final Water Piping Plumbing Final Plumbing Top Out Equipment Enclosure Shower Pans O.K for Finish Plaster Sewer Lateral Pool Cover Sewer Connection Encapsulation Cjv �j Gas Piping Gas Test Appliances _ Final COMMENTS: Final Utility Notice (Gas) ELECTRICAL APPROVALS Temp. Power Pole Underground Conduit Rough Wiring Low Voltage Wiring Fixtures Main Service Sub Panels Exterior Receptacles G.F.I. Smoke Detectors Temp. Use of Power Final Utility Notice (Perm) Earth'Systems Consultants %r Southwest CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING & :SAFETY DEPT. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE 1 21 10D By -lel -- I m Consulting Engineers and Geologists � I Cuff ERIC P. MOSSMAN ARCHITECT, AIA 2800 LAFAYETTE AVENUE, SUITE A ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 1 F 1 i GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT THE ENCLAVE LOT 36, AVENIDA ARTEAGA LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Ll J ' File No. 7549-01 00-03-724 II � I 1. 1�% Earth Systems Consultants 1� Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 ' March 10, 2000 File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 ' Eric P. Mossman Architect, AIA 2800 Lafayette Avenue, Suite A Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 Project: Proposed Single -Family Residence, Lot 36, The Enclave La Quinta, California ' We take pleasure to present this Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the proposed single- family residence to be located on Lot 36, Avenida Arteaga, within The Enclave 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 January 11, 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. Respectfully submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS Southwest / Distribution: 6/ Eric P. Mossman ' 1NTA File 1/BD File 1 Shelton L. Stringer GE 2266 David Goodrich CEG 1932 SER/tg Distribution: 6/ Eric P. Mossman ' 1NTA File 1/BD File 1 Shelton L. Stringer GE 2266 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1 ' 1.1 Project Description......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Description.............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Section 2 Purpose and Scope of Work........................................................................... METHODS OF INVESTIGATION........................................................... 1 3 2.1 2.2 Field Exploration....................................................................... ......... Laboratory Testing......................................................................................... 3 3 ' Section 3 3.1 DISCUSSION................................................................................................ Soil Conditions.............................................................................................. 5 5 3.2 Groundwater.................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Geologic Setting...."...... 5 Section 4 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................... 7 ' Section 5 RECOMMENDATIONS .............. ................................................ ....:.......... 8 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING 5.1 Site Development-Grading............................................................................ 8 5.2 Excavations and Utility Trenches.................................................................. 9 ' STRUCTURES 5.3 Foundations........................... .......................................... ............................... 5.4 Slabs-on-Grade.............................................................................................. 11 5.5 5.6 Retaining Walls.............................................................................................. Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete ................................................... 12 13 5.7 Seismic Design Criteria................................................................................. 13 Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES .................................. 14 6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations...................:................................. 14 6.2 Additional Services......................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A Figure ' Site Location and Boring Locations............................................................... Log of Borings 1-2 APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results ' March 10, 2000 -1- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 Section 1 INTRODUCTION ' 1.1 Project Description This Geotechnical Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed single-family residence to be located on Lot 36, Avenida Arteaga, within The Enclave.in the City of La Quinta, California. The proposed single-family residence will be a single -story structure. We understand that the proposed structure will include approximately 5,000 ft2 of main living space and will have a 600 t ft2 attached garage. The residence will be constructed of wood frame and stucco exterior and will be supported by conventional shallow continuous or pad footings. Site development will include site grading, building pad preparation, underground utility .installation, and concrete ' driveway and sidewalk placement. We used maximum column loads of 30 kips and a maximum wall loading of 2.0 kips per linear foot as a basis for the foundation recommendations. All loading is assumed to be dead plus design live loads, If actual structural loading is to exceed these assumed values, we might need to reevaluate the given recommendations. 1.2 Site Description ' The site is located on the northeast side of Avenida Arteaga in La Quinta, California. The approximate site location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The lot is currently vacant of ' structures and is fairly level from previous mass grading performed for the overall development of the tract. No evidence of previous site usage was observed. We assume that underground utilities exist within or immediately adjacent to Avenida Arteaga on southeast side of the lot. 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 four exploratory borings to depths ranging ' from 16.5' to 31.5' 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 The Enclave. • 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. ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST ' March 10, 2000 -2- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 ' • Discussions on regional and local geologic conditions. • Graphic and tabulated results of laboratory tests and field studies. • Recommendations regarding: • Site development and grading criteria, • Excavation conditions and buried utility installations, t • Structure foundation type and design, • Allowable foundation bearing capacity and expected total and differential settlements, • Concrete slabs -on -grade, ' Lateral earth pressures and coefficients, • Mitigation of the potential corrosivity of site soils to concrete and steel reinforcement, Seismic design parameters, ' Not Contained In This Report: Although available through Earth Systems Consultants Southwest, the current scope of our services does not include: ' e A corrosive study to determine cathodic protection of concrete or buried pipes. • Site-specific geologic and seismic hazard evaluation. • 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. I EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST March 10, 2000 -3- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 ' Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION r2.1 Field Exploration Four exploratory borings were drilled to depths ranging from 16.5 to 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 January 20, 2000 using 8 -inch outside diameter hollow -stem augers, and ' powered by a Mobile B-61 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 Modified California (MC) ring sampler (ASTM D 3550 with shoe similar to ASTM D 1586). The MC sampler has a 3 -inch outside 1 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. iThe 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 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 laboratory g testin program consisted of the following tests: rIn-situ Moisture Content and Unit Dry Weight for the ring samples (ASTM D 2937). • Maximum density tests were performed to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of typical soils encountered (ASTM D 1557-91). • Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D422) to classify and evaluate soil composition. The gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by hydrometer and sieve analysis procedures. I EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST March 10, 2000 -4- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 • Consolidation (Collapse Potential) (ASTM D2435) to evaluate the compressibility and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential of the soil. • Plasticity Index (ASTM D43.18) to evaluate the plasticity of the fine-grained soils (silts and clays) found at the site. • Chemical Analyses (Soluble Sulfates & Chlorides, pH, and Electrical Resistivity) to evaluate the corrosivity of the soil on concrete and steel. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST ' March 10, 2000 -5- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 t Section 3 DISCUSSION ' 3.1 Soil Conditions The field exploration indicates that site soils consist primarily of an upper layer of expansive hard Silty Clay (CL) that is underlain at 4 to 5 feet depth by Silty Sand (SM). In general, these soils were found to be dry to damp. Apparently as a result of previous grading operations, the soils in the upper approximately 4 feet were generally dense or stiff, but became only medium dense below that depth. The boring logs provided in Appendix A include more detailed descriptions of the soils encountered. ' 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 as originally deposited. A Consolidation tests indicated 1.8% collapse upon inundation, which is considered a slight site risk. ' 3.2 Groundwater Free groundwater was not encountered in the borings during exploration. Regional groundwater levels are at about 100 feet below the ground surface. There is uncertainty in the accuracy of short-term water level measurements. Perched groundwater levels can exist, depending on 1 precipitation, irrigation, drainage, and site grading. The absence of groundwater levels detected may not represent an accurate or permanent condition. 3.3 Geologic Setting 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 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 contains 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 ' Mesozoic granitic rocks. The primary seismic risk at the site is a potential earthquake along the San Andreas Fault. 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. No known active faults cross the site I EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST March 10, 2000 -6- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 Local GeolqM The project site is located in the La Quinta Cove, in the south-central portion of the Coachella Valley. The near surface sediments within this portion of the valley consist of. interbedded alluvial (stream) and lacustrine (lake) deposits. Crystalline bedrock underlies these deposits at depths on the order of hundreds of feet. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 7 March 10, 2000 -7- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 Section 4 CONCLUSIONS 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 the potential of 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 4 to 5 feet of soils were found to consist of expansive clayey soils. In our opinion, the soils within the building area will require over excavation and replacement with compacted non -expansive sandy soils to improve bearing capacity and reduce settlement or ' expansion. 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 11) include the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation details. Preferably, structural loads should be shown on the foundation plans. I EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST March 10, 2000 -8- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 ' Section 5 RECOMMENDATIONS ' SITE DEVELOPMENT 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. ' Clearing and Grubbing Prior to site grading existing vegetation, trees, large roots, pavements, foundations, uncompacted fill, construction debris, trash, and abandoned underground utilities should be removed from the proposed building areas. The surface should be stripped of organic ' growth and removed from the construction area. Areas disturbed during clearing should be properly backfilled and compacted as described below. Building Pad Preparation: Because of the expansive nature of the upper 4 to 5 feet of the site soils, we recommend replacement of soils in the building area. The existing surface soils within the building pad should be over -excavated to 48 inches below the 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 sub -excavation should be scarified; ' moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) for an additional depth of 12 inches below the bottom of the sub -excavation. These recommendations are intended to provide a minimum of 60 and 36 inches of moisture ' conditioned and compacted soil beneath the floor slabs and footings, respectively. Subgrade Preparation: In areas to receive fill, pavements, or hardscape, the ground surface should . be scarified; moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) for a depth of 12 inches below finished subgrades. Compaction should be verified by testing. Engineered Fill Soils: The upper 4 to 5 feet of native soil is unsuitable for�use as engineered fill, but may be used for utility trench backfill outside building pad areas. The native soil should be ' placed in maximum 8 -inch lifts (loose) and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) near its optimum moisture content. Compaction should be verified by testing. ' Imported fill soils (as 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 be prequalified by ESCSW. The imported fill should be placed in lifts no ' greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) near optimum moisture content. ' Shrinkage: The shrinkage factor for earthwork is expected to range from 13 to 18 percent for the upper excavated or scarified site soils. This estimate is based on compactive effort to achieve an I EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST March 10, 2000 -9- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 average relative compaction of about 92% and may vary with contractor methods. Subsidence is estimated to be about 0.1 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 Excavations should be made in accordance with CalOSHA 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 shoring or appropriate cut slopes of 1:1 (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. Utility 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, road 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 backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Backfill operations should be observed and tested by ESCSW to monitor compliance with these recommendations. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST P 1 1 March 10, 2000 -10- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 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 assume the construction of a building pad with a minimum of the upper 4 feet of soils consisting of very low expansion category soils, as recommended previously. 5.3 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 Spread 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. A 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 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. 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 I EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST March 10, 2000 -11- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 ' 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 the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations is properly compacted. ' 5.4 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 (6 -mil visqueen) 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. tConcrete slabs and flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. We suggest that the concrete slabs be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 rebars at 18 -inch centers, both horizontal directions, placed at slab mid -height to resist cracking. Concrete floor slabs may either be monolithically placed with the foundations or doweled after 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 continually observe all reinforcing steel in slabs during placement of concrete to check for 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 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 concrete placement. Construction (cold) joints should either be 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 prevent moisture or foreign material intrusion. These procedures will reduce the potential for randomly oriented cracks, but may not prevent them from occurring. Curing and Quality Control: The contractor should take precautions to reduce the potential of I EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST F� 1 1 1 March 10, 2000 -12- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 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 should be used and may include 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 quality control procedures are not required. 5.5 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 pef -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, 25Hp sf 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 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 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 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 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. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST ' March 10, 2000 -13- i File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 ' 5.6 Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete Selected chemical analyses for corrosivity were conducted on samples at the project site. The ' native soils were found to have low sulfate ion concentration (0.03%) and moderate chloride ion concentrations (0.09%). 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. Normal concrete mixes may be ' used. 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 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. 5.7 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 seismic coefficients given in the table below. The 1997 UBC seismic provisions are more stringent for sites lying close to major faults. UBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter 16 Seismic Provisions Reference Seismic Zone: 4 Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone Factor, Z: 0.4 Table 16-I ' Soil Profile Type: Sp Table 16-J Seismic Source Type: A Table 16-U Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source: 12 km = 7.2 miles (San Andreas Fault) ' Near Source Factor, Na: 1.0 Table 16-S Near Source Factor, Nv: 1.1 Table 16-T Seismic Coefficient, Ca: 0.44 = 0.44Na Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv: 0.70 = 0.64Nv Table 16-R ' 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 ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST ' March 10, 2000 -14- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 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. Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES ' 6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations ' 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 or appropriate 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 the building 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 carry out such recommendations in the field. 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 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 I EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST ' March 10, 2000 -15- File No. 07549-01 00-03-724 ' 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 Earth Systems Consultants Southwest, 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. 6.3 Additional Services tThis 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: • Consultation during the final design stages of the project. • 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 '-000- Appendices as cited are attached and complete this report I EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST \j MSH A fft Z M01 �' " Oam,NJ�.J w 4 0 --------------------- - I : .......... aan o-ry a �••• • W .SII 1. 0 V r �er ...',Water • Well 50 -1 if \N If ii li u 3 o 3: J— ���if 11 ii If 0 V) E) C) W an n <D if . . . . . . . . ...... 00 6 YY., GOC at r* J� • ao ��� aao�o. f aoo�a� �0000� _ _ � � �: �t _ z:l,,.,J�B LW i £_m�L.tl�, ��' '� '�•'a'LJ����-'•., = aocrr a�,`�z`Yd �� • 58 14" F1 La Quint, 14E11 L& -• _ � N kJ >1 o� � o s : Boa-= K tv r— r �r—�r lrin ice• lam/=—�/J///_11111J , l Cil r ti�\� 1) Base Map: USGS 7-1/2' Quadrangle, La Quinta, California, Photorevised 1980 . Scale: 1 2,000' 0 2,000 4,000 ■ Figure 1 - Site Location Lot 36 - Enclave Mt. Estates Project No.: 07549-01 Earth Systems Consultants Southwest Not To Scale LEGEND Approximate Boring Location Avenida Areteaga Figure 2 - Boring Locations Lot 36 - Enclave Mt. Estates Project No.: 07549-01 a Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 0' Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX(760)345-7315 L L 1 BoringNo: B1 Drilling Date: January 20, 2000 Project ame: The Enclave Lot 36 Avenida Arteaga Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07549-01 Drill Type: B61 Boring Location: Per Plan Logged By: Clifford Batten Sample penetration Z' Description Of Units Page I of 1 Type Resistance o U) U En •• y Note: The stratification lines shown represent the x a q a o „ approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend A o (Blows/6") A U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 0 CL SILTY CLAY: Brown, hard, dry to damp, with 40,42,46 113.9 10.5 very fine to fine grained sand 1 I I 16,34,46 99.5 14.7 5 I I 7,12,14 107.4 2.3 SM SILTY SAND: Brown, fine to medium grained, subangular clasts, medium dense, dry to damp 10 , 7,10,18 102.9 4.2 15 ,6,10,18 111.8 3.5 20 8,11,14 25 30 15,23,40 dense Total Depth: 31.5 feet No groundwater or bedrock encountered 35 40 dG Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (7601 345 -ISH FAX(760)34S-711S Boring No: BZ Drilling Date: January 20, 2000 Project Name: The Enclave Lot 36 Avenida Arteaga Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07549-01 Drill Type: B61 Boring Location: Per Plan Logged By: Clifford Batten SampleD Penetration y v Page 1 of 1 escrip tion of Units sk Type = Resistance o U V)q y 0 n. .y Note: The stratification lines shown represent the p Y o -- approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend AC1 N o (Blows/6") Q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 0 CL SILTY CLAY: Brown, hard, dry to damp, with very fine to fine grained sand 10,20,40 103.3 15.3 5 I I SM SILTY SAND: Brown, fine to medium grained, 12,26,36 141.0 1.7 dense to medium dense, dry to damp 10 , 10,12,20 108.5 3.2 15 , 6,10,16 102.0 3.2 Total Depth: 16.5 feet 20 No groundwater or bedrock encountered 25 30 35 40 dC 0 Earth Systems Consultants ' `/ Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (760) 345-1583 FAX (760) 345-7315 n 1 11 t Boring No: B3 Drilling Date: January 20, 2000 . Project Name: The Enclave Lot 36 Avenida Arteaga Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07549-01 Drill Type: B61 Boring Location: Per Plan Logged By: Clifford Batten Sample Penetration Description of Units Page 1 of 1 _ Type `= Resistance o E U Note: The stratification nes sown re lines hresent the p u cn n .� o -- approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend Ao (Blows/6") A C0 and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 0 I CL SILTY CLAY: Brown, hard, dry to damp, with very fine to fine grained sand 11,20,26 116.7 10.7 5 18,28,30 106.4 2.4 SM SILTY SAND: Brown, fine to medium grained, subangular clasts, dense to medium dense, dry to damp 10 6,8,12 107.0 3.0 15 , 7,10,16 133.8 2.8 Total Depth: 16.5 feet 20 No groundwater or bedrock encountered 25 30 35 40 A 1 11 Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 79-811B County Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (760) 345-1533 FAX (760) 3.15-7315 Boring No: B4 Drilling Date: January 20, 2000 ProjectName: The Enclave Lot 36 Avenida Arteaga Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07549-01 Drill Type: B61 Boring Location: Per Plan Logged By: Clifford Batten Sample Penetration r ,. DeseriP tion Of Units Page 1 of 1 U. y Type _ Resistance o rn j c c, v 7 Note: The stratification lines shown represent the U Y o (Blows/6") T rn Q a .3 2 approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend QCo Q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 0 CL SILTY CLAY: Brown, hard, dry to damp, with very fine to fine grained sand 12,23,49 ° 5 11 SM SILTY SAND: Brown, fine to medium grained, 16,35,37 dense to medium dense, dry to damp 10 10,11,14 ° 15 , 11,23,22 ° Total Depth: 16.5 feet 20 No groundwater or bedrock encountered 25 30 35 40 n< Laboratory Test Results UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT Job Name: The Enclave, Lot 36, Avenida Arteaga Job Number: 07549-01 Date: 02/01/00 B1 1 88.3 10.4 CL B1 Sample Location Depth (feet) Unit Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) USCS Group Symbol B1 1 88.3 10.4 CL B1 3 92.2 14.7 CL B1 5 91.0 2.3 SM B1 10 92.8 4.2 SM B1 15 88.2 3.5 SM B2 2 95.2 15.3 CL B2 5 --- 1.7 SM B2 ^ 10 84.6 3.2 SM B2 15 88.9 3.2 SM B3 2 103.2 10.7 CL B3 5 97.3 2.4 SM B3 10 90.8 3.0 SM B3 15 88.7 2.8 SM 07549-01 Feb 1, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: The Enclave, Lot 36, Avenida Arteaga Sample ID: B1 @ 0 to 5 feet Description: Silty Clay with F Sand (CL) Sieve Percent Size Passing ' 1-1 /2" 100 1" 100 3/4" 100 1/2" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 ' #8 100 #16 99 % Gravel: 0 #30 99 % Sand: 7 #50 98 % Silt: 59 #100 97 % Clay (2 micron): 34 #200 92 (Clay content by short hydrometer method) 100 - 90 80 70 ---- _. 60 y R a 50 c U 40 30 20 10 _.. .. 0 100 10 1 0.1 Particle Size ( mm) EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 0.01 u.uu t ' 2 ' 07549-01 Feb. 1, 2000 -1 CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333 -3 ' The Enclave Lot 36 Avenida Artea a Initial D�Density: 90.2 pcf 131 @ 5 feet Silty F Sand (SM) Initial Moisture, %: Specific Gravity: 2.3% 2.67 (assumed) e Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 0.848 ' Hydrocollapse: 1.8% @ 2.0 ksf ' % Change in Height Normal Presssure Diagram -5 vs o Before Saturation ■ After Saturation U Hydrocollapse ---w--Rebound -6 u Trend L 6) -,7 a ' 2 ' 1 0 -1 -2 -3 ' Z e -4 -5 U -6 u L 6) -,7 a -9 ' -10 -ll ' -12 0.1 1.0 10.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf 1 EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 07549-01 Feb 1, 2000 ' MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified) Job Name: The Enclave, Lot 36, Avenida Arteaga Procedure Used: A Sample ID: B 1 @ 0-5 feet Prep. Method: Moist Location: Native Rammer Type: Manual Description: Olive Silty Clay with F Sand (CL) Sieve Size % Retained Maximum Density: 113.5 pcf 3/4" 0.0 ' Optimum Moisture: 14.5% 3/8" 0.0 #4 0.0 ' 140 f I <----- Zero Air Voids Lines, s =2.65 2 70 2,75 i 130 ...... ................. .........__ ............. i 125 .......... __.............w..v ... ...v........................ .._........ ._ �......_........_ �_........... _... ........... .................... _:...._......w...... _...._......... _...:........._._...... R. y 120 A L A115 � ' ................................,..............................................................,.,.,.,.,....................,,.....,.......,.,................................._..............,............,............:'..........,.........,.......................,.......,....... g i ' ........... ..,......,..,,........................,_._.................._ ' i { i a i.... 110 _..._.... _ .. _ .... ...... w e w.......!._....._ _ . _... _.r.. .. 105 _.... .. r........... ...:......... ........ ..... .. _ ._.._ ....,....._:M...............,...w.__.............. ....,,......... ..... ......... .w...... ........... ..... 4 I 4 I I 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 Moisture Content, percent 1 1 EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTSTHWE T SOU S ■ ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 07549-01 Feb. 1, 2000 . PLASTICITY INDEX ASTM D-2418 Job Name: The Enclave, Lot 36, Avenida Arteaga Sample ID: B 1 @ 0-5 feet ' DATA SUMMARY TEST RESULTS Number of Blows: 30 16 25 LIQUID LIMIT 38 ' Water Content, % 36.8 39.6 37.8 PLASTIC LIMIT 17 Plastic Limit: 17.5 17.2 PLASTICITY INDEX 21 ■ ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST SOIL & PLANT LABORATORY SOIL ANALYSIS and CONSULTANTS, Inc. 79-607 Country Club Drive for: Earth Systems Consultants Southwest Suite 7 Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 report date: 1-31-00 760-772-7995 inv./lab#: 339 Ohms -cm ppm meq/L ppm nig/Kg --------------------------- No. Description Sat.% pH Res NO3N PO4P K Ca + Mg Na Cl SO4 07549-01 Enclave lot 36 B1 C 0-5' 8.9 315 900 308