The URL can be used to link to this page

0308-340 (CSCS)F I . _ LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION 1 hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that Iam licensed under provisions of C.haptpr 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3-of'the-Business and Professionals Code, and my License is in full forc ae nd effect.o License # Lic. Class Exp. Date Date f Signature of Contractor OWNER -BUILDER DECLf,`RATION -- - I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that kamexempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: ( ) I, as owner of the, property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work, and the structure,is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business & Professionals Code). ( ) I, as owner of the property,. am exclusively contracting with licensed Contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business & Professionals Code). () I am exempt under Section B&P.C. for this reason Date Signature of Owner WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: () I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self -insure for workers' compensation, as provided for by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. ( ) I have and will maintain workers' compensation insurance, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier,-& policy no., are: CarrierSTATE FUNDPolicy No. (This section need not be completed if the ( ) I certify that in the performance o�tf I shall not employ any person in any -m, workers' compensation laws of Californl subject to the workers' compensation pr, Code, I shall forthwith comply`with those ,Date: 1 1_0Applicant Warning: Failure to secure WoO. rs ICo shall subject an employer to criminal pen addition to the cost of compensation, dar of the Labor Code, interest and attorney': Wation is for $100.00 or less). or which this permit is issued; as to`become subject to the •gNe-that.if I should become of Section 3700 of the Labor npe'rtsafion coverage fs unlawful and Ities and civil fines up to $100,000, in ages as provided for in' Section 3706 fees. IMPORTANT Application is hereby`made to the Director of Building and Safety, for a permit subject to the conditidns�,and restrictions set forth on his application. 1. Each person upon whose behalf this application is made & each person at whose request and for whose benefit work is performed under or pursuant to any permit issued as a result of this applicaton agrees to, & shall, indemnify & hold harmless the City of La Quinta, its officers, agents and employees. 2. Any permit issued as a result of this application becomes null and void if work is not commenced within 180 days from date .of issuance of such t permit, or cessation of work for 180 days will subject permit to cancellation. I certify that I have read this application 'and -state th,•at the above information is correct. I agree to comply with all City, and State laws relating to the building construction, and hereby authorize representatives of this City to enter -Opo . n theabove-mentioned proper'tsy�fo�rr%nspection purposes. j ,S'ignature (C)wner/Agent), ' =`:'� 'rh Date �el-6 BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT# 03W -M) DATE VALUATION LOT TRACT -2. I I, . � $4 13;;61.40 SAAR VI ` . = PIA 25913$9 1 JOB SITE ADDRESS 47-150 VII AtSMR01rON tIA;�..L�.�. ti APN (A3 -090-(M. OWNER' CONTRACTOR / DESIGNER / EN INEER .D -R. KQLTRI x-.0NaS�"J'7'.ai.T•CTI W,1:3ESIGN SYSTMATS M 1 REGYNCY DRI 78401 I_HGII1Vky 111; RMIE 1:'-2 IfilTM-10 WMAIM CA.. 92770 ` ., LA, (Z'tI 4TA 'A 92 25 y (760)771.3593 CRUO 5830 17 1 (409 3''� 'USE OF PERMIT ' C0UNIM-M.0 lkL COMM - 6j02 SQ.'VT. SHELL S•UILDIND FOR a RESTAURANT!,. TYa ZV I-HRVMPRINKLIrTtA 2001 tzc7tDESA,40 AV&F .--NO OCCUPANCY $'RIOR ' TO T. L IMIAL INSPECTION APPROVALS'.' e � "PR-I2<lKI,,ER, , 6,4b� i� ASF 00103S CONTRACT AMOUNT E1V1.C116Ai�• D C -0S .' OF, cGON3''9.'.E��i'7C on 1?'F:ItU/.l T F sem. IrUTIVI /.I: Y f C01d TRUCTION-FE 101�t�(10��il -O fO �'- . � - $1,393. 19 FBE DEPOSIT "102.000.439.316 44,4011.011 .. STRONG MOTION`I+^.fs.I? a COMM ! ©0-i�JC3-^�41 �dilCl X99. �J ORADING Y—Sk 101.000.423-000 SIS,i111 DE ELOPPP.IhtIPACT PEi L A .T IN PUBLIC PI.A�CM - COM?270-000.445-OW $43661S1 ��(;'� 40 TA L C01^t€TRU arI o XAM :. CT ,rCx� 17:fi�'AI $,6 �tlI 1,0MEM (�� MAL. �.)WaWf FEES DUE NOW .DEC 19 2003 :... CITY OF LA UINTA F1NCE DEPT * .., RECEIPT DAT E Yyi� P BY DATE NALvV /�� INSPECTOR INSPECTION RECORD OPERATION DATE INSPECTOR OPERATION DATE INSPECTOR BUILDING APPROVALS MECHANICAL APPROVALS Set Backs Underground Ducts Forms & Footings Ducts 0 Slab Grade Return Air Steel Combustion Air Roof Deck s o Exhaust Fans O.K to Wrap p F.A.U. Framing Compressor Insulation p t• Vents Fireplace P.L. Grills Fireplace T.O. Fans 8 Controls Party Wail Insulation Condensate Lines Party Wall Firewall Exterior Lath Drywall - Int. Lath 6 Final Final POOLS - SPAS BLOCKWALL APPROVALS Steel Set Backs Electric Bond Footings Main Drain Bond Beam Approval to Cover Equipment Location Underground Electric Underground Pibg. Test Final Gas Piping PLUMBING APPROVALS Gas Test Electric Final Waste Lines / 9 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 Gas Piping Gas Test Appliances Final COMMENTS: dd�J�iK'9LL . OW` �i R1P�r,vSio�J o,z:: d - / ! •. B'y sT 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) wo, Ilk CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ��'1Fl�sc Desert Sands Unified School District 47950 Dune Palms Road i .Cq ¢ BERMUDA DUNES r Date 12/18/03 La Quinta, CA 92253 RANCHOMIRAGE d INDIAN WELLS 760 771 -8515 d PALM DESERT y� No. 25294 ) .y> LA QUINTA --�INDIO Owner Dr Paul Kouri APN #. 643-090-021 Address Jurisdiction La Quinta City Zip Permit # Tract # study Area Type Commercial No. of Units 1 Lot # Na Street S.F. Lot # No. Street S.F. Unit 1 47150 Washington Street 5250 -Unit 6 Unit 2 Unit 7 Unit 3 Unit 8 .. - Unit 4 Unit 9 Unit 5 Unit 10 ;• Comments Restaurant Shell Building s ~ �,At the present time, the Desert Sands Unified School District does not collect fees on garages/carports, covered patios/walkways, residential additions under 500 square feet, detached accessory structures (spaces that do not contain facilities for living, sleeping, cooking, .eating or sanitation) or replacement mobile homes. It has been determined that the above-named owner is exempt from paying school fees at this time due to the following reason: Commercial Building EXEMPTION NOT APPLICABLE This certifies that school facility fees imposed pursuant to , Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code 65995 Et Seq. in the amount of $0.34 X 5,250 S.F. or $1,785.00 have been paid for the property listed above and that I building permits and/or Certificates of Occupancy for this square'footage in this proposed project may now be issued. Fees Paid By Cash - Jorge Rivero Check No. Name on the check Telephone 760/578-2631 M .� . • - I 4 i Funding Commercial By. Dr. Doris Wilson 'k 1 Superintendent • Fee collected /exempted by Sha M Gilvrey Payment Recd $0.00 k $1,785.00 Over/Under t Signatur 1 NOTICE: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), this will serve to notify you that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest the fees or I other payment identified above will begin to run from the date on which the building or installation permit for this project is issued, or from the date on which i those amounts are paid to the District(s) or to another public entity authorized to -collect them on the District('s) behalf, whichever is earlier. NOTICE- This Document NOT VALID if Duplicated r Embossed Original- Building Department/Applicant Copy - Applicant/Receipt Copy - Accounting '• FAX N0. Oct.- 09 2002 10: 06AM ' P1, COMl�fRCEi'ITIf SB. RE+CUXDING REQUESTED BY PaQ.zaZoO 2 oo T Tax Paid 08'OeA F�at:7®.08 Reoorded In Official Records. ~ AND WHEN 91WORDED MAIL TO: County of RtvOratdd PAUL KOURI Aeaor Gary L. Oreo Ceurtty Clerk 6 Reoerder BOBBIE KOURI " I I REGENCY DRIVE Il��ll�l RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 �II�III�� II �IIIII ��I�IIU I�I�II r Il��illlI ++ I III I�� I . M °5 U roes erSE I1A .PGOA' NOR rte . - l24A6-� z. A.P.N..01 X43 C� o- 024 � Q . ` COPY THE 13NDERSIGNED GRANTOR($) DECLARE(a) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSMR TAX IS: COUNTY 1.50 X ] computed on full value of prop�rty.conveyed, or computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances t'emayning at dale of salc, i unincorporated area: [ X l City of _LA OUINTA ,and AM FOR VAr.UABLE CONSIDERATION, Receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, COLIN. J. MCDERMOTT, an Unmarried Man hereby GRANT($) to PAUL KOURI( and BOBBIE KOURI, Husband and Wife as Joint Tenants ` . the following described property in the City of LA QUINTA, CoUncy of Riverside State of California; See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof:,. COLIN 1. MCDE?RMOTT ` Docuntent Date:-fe.bruar'v 27 2003 t STATS OF CALIF )SS COUN • ) / On • • Def rtu, ' persautly ap ' rtd . 77 Penonnity known to me _ - ri�aes : ?-„' •' and aCK'Wwt-+ped to me tAa ah ) to be the perso whose name subacrtbed to the within inswmnit ttie 1ni' '� ted the as�he i h' thorked capaeitp an4 that b ht rhln s nate t ' pereon( or the etulty up n behalf of Which the ponon(a) ed• ezecukd the innuurtunt. ) °n tlK instrurrtcYil WITNESS my and official $cal, _ This area fbr Official notarial goal. , BETTY B. KMY Hatoy RIVEitBIDE<Wfalra COUNTY ` Mi Co"Ift &P ,hltM lw. 2006 Mail Tax Statements to: SAME AS ABOVE or Address Noted Below i k La(1u�ntQ. I 0 TOY Ot P.O. BOX 1504 BUILDING &,SAFETY.. DEPARTMENT 'T8-495 CALLE TAMPICO (760) 777-7012 SOF Tk� LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX'(760) 777-7011'-:. , To: Greg Butler, Building & Safety Manager= To CDD: 12-10-200 From: Oscar Orci, Planning Manager .-Due date: 12/23/2003 StatusATH Review o Building Plans Approval (This. is an approval to issue a Building Permit) ° The Community Development Department has reviewed the Building Plans for the following project: Description: 5250 SF RESTAURANT-LOUISES PANTRY/BOBBY J'S Address. or general location: 47-150 WASHINGTON STREET k Applicant Contact: MICHAEL HURST 333=2194 The Community Development Department finds that: t ❑ ...these Building Plans do not require Community. Development Department `approval. ❑ ...these Bililding'Plans are approved by the Community Development .'Department. El ...these Building Plans require corrections.. Please forward a copy of the attached corrections to the applicant. When the corrections are made please return, them to ` the Community Development Department for review. o 0 2-1161 Oscar Orci, Planning Manager Date, r TA ' Building & Safety'Department Y Public Works Release to Issue Building,Permit To: John Freeland, Senior Engineer. Date to PWD: 12-11-2003 From: Greg Butler, Building & Safety Manager Permit #:0308-340 A release from Public Works Department is required prior to building permit issuance for the following project: Description: 5250 SF RESTAURANT-LOUISES PANTRY/BOBBY FS(SHELL ONLY) Addressor general location: 47-150 WASHINGTON STREET APN and/or legal description: 643-090-021 Applicant contact and telephone number: MICHAEL HURST 333-2194 Please do not return this form to Building &, Safety Department until released for . building permit issuance. For issues delaying or preventing release, please contact applicant directly at the number above.. Note: Action required (reply to Building Department or contact Applicant) within five (5) working days from date received by Public Works Department. To: Greg Butler, Building & Safety Manager ` From: John Freeland, Senior Engineer " The, Public Works Department has "reviewed the above project and finds that: ❑ ... issuance of this Building Permit does not require Public Works Department. approval. ... issuance of this Building Permit is approved by the Public Works Department: -4- Y�� - fi zz John Fr 'eland, Senio Engineer Date 99centstorePWgreen — 4/18/03 i.°'��'' COPY P.O. BOX 1504 crt BUILDING. & SAFETY DEPARTMENT OF TY��4`�. 78-495 CALLS TAMPICO (760)-777-7012 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 9.2253 FAX (760)777-7011 2/11/04 Construction Design Systems Inc: .78-401 Highway 111, Suite F-2 La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Structural Observation @;47 1 SOIWashingtori Street Dear Construction Design Systems, Inc, I am in receipt of a fax transmittal for'footing excavation' at.47-150,Washington Street. Due to the nature of work and the numerous structural revisions that have not been submitted for plan review prior to proceeding with the foundation pour, the Building Inspector of record for this.Project has determined that.Structural Observation in accordance with CBC 1702 is required prior to the placement of -concrete. The fax transmittal received on -2/9/04 @ 4:41PM is not accepted as sufficient evidence'of structural observation. Submit structural observation'. on letter head :with the seal and signature of the engineer or architect responsible for the structural design and performing the. site visit. Include a statement to identify general conformance -to the revised field plans verses the approved plans and specifications reviewed and approved by the City. No further work will be approved to proceed on this. foundation system until the Building Department is in receipt of structural observation as stated above. Additionally, no further work -will be approved to proceed -until a revised -structural foundation plan and structural ' calculations have been submitted for review and approved by the Building Department. Your immediate attention in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, aniel P..Crawfor Jr. Building Inspector II City of La Quinta, Building &'Safety Department (760) 777-702,7 Fax (760) 777-7011 Email: dcrawford@la-quinta.org F 09 04 04r41p: Johnson & Nielsen Assoc. 760 322-0593 P. FAX TRANSMITTAL JOHNSON & NIELSEN, ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 641 Louise Drive, Palm Springs, CA .92262 Phone: (760).322-0583 FAX: (760)-322-0593 email: inapd@?a'61.com TO: 8utiLZ „� Dom°r' 7wc-r� GATE: Z CO.. P t -r tJ• JOB NO. . zi - �• U 30% 340 - 191 e FAX NO: �ts'o NO. PAGES: FROM: - TIME: nl;r.IcTFRFn INSPECTOR'S WEEKLY REPORT JON TANDY 78-194 Elenbrook Ct. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Office (760) 772-7192 Fax (760) 772-7193 Pager (760) 776-3338 TYPE OF INSPECTION PERFORMED ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE O STRUCT. STEEL ASSEMBLY O O POST TENSIONED CONCRETE O ASPHALT O OTHER "' + O REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ FIRE PROOFING JOB LOCATIO/ +; (� 1 „� C c REPORT SEQUENCE NO. T OF STRUCTURrE _ `�j7� VD'� PERVJ O ... 3 ' DAY OF WEEK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION_� ARCHITECT j J fn t`� , -TOR INSP,ES HRS. CHARGED EN4r �� ASSISTANTS HRS.CHARGED SUB :INSPECTION GENERAL RA 'DATE ... CONTRACTOR -• - - —' — _ _CONTRACTOR- r � �r- l ASS v-01 oA we, o C 9 C �. �,,3e,4-1 c r► _.. 0 l O$ W aE.s U T Q F. COPY SENT TO CLIENT O CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE O PAGE' OF CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE INSPECTED TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ALL OF THE ABOVE REPORTED WORK UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. I HAVE FOUND THIS WORK TO COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS. AND APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE GOVERNING BUILDING LAWS. G� TUr,RE OF REGISTERED I t� R P. �� V DATE OF REPORT REGISTER NUMBER a.. JON TAN® 79=194 Elenbrook Ci., 'Palmi ®evert, CA 92211 Office (760)'772-7192. Fax.1 (760) 772-7193 . Pager. (760) • 776-3336 REGISTERED INSPECTIOR'S.WEEKLY REPORT' TYPE OF � ❑REINFORCED CONCRETE �❑4S INSPECTION PERFORMED.. , TRUCT. STEEL ASSEMBLY � ❑ ❑ POST TENSIONED CONCRETE ' 13 ASPHALT z BOTHER ]� e j.", Z s-.. s-, ❑ REINFORCED•MASONRY ❑ FIRE PROOFING ,' J013 LOCATION-aA F J �+ f t . .t - ..:,..,f. i i� '•''-"f'll'gy'a`�='4 :. 'v - REPORT SEQUENCE NO. . TYPE Of STRUCTURE t� ��: � 1w i-crI i is I1� +� PERMIT NO. PERMIT OA E B; '- .= 1 DAY OF WEEK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �j= t/j ♦ /,j��" `y ARCHITEC I {{ INSP€CTTO).RR HRS. CHARGED - _ 1 ENGINEER ASSISTANTS NRS. CHARGED z GENEL SUB DTE INSPECTION . . ' CONTRACTOR .. CONTRACTOR %, OAV`... �> ..-k� 1 i 1-�` f•� i:., - $)L� .fes'. 4 f.. d� E .. (e-<`�. � I s COPY SENT TO CLIENT O CONTINUED`ON NEXT PAGE O' PAGE OF ,- • CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE . I r HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE INSPECTED TO THE BEST OF MY t --- y SIG TURE O REGISTERED;INSPECTOR,. .KNOWLEDGE ALLOFTHE ABOVE REPORTED WORK UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. I HAVE FOUND THIS WORK TO COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED (r� J PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS. AND APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE GOVERNING BUILDING LAWS. ' DATE -0F.IREPORT REGISTER NUMBER ... i...I... a...=..-. i_fi.-.s:..'- 9- Feb -11. 2004 10:49AM Construction Opsli)n SYsfpms, IN( N o . 0 7 2 1 P. 9 JCM Inspections AA9&AfO0 39725 Garand Lane Suite F Palm Desert, CA 92211 INSFECUONS Phone: 760-345-5554 - Fax: 760-j'72-3895 INSPECTIONS Earm REPORT. Date:_ REINFORCED CONCRETE INSPECTION Proj7l�NaTe- Project No: Project Address: City.- 7T- t. 1� Title 24 AWS (V File # ❑D 1.1 App# E] E) 1.4 other j Other: Client'. SubContractor: A t. 71., r\ •El General Contractor: Architect- Structural Engineer.- IN) IN 4-X i* Slump (inches), Supplier: Time Sampled: ry\Mix Design: Time In Mixer (min.); Specified Strength (PSI): Water Added @ Jobsita (gals.): Addmixture: Concrete Temperature (F)- Truck #: 7 Ticket #: Ambient Air Temperature F)- Field 10 Marking: Weather: Unresolved Items: fg:None E] See Below Location of Sample: z. pz-e- Y ❑ No Samples Taken Doscription of Work Inspected: D, tit' �N- K V. 41 O�c L -L J r., I hereby certify that I have inspected all of the above work, unless otherwise noted, and to the bast of my ability I have found this work to comply with the approved plans, specjficatioris applicable building laws. Final ort _issued at project completion, Inspector: Millin ICBOrti�6atif n N6: 0842216.80 Contractor's ReF resentative; Copy 1 JCM InspWions Copy 2 Project Superintendent. Co)y3 Governing Agency Page J of L DATE CODE LOAD * 4 - "' . . I I , '""* - I il YARDS DEL. JOB WATFR TRIM n' .1, m 1 zi, 17 .4 0 0 PA t WEIGHMASTER CERTIFICATE A Z' WARNING By EM A� . . . . I .-" ��H,20 Adddd By RequesIlAuffiadzed Trips 18 TO WITIFY met IN 1.11-114 ol,pa,,ijef n will nwassured. at glLealtel by -IRRITATING TD THE SKIN AND EYES 7- virs 0410mel. a welgiam.. Zm hkct 90-ftald-3iroll. PlICLOSIGE)MM11 WA.YQA'j& Si9mllm as *A ftbmilillula. who tie rewlerbeed wrilcrIflial BURMA - -lntjCun3dv S i.;n ,I I *a. prescribed by sempee Im %III scallion Wily. GAL. X'' -vil rzimax cr th Plasur P6,.4. lh aj CL�A Duram.litsun "I"o, ,ii,ap,,celliit,talall.,011"w", .1. easiness and pratescala rdoi. MEP C1.11L. C0401. dideffnilraftell IT ObIlkst Of Amarornest Staldards, 01 the ullismix oupo"Derrial 10.1 F'sprimll'o. CIMME : a PEKI-AZLE COVAUfrY aid 8-MAIS I!e FAWFri lite PURIF�-SEA bO CUSTOMER MUST PROVIDE AN AS TuTE'E;lpJKmtotNo-Fp:E mulf"Lotimir sun, ONSIT -UP- UCK WASH Wal LUAhr, sit anmr. `p1f0WJ3!9 ir; COIC11UJIM-31 OR011.41. IMSTRUCT Wis rn E AREA FOR TR c; The 6ndirsicired oromkm rD my as, 6. -vs. i -m ring mj;.w-4a morr4*'s rise, im in nw pilid thn X cti. cc ddik-frihi -ujr hlzrftl ji lit n1j..rin 1p��;! 4190rg an# s,m oAvd. JAMES E. SIMON Co. A :K 7 ,ot MW-rcobir l4r Ruittm Aligintism w Chir Qj1jt,,. ho Cegm Ajmjj Lfflz We ju' joa;z CD- Wiltria; Is Dallwt:k 71"t __ , . I I RECEIVED BY A S15-30 8 -MU M'jej.-d Loss at Itae0WC4srrcjWAtl be OAKUd on all fifl�rald D-uft By -7 YAIRDWONS CODE DESCRIPTION DEPUTY UNIT PRICE `- EXTENDED PRICE Ti 5 0 6 SOCX -.3 4 AGG, CU 5. F'. v E_' N V X R f j iNftl E t--' 1' Al -.FJ:: f--S- 7 RETURNEI) TO PLANT - !EFT-JOR FINISH UNLOADING FORM OF PAYMENT DCASH AMT. PAID $ JAMES E.'SIMON CO. 7 MEASURED AT MAILING ADDRESS OFFICE DISPATCH 'C> _O N ROAD 10990.INDIC TORS 35905 DILLON ROAD BOX 10990 • INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92202 .760/347* -5399 760/347-4383 LEFT PLANT" ARRIVED JOB START IME DELIVERY TIME C ON ACCOUNT LIC. NOS, 521795 and 518926 SOLD TO: SHIP TO: IL "D 'DWF�I_L CONCRF.-I-F TOTAL ROUND TRIP TOTAL AT JOB 1* IRC:. E W STATE EXP. STAND BY tJ GX DRIVER MIN1 f:,At N DE1.1i -RI C 9 1� i.i F! V 772P .54 TIME 1OR1111A* LOAD SIZE YARDS ORDERED. MIXTIME TRUCK NO: DRIVER TICKET NO. :.j 4 D. -C _. -a 114.. 0A 1 491:� DATE CODE LOAD * 4 - "' . . I I , '""* - I il YARDS DEL. JOB WATFR TRIM n' .1, m 1 zi, 17 .4 0 0 PA t WEIGHMASTER CERTIFICATE A Z' WARNING By EM A� . . . . I .-" ��H,20 Adddd By RequesIlAuffiadzed Trips 18 TO WITIFY met IN 1.11-114 ol,pa,,ijef n will nwassured. at glLealtel by -IRRITATING TD THE SKIN AND EYES 7- virs 0410mel. a welgiam.. Zm hkct 90-ftald-3iroll. PlICLOSIGE)MM11 WA.YQA'j& Si9mllm as *A ftbmilillula. who tie rewlerbeed wrilcrIflial BURMA - -lntjCun3dv S i.;n ,I I *a. prescribed by sempee Im %III scallion Wily. GAL. X'' -vil rzimax cr th Plasur P6,.4. lh aj CL�A Duram.litsun "I"o, ,ii,ap,,celliit,talall.,011"w", .1. easiness and pratescala rdoi. MEP C1.11L. C0401. dideffnilraftell IT ObIlkst Of Amarornest Staldards, 01 the ullismix oupo"Derrial 10.1 F'sprimll'o. CIMME : a PEKI-AZLE COVAUfrY aid 8-MAIS I!e FAWFri lite PURIF�-SEA bO CUSTOMER MUST PROVIDE AN AS TuTE'E;lpJKmtotNo-Fp:E mulf"Lotimir sun, ONSIT -UP- UCK WASH Wal LUAhr, sit anmr. `p1f0WJ3!9 ir; COIC11UJIM-31 OR011.41. IMSTRUCT Wis rn E AREA FOR TR c; The 6ndirsicired oromkm rD my as, 6. -vs. i -m ring mj;.w-4a morr4*'s rise, im in nw pilid thn X cti. cc ddik-frihi -ujr hlzrftl ji lit n1j..rin 1p��;! 4190rg an# s,m oAvd. JAMES E. SIMON Co. A :K 7 ,ot MW-rcobir l4r Ruittm Aligintism w Chir Qj1jt,,. ho Cegm Ajmjj Lfflz We ju' joa;z CD- Wiltria; Is Dallwt:k 71"t __ , . I I RECEIVED BY A S15-30 8 -MU M'jej.-d Loss at Itae0WC4srrcjWAtl be OAKUd on all fifl�rald D-uft By -7 YAIRDWONS CODE DESCRIPTION DEPUTY UNIT PRICE `- EXTENDED PRICE Ti 5 0 6 SOCX -.3 4 AGG, CU 5. F'. v E_' N V X R f j iNftl E t--' 1' Al -.FJ:: f--S- 7 RETURNEI) TO PLANT - !EFT-JOR FINISH UNLOADING FORM OF PAYMENT DCASH AMT. PAID $ 7 Pt LEFT PLANT" ARRIVED JOB START IME DELIVERY TIME C ON ACCOUNT IL "D L4 5C 77 TOTAL ROUND TRIP TOTAL AT JOB -UNLOADING TIME' STATE EXP. STAND BY DRIVER MIN1 SIGNKIURE: ADDITIONAL CHARGE I ADDITIONAL CHARGE 2 c � � Earth Systems Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 April 11, 2001 Mc Dermott Enterprises P.O. Box 163 Palm Desert, California Attention: Mr. Colin McDermott Proj ect: Proposed Commercial Development La Quinta, California Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ' Dear Mr. McDermott: File No.: 08119-01 01-04-716 We take pleasure. to present this Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the proposed 1. commercial development to be located on the southeast comer of Washington Street and Avenue 47 in the City of La Quinta, California. i . This report presents our findings and recommendations for site grading and foundation design, incorporating the information supplied to our office. The site is suitable for the proposed development. The recommendations in this report should be incorporated into the proposed design and construction. 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 March 5, . 2001 and authorized on March 7, 2001. Other services that maybe required, such as plan review and grading observation, are additional services and will be billed according to the Fee Schedule i 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 EARTHS 6/5.1 y Craig S. CE 38234 s� 7 CE 3823 R, EXP. 0, $ CML CF CA��FOP Win' UVTA Fi 2/BD File 2 It � .( TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa-e ' � . Section ._'----'_--.,--.'.---,,.---'...^-'^^^^,`-`^^r^'^'^^^^^^`^^^^^'^^~^^^^~^^^~~� � 1.1 9roieotDescription ---.-------..-.---''`-----.------.---.-.l / � 1.2 Site Description .............. 13 and Scope nfWork ...................... Scc��%, K�Dr ' ~� ' -__--___- INVESTIGATION, ... 7l �� . Exploration .-.-.-.--.-..----.---------_.-..--.---........... 3. 2.2 Laboratory Testing ....................................... ............................................................. 3 3.1 Soil Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4 � | � 3.2 Groundwater .--.---.--.----_-.---_�____._______,.___../4 3.3Setting ~ `~ ---.-----.�--.-----...,_----............................4 3'4 . I�azardu-----------_.,_---.________..___..................... 5� � 3.4i1 Seismic Hazards --.----.---,----..-----------'-----.5 342 � � . �000dury��a�az�o---'.--.�--.---_._._____.______.._.._..6 34� ��o�uu��r��oao�Seismic � . . i�)�11 o��o�a--''-------.—.-..---.7 Section. 4- ^'. ~~`^~~~~~~~~`~~~~~~ ^"^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^`^^^`^"^^^^^-^~~^^~~-~~. ' ^^^^^^^^^^^^~^^`^^^`^`^^^^^^^^~^`,r ~ ` Section RECOMMENDATIONS ,_,,,.~....._...__,,.,.~~~.^^`^^^^.`^^^`..^^^^^-'``^^^~^^'~...^^^^^~^^^^lo' SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING .................................................. ................... l ' 5.1 Site- Grading _.---------------.--------lU /' ��2 ' '' reocheu-----.----`-------------.-.. 11 ' 5.3 Slope ofGraded Slopes ............................. ............................................... llSTR' ` __..___._.._____________._______-_--_.--,-..l2 5.4 Foundations .................................................................................................. ........... l2 � 5'5 S --------------.--,_-.-..^--.----...-�-'---�,}3 � �! 5'� Retaining �a}� ''�'---'----_-.' ''l4 � ~� 5.7 _ ' m��o� (�oocr�t� L\�on�o�vzIyou _--.................................................... � 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria ........................................................................................... 'l5 � � 5.9 -----.--'.-.------------_----------.----'l�(� Section 6LIMITATIONS �JN�� 0U�IT8K�l�z�8�SE��`KI«�8�S.......-,..........-.,.....,..,,~,~.I7 ' 0.1 ofConditions and Limitations .----.-._--_--__..................... | 6.2 Additional Services ....................................... _---,----.............................. l8 ' REFERENCES........................................................................................... ...................... 19 | APPENDIX A ` � Site, Location Map � !' Boring� - n-D�_up � Table l Fault Puzomctcro ] 2000 International Building Code (IBC) Seismic Parameters � Loon of Borings � APPENDIX ]0~—~- � Laboratory Test Results ! � � . EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST ' � ` ` ' April 11, 2001 - 1 - File No.: 08.119 `0.1� 01-04-716 Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description This Geotechnical Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed commercial development to be located between Washington Street and Caleo Bay, and south of Avenue 47 in the City of La Quinta, California. The proposed new buildings will consist of one and two-story structures. We understand that the proposed structures will be of wood frame and stucco construction and will be supported by conventional shallow continuous or pad footings. Site development will include site grading, building pad preparation, underground utility installation, street and parking lot construction, and concrete driveway and sidewalk placement. Based on existing site topography, site grading is expected to consist of fills not exceeding approximately 5 -feet. We used maximum column loads of 50 kips and a maximum wall loading of 2.5 kips per linear foot as a basis for the foundation recommendations. All loading is assumed to be dead plus-- -_ actual -live -load. The. -pre h minary_..design..1oading_was as s um e d b.aced-on. o-.ur understand-ing of.the___ construction type and number of supported floors. If actual structural loading exceeds these assumed values, we would need to reevaluate the given recommendations. i 1.2 Site Description The proposed commercial development is to be constructed on the irregular shaped parcel as shown on Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A. The site is currently vacant of structures. Evidence of past development of the site is apparent. Miscellaneous construction debris is present throughout the site. A closed depression (approximately 5 feet in depth) of unknown origin is located near the southwest corner of the site and is within the footprint of the proposed 4000-ft2 office building. A buried concrete slab was encountered while drilling in the southeast portion of the site (see Boring B-1). A review of historic aerial photos shows that past development of the site was apparently concentrated in the southern portion of the site. The site is relatively flat with minor surface variations of 1 to 3 feet, except in the area of the closed depression that was approximately 5 feet in depth. A sparse to moderate growth of weeds and brush including some trees -cover the site. The site is generally bounded by 47th Avenue to the north, to the east by Caleo Bay, to the south by vacant land and to the west by Washington Street. The elevation of the site is approximately 60 feet above mean sea level. Underground utilities are believed to exist along the site boundaries and may encroach within the proposed areas for building and development. Presumably abandoned on-site underground utilities associated with past development are also assumed to exist on the site. These utility lines may include, but are not limited to, domestic water, telephone, electrical, sewer/septic (including septic tank, leach lines and/or seepage pit or cesspool) and irrigation lines. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST l� l �Elril 11, 2001 - 2 - File No:: 08119-01 01-04-716 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 5 exploratory borings to depths, ranging from 29 to 5 1. 5 feet. 9 Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings: ➢ Review of selected published technical literature pertaining to the site. 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. ➢ Discussions on regional and local geologic conditions. Discussions.-on--geologic-and seisn- c -hazards. - ➢ Graphic and tabulated results of laboratorytests and field studies. Recommendations regarding: ' • Site development and grading criteria, Excavation conditions and buried utility installations, • 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 designs parameter o Preliminarypavement structural sections. Not Contained In This Report: Although available through Earth Systems Southwest, the current .scope of our services does not include: ➢ A'corrosive study to determine cathodicprotection of concrete or buried pipes. An environmental assessment: N,➢ 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. April 11, 2001 - 3 - File No.: 08119-t�1 01-04-716 Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Field Exploration Five exploratory borings were drilled to depths ranging from 29 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface to observe the soil profile and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. The borings were drilled on March 8, 2001 using 8 -inch outside diameter hollow -stem augers, and powered by a Mobile B61 truck -mounted drilling rig. The boring locations are shown on the boring location map, Figure 2, in Appendix A. The locations shown are approximate, established by pacing and sighting from existing topographic features. Samples were obtained within the test borings using a Standard Penetration (SPT) sampler (ASTM D 1586) and a Modified California (MC) ring sampler (ASTM D 3550 with shoe similar to ASTM D 1586). The SPT sampler has a 2 -inch outside diameter and a 1.38 -inch inside diameter. The MC sampler has a 3 -inch outside diameter and a 2.37 -inch inside diameter. The samples were obtained by driving the sampler with a 140 -pound automatic hammer.dropping 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. Recovered soil samples were sealed in --containers and returned to the laboratory. Bulk samples were also obtained from auger cuttings, representing a mixture of soils encountered at the depths noted. The final logs of the borings represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and the results of laboratory testing performed on the samples obtained during the subsurface investigation. The final logs are included in Appendix A of this report. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types although the transitions 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 structures. Test results are presented in graphic and tabular form in Appendix B of this report. The tests were conducted in general accordance with the procedures of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other standardized methods as referenced below. Our testing program consisted of the following: ➢ In-situ Moisture Content and Unit Dry Weight for the ring samples (ASTM D 2937). 9 Maximum density tests were performed to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of typical soils encountered (ASTM D 1557-91). ➢ Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422) to classify and evaluate soil composition. The gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by hydrometer and sieve analysis procedures. > Consolidation (Collapse Potential) (ASTM -D 2435 and D 5333) to evaluate the compressibility and hydroconsolidation,(collapse) potential of the soil. ➢ Chemical Analyses (Soluble Sulfates & Chlorides, pH, and Electrical Resistivity) to evaluate the potential adverse effects of the soil on concrete and steel. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST April 11, 2001 - 4 - File No.: 08119-01 O1-04-716 Section 3 DISCUSSI®N 3.1 Soil Conditions The field exploration indicates that site soils consist primarily of medium dense, 'interbedded silty Sand,. Silt and Sand (Unified Soil Classification' Symbols of SM, ML, and SP -SM, respectively). The.boring logs provided in Appendix A include more detailed descriptions of the soils encountered. The soils are visually classified to be in the very low expansion category in accordance with Table 18A -I -B of the Uniform Building Code. In and climatic "regions, granular soils may have a potential to collapse upon wetting. Collapse (hydroconsolidation) may occur when the soluble cements (carbonates) in the soil matrix dissolve, causing the soil to densify from its loose -configuration from deposition. Consolidation tests indicate 2.2 to 3.6% collapse upon inundation and are considered a moderate site risk at depths of 17.5 feet. in Boring 4 and 10 feet in Boring 3, respectively. The hydroconsolidation potential is commonly mitigated by recompaction of a zone beneath building pads. However, due to the depth of the potential hydroconsolidation,. removal and recompaction to a depth of 20 feet. is not economically reasonable. Therefore, alternative foundation recommendations are offered for your consideration. 3.2 Groundwater Free groundwater was not encountered . in the borings during exploration. The depth to groundwater in the area is believed to be in excess -of 100 feet. Groundwater levels may fluctuate with precipitation, irrigation, drainage, regional pumping from wells, 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 sand Santa Rosa Mountains on the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and I Mesozoic granitic rocks. The San Andreas Fault zone within the Coachella Valley consists of the Garnet Hill Fault, the Banning Fault, and the Mission Creek Fault that traverse along the northeast margin of the valley. Local Geology: The project site lies at an elevation. of about 60 -feet above mean sea level in the ' lower part of the La Quinta Cove portion of the ,Coachella Valley. The La Quinta Cove is situated on an alluvial wedge between two granite mountain spurs of the Santa Rosa Mountains. i EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST E April 11, 2001 -5- File No.: 08119!01 01-04-716 The waters of ancient Lake Cahuilla once covered the project site. The sediments within the cove consist of fine to coarse-grained sands with interbedded clays, silts, and gravels of aeolian (wind-blown), alluvial (water laid), and lacustrine (lake bed) origin. The site is located near the boundary between the lacustrine deposits of ancient Lake Cahuilla, and alluvial deposits from the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south. 3.4 Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards that may affect the region include seismic hazards (ground shaking, surface fault rupture, soil liquefaction, and other secondary earthquake -related hazards), slope instability, flooding, ground subsidence, and erosion. A discussion follows on the specific hazards to this site. 3.4.1 Seismic Hazards Seismic Sources: Several active faults or seismic zones lie within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the project site as shown on Table 1 in Appendix A. The primary seismic hazard to the site is strong groundshaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. The Maximum Magnitude Earthquake (Mmax) listed is from published geologic information available for. each fault (CDMG, 1996). The M,.,, corresponds to the maximum earthquake believed to be tectonically possible. Surface Fault Rupture: The project site does not lie within a currently delineated State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1994). Well -delineated fault lines cross through this region as shown on California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) maps (Jennings, 1994). Therefore, active fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site. While fault rupture would most likely occur along previously established fault traces, future fault rupture could occur at other locations. Historic Seismicity:.Six historic seismic events (5.9 M or greater) have significantly affected the Coachella Valley the last 100 years. They are as follows: • Desert Hot Springs Earthquake - On December 4, 1948, a magnitude 6.5 ML (6.OMW) earthquake occurred east of Desert Hot Springs. This event was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area. • Palm Springs Earthquake - A magnitude 5.9 ML (6.2MW) earthquake occurred on July 8, 1986 in the Painted Hills causing minor surface creep of the Banning segment of the San Andreas Fault. This event was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area and caused structural damage, as well as injuries. • Joshua Tree Earthquake - On April 22, 1992, a magnitude 6.1 ML (6.1MW) earthquake occurred in the mountains 9 miles east of Desert Hot Springs. Structural damage and minor injuries occurred in the Palm Springs area as a result of this earthquake. • Landers & Big Bear Earthquakes - Early on June 28, 1992, a magnitude 7.5 Ms (7.3MW) earthquake occurred near Landers, the largest seismic event in Southern California for 40 years. Surface rupture occurred just south of the town of Yucca Valley and extended some 43 miles toward Barstow. About three hours later, a magnitude 6.6 Ms (6.4Mw) earthquake occurred near Big Bear Lake. No significant structural damage from these earthquakes was reported in the Palm Springs area. • Hector Mine Earthquake - On October 16, 1999, a magnitude 7.1MW earthquake occurred on the Lavic . Lake and Bullion Mountain Faults north of 29 Palms. This event while widely felt, no significant structural damage has been reported in the Coachella Valley. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST �X. IF . F April 11, 2001 - 6 - File No.: 08119-01 01-04-71.6 Seismic Risk: While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, various agencies have conducted statistical risk analyses. In 1996, the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed the latest generation of probabilistic seismic hazard maps for use in the 1997 UBC. We have used these maps in our evaluation of the seismic risk at the site. The Working Group of California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 1995) estimated a 22% conditional probability that a magnitude 7 or greater earthquake may occur between 1994 to 2024 along the Coachella segment of the San Andreas Fault. The primary seismic risk at the site is a potential earthquake 'along the San Andreas Fault. Geologists believe that the San Andreas Fault has characteristic. earthquakes that result from rupture of each fault segment. The estimated characteristic earthquake is magnitude 7.4 for the Southern Segment of the fault. This segment has the longest elapsed time since rupture than any other portion 'of the San Andreas Fault. The last rupture occurred about 1690 AD, based on dating by the USGS near Indio (WGCEP, 1995). This segment has also ruptured on about 1020, 1300, and 1450 AD, with an average recurrence interval of about 220 years. The San Andreas Fault may rupture in multiple segments producing a higher magnitude earthquake. Recent paleoseismic studies suggest that the San Bernardino Mountain Segment to the north and the Coachella Segment may have both ruptured together ,in 1450 and 1690 AD (WGCEP, 1995). 3.4.2 Secondary Hazards Secondary seismic hazards related to ground shaking include soil liquefaction,, ground deformation, areal subsidence, tsunamis, and seiches. The site is far inland so the.hazard from tsunamis is non-existent. An existing residential development that includes a man 'made lake is located immediately southeast of the project site, therefore, hazards from seiches (water sloshing) should be considered a slight site risk. Soil Liquefaction:. Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sudden shock (usually earthquake shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. In general, for the effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the surface, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface and the soils within the saturated zone must also be susceptible to liquefaction. i. The potential for liquefaction to occur at this site is considered negligible because the depth of groundwater beneath the site exceeds 50 feet. No free groundwater was encountered in our exploratory borings. In addition, the project does not lie within the Riverside County liquefaction study,zone. Ground Deformation and Subsidence: Non -tectonic ground deformation consists of cracking of j the ground with little to no displacement. This type of deformation is generally associated with differential shaking of two or more geologic units with differing engineering characteristics. Ground deformation may also be caused by liquefaction. As the site is relatively flat with j consistent geologic material, and has a low potential for liquefaction, the potential for ground deformation is also considered to be low. The potential for seismically induced ground subsidence is considered to be low to moderate at the site. Dry sands tend to settle and densify when subjected to strong earthquake shaking. The amount of.subsidence is dependent on relative density of the soil, groundshaking (cyclic shear i EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST April 11, 2001 -7- File No.: 08119-01 01-04-716 strain), and earthquake duration (number of strain cycles). Uncompacted fill areas may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement. Slone Instability: The site is relatively flat. Therefore, potential hazards from slope instability, landslides, or debris flows are considered negligible. Flooding: The project site does not lie within a designated FEMA 100 -year flood plain. The project site may be in an area where sheet flooding and erosion could occur. If significant changes are proposed for the site, appropriate project design, construction, and maintenance can minimize the site sheet flooding potential. 3.4.3 Site Acceleration and Seismic Coefficients Site Acceleration: The potential intensity of ground motion may be estimated from the horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA), measured in "g" forces. Included in Table 1 are deterministic estimates of site acceleration from possible earthquakes at nearby faults. Ground motions are dependent primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the seismogenic (rupture) zone. Accelerations also are dependent upon attenuation by rock and soil deposits, direction of rupture, and type of fault. For these reasons,. ground.motons may vary in.the same general area. This variability can. be expressed statistically by -a standard de iat deviation about a mean relationship. The PGA is an inconsistent scaling factor to compare to the UBC Z factor and is generally a poor indicator of potential structural damage during an earthquake. Important factors influencing the structural performance are the duration and frequency of strong ground motion, local subsurface conditions, soil -structure interaction, and structural details. Because of these factors, an effective peak acceleration (EPA) is used in structural design. The following table provides the probabilistic estimate of the PGA and EPA taken from the 1996 CDMG/USGS seismic hazard maps. Estimate of PGA and EPA from 1996 CDMG/USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps Equivalent Return Approximate Risk Period' (Years) PGA g) I EPA (g)Z 100%,/o exceedance in50 years 475 0.50 0.45 Notes: 1. Based on a soft rock site, SBic and soil amplification factor of 1.0 for Soil Profile Type SD. 2. Spectral acceleration (SA) at period of 0.3 seconds divided by 2.5 for 5% damping, as defined by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 1996). 1997 UBC Seismic Coefficients: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design are based on a Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) that has an earthquake ground motion with a 10% probability of occurrence in 50 years. The PGA and EPA estimates given above are provided for information on the seismic risk inherent in the UBC design. The following lists the seismic and site coefficients given in Chapter 16 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST E< Aril 11 2001 _ 8 - � � File No.: 08119-01 i 01-04-716 1997 UBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter 16 Seismic Provisions Reference Seismic Zone: 4 1,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: 9.6 km = 6:0 miles (San Andreas Fault) --; Near Source Factor, Na: 1.02 Table 16-5 Near Source Factor, Nv: 1.23. : 'Table 16-T Seismic Coefficient, Ca: 0.45 = 0.44Na Table 16-Q f Seismic Coefficient, Cv: 0.79 0.64Nv Table 16-R Seismic Zoning: The Seismic Safety Element of .the 1984Riverside County General Plan s establishes groundshaking hazard zones. The project area is, mapped in Ground Shaking Zone DIB Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance from causative faults and underlying soil types. The site does not lie within the Liquefaction_ Hazard area established by this Seismic _F Safety Element. These groundshaking hazard zones are used in deciding suitability of land use. 2000. IBC Seismic Coefficients: For comparative purposes, the newly, released 2000: i International Building Code (IBC) seismic and site coefficients are given in Appendix A. As of the issuance of this report, we are unaware when governing jurisdictions may adopt or modify the IBC provisions. 1 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST J k April 11, 2001 - 9 - File No.: 0811061 01-04-716 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. General: ➢ From a geotechnical perspective, the site is suitable for the proposed development. The recommendations in this report should be incorporated into the design and construction of this project. Geotechnical Constraints and Mitigation: S The primary geologic hazard is severe ground shaking from earthquakes originating on nearby faults. A major'earthquake above magnitude 7 originating on the local segment of the San Andreas Fault zone would be the critical seismic event that may affect the site x within the design life of the proposed development. Engineered design and earthquake - resistant construction increase safety and allow development of seismic areas. ➢ The project site is in seismic Zone 4 and about 9.6 km from a Type A seismic source as defined in the Uniform Building Code. A qualified professional should design any' permanent structure constructed on the site. The minimum seismic design should comply i with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. ➢ Ground subsidence from seismic events or hydroconsolidation is a potential hazard in the i Coachella Valley area. Adherence to the grading and structural recommendations in this report should reduce potential settlement problems from seismic forces, heavy rainfall or irrigation, flooding, and the weight of the intended structures at least within the upper 5 feet of finish grade. Due to the potential long-term settlement due to deep saturation of soils susceptible to hydroconsolidation, special considerations should be given to the foundation slab -on -grade system. Please refer to the "Foundation" section of this report i 1 for additional discussion and recommendations. ➢ The soils are susceptible to wind and water erosion. Preventative measures to reduce seasonal flooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans. Dust control should also be implemented during construction. ➢ Other geologic hazards including ground rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced flooding, and landslides are considered low or negligible on this site. ➢ The upper soils were found to be relatively loose to medium dense Silty Sand and Silt and are unsuitable in their present condition to support structures, fill, and hardscape. The soils within the building and structural areas will require moisture conditioning, over excavation, and recompaction to improve bearing capacity and reduce settlement from static loading. Soils can be readily cut by normal grading equipment. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST A -rill 1, 2001 - 10 File No.: 08119-01 01-04-716 Section 5 RECOMMENDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING 5.1 Site Development - Grading A representative of Earth Systems Southwest (ESSW) should observe site clearing, 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, the existing vegetation, trees, large roots, pavements, foundations, non -engineered fill, construction debris, trash, abandoned underground utilities, and other deleterious material should be removed from the proposed building, structural, and pavement areas. The surface should be stripped of organic growth and removed from the construction area. Areas disturbed during demolition and clearing should be properly backfilled and compacted as described below. Building Pad Preparation: Because of the relatively non-uniform and under -compacted nature of the majority of the site. soils, we recommend recompaction of soils in the building areas. The -- existing surface soils within the building pad and foundation areas should be over -excavated to a minimum of 48 inches below existing grade or a minimum of 36 inches below the footing level (whichever is lower). The over -excavation should extend for 5 feet beyond the outer edge of . exterior footings. The bottom of the sub -excavation should be scarified; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 90 % relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) for an additional depth of 12 inches. Moisture penetration to near optimum moisture should extend at least 24 inches below the bottom. of -the over -excavation and be verified by testing. Auxiliary Structures Subgrade Preparation: Auxiliary structures such as. garden or retaining walls should have the foundation subgrade prepared similar to .the building pad recommendations . given above. The lateral extent. of the over -excavation needs only to extend 2 feet beyond the face of the footing. Sub.grade Preparation: In areas to receive fill, pavements, or hardscape, the subgrade should be scarified; moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction r (ASTM D ,1557) for a depth of 12 inches below finished subgrades.. Compaction should be s J verified by testing. Areas subjected to traffic loads should be prepared in accordance with Section 5.9, "Pavements." Engineered Fill Soils: The native soil is suitable for use as engineered fill and utility trench backfill provided it is free of significant organic or deleterious matter. The native soil should be ' placed in maximum 8 -inch lifts (loose) and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near its optimum moisture content. Compaction should be verified by testing. Imported fill soils (if required) should' be non -expansive, granular . soils meeting the USCS classifications of SM, SP -SM, or SW -SM with a maximum rock size of 3 inches and 5 to 35% passing the No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the import fill soils before hauling to the site. However, because of the potential variations within the borrow source, import soil will not be pre -qualified by ESSW. The imported fill should be placed in lifts EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST April 11, 2001 - 11 - File No.: 08119-0I 01-04-716 no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near optimum moisture content. Shrinkage: The shrinkage factor for earthwork is expected to range from 15 to 20 percent for the upper excavated or scarified site soils. This estimate is based on compactive effort to achieve an average relative compaction of about 92% and may vary with contractor methods. Subsidence is estimated to range from 0.1 to 0.2 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-kno-wledge-of_the-general--area-i-nd cates-there_-is a -p- otential-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 excavations over 4 feet deep are plarufted, lateral bracing or appropriate cut slopes of 1.5:1 (horizontal to 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, public works department, etc.) Utility trench backfill within private property should be placed in conformance with the provisions of this report. In general, service lines extending inside of property may be backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Backfill operations should be observed and tested to monitor compliance with these recommendations: 5.3 Slope Stability of Graded Slopes ! Unprotected, permanent graded slopes should not be steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) to reduce ' wind and rain erosion. Protected slopes with ground cover may be as steep as 2:1. However, maintenance with motorized equipment may not be possible at this inclination. Fill i slopes should be overfilled and trimmed back to competent material. Slope stability calculations are not presented because of the expected minimal slope heights (less than 5 feet). EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST s a ril l l �p , 2001 File No.: 08119-01 01-04-716 STRUCTURES In our professional opinion, the structure foundation can be _supported on shallow foundations bearing on a zone of properly prepared . and compacted soils placed as recommended in Section 5.1. The recommendations that follow are based on verylow expansion category soils. 5.4 Foundations Footing design of widths, depths, and 'reinforcing are the responsibility*,- of the Structural Engineer, considering the structural loading and the geotechnical parameters given in this report. A minimum footing depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade should be maintained for. one-story structures and 15 inches below lowest adjacent grade should be maintained for two- story structures. A representative of ESSW should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. 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 neglected). Continuous wall foundations, 12 -inch minimum width and 12 inches below; grade: 1500 psf for dead plus design live loads Allowable increases of 250 psf per each foot of additional footing width and 250 psf for each additional 0.5 foot of footing depth -maybe used,up to a maximum value of 2500 psf , ➢ Isolated pad foundations, 2 x 2 foot minimum. iri plan•and 18 inches below grade: 2000 psf for dead plus design live loads Allowable increases of 250 psf per each foot of additional footing width and 350 psf for each additional 0.5 foot of footing depth may be used up to a maximum value of 2500 psf. A.one-third _(I /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. Minimuit reinforcement for continuous wall footings should be two, No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one' placed near the bottom of the footing. This reinforcing is not intended to supersede -any structural requirements provided by the structuralengineer. Grade.Beam and Structural. Flat- Plate Foundation Alternate: An allowable soil bearing pressure J of 1,500 psf may be used in design of an alternate foundation system. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pci may be used with an expected differential settlement of .up to 1 -inch in a 25 -foot span (1/300). 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. These numbers might increase by a factor. of 2 to account for potential deep-seated hydroconsolidation. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST April 11, 2001 - 13'- File No.: 081191t 1 01-04-716 Frictional and Lateral Coefficients: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on the base of the foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation walls. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 of dead load may be used. An allowable passive equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf may also be used. These values include a factor of safety of 1.5. Passive resistance and frictional resistance may be used in combination if the friction coefficient is reduced to 0.23 of dead load forces. A one-third (1/3) increase in the passive pressure may be used when calculating resistance to wind or seismic loads. Lateral passive resistance is based on the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations is properly compacted. 5.5 Slabs -on -Grade Subarade: Concrete slabs -on -grade and flatwork should be supported by compacted soil placed in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report. Vapor Barrier: In areas of moisture sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor barrier should be installed to reduce moisture transmission from the subgrade soil to the slab. For these areas an impermeable membrane (10 -mil moisture barrier) should underlie the floor slabs. The membrane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to help protect it during construction and to a aide in concrete curing. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the eoncrete.- 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 i approximately 200 pounds per cubic inch can be used in concrete slab design for the expected very low expansion subgrade. Concrete slabs and flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. We suggest that the. -- 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 swell forces and 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. f Control Joints: Control joints should be provided in all concrete slabs -on -grade at a maximum 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 1 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 consist of thickened butt joints with one- half inch dowels at 18 -inches on center or a thickened keyed joint to resist vertical deflection at the joint. All construction joints in exterior flatwork should be sealed to reduce the potential of moisture or foreign material intrusion. These procedures will reduce the potential for randomly loriented cracks, but may not prevent them from occurring. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST s I t'pril 11, 2001 -.14 - File No.: 08119-01 01-04-716 Curing and Quality Control: The contractor should take precautions to reduce the potential of . curling.of slabs in this and desert region using proper batching, placement, and curing methods. Curing is highly effected by temperature, wind, and humidity. Quality control 'procedures may be used including trial batch. mix designs, batch plant, inspection, and on-site special inspection and testing. Typically, using 2500 -psi concrete,:many of these quality control procedures are not required. r 5.6 Retaining Walls ' The following table presents lateral earth pressures. for use in retaining wall design. The values are given as equivalent fluid pressures without surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressure. Lateral Pressures and Sliding Resistance Granular Backfill Passive Pressure 300 pcf - level ground Active Pressure (cantilever walls) 35 pcf - level ground Use- when wall is. ermitted,to rotate 0.1% of wall height At -Rest Pressure (restrained walls) 55 pcf - level ground Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure Acting at mid height of structure, . 21H psf Where,H is height of backfill in feet Base Lateral Sliding Resistance Dead load x Coefficient of Friction: , ► 0.50 Notes: 1. These values are ultimate values. A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used in stability analysis except . for dynamic earth pressure where a factor of safety of .1.2 is acceptable. 2. 'Dynamic pressures are based on the Mononobe-Okabe 1929 method, additive to active earth pressure. Walls retaining less than 6 feet of soil need not consider this increased pressure. V 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 desier'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 and Subgrade 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. Foundation subgrade preparation should be as specified in Section 5.1. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST .,, y April 11, 2001 - 15 - File No.: 08119-6.1 01-04-716 E 4 5.7 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 moderate to severe sulfate ion concentration (0.10 to 0.20%) and moderate chloride ion concentration (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 eoncrete for these low concentrations as tested. The Uniform Building Code requires for severe sulfate conditions that Type V Portland Cement be used with a maximum water cement ratio of 0.45 using a 4,500 psi concrete mix (UBC Table 19-A-4). E 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 very 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 encapsul-ating with densely consolidated conGr-ete. A qua-1-ified eer-r-osion engineer- should -be consulted regarding mitigation of the corrosive effects of site soils on metals. 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria This site is subject to strong ground shaking due to potential fault movements along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. Engineered design and earthquake -resistant construction increase safety and allow development of seismic areas. The minimum seismic design should comply with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 using the seismic coefficients given in Section 3.4.3. The UBC seismic coefficients are based on scientific knowledge, engineering judgment, and compromise. Factors that play an important role in dynamic structural performance are: (1) Effective peak acceleration (EPA), (2) Duration and predominant frequency of strong round motion, (3) Period of motion of the structure, (4) Soil -structure interaction, (5) Total resistance capacity of the system, (6) Redundancies, (7) Inelastic load -deformation behavior, and (8) Modification of damping and effective period as structures behave inelastically. Factors 5 to 8 are included in the structural ductility factor (R) that is used in deriving a reduced value for design base shear. If further information on seismic design is needed, a site-specific probabilistic seismic analysis should be conducted. The intent of the UBC lateral force requirements is to provide a structural design that will resist collapse to provide reasonable life safety from a major earthquake, but may experience some structural and nonstructural damage. A fundamental tenet of seismic design is that inelastic EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST f a April -ll, 2001 16- I 6 - File No.: .081.19-01 01-04-716 yielding is allowed to adapt to the seismic demand on the structure. In other words, damage is allowed. The UBC. lateral force requirements should be considered a minimum design: The owner and the designer should evaluatethe level' of risk and performance that is acceptable. Performance based criteria could be set in the design. The design engineer has the responsibility to interpret ,and adapt the principles of seismic behavior and design to each structure using experience and sound judgment. The design engineer should exercise special care so that all components of the design are -all fully met with attention to providing a continuous load path. An adequate quality assurance, and control program is urged during project construction to verify that the design -plans and good construction practices are followed.' This is especially important for sites lying close to the major seismic sources. 5:9 Pavements . Since no traffic loading were provided by the'design engineer or owner, we have assumed traffic loading for comparative evaluation. The design engineer or owner should decide the appropriate traffic conditions for the pavements. Maintenance of proper drainage is necessary to prolong the service life of the pavements. Water should not pond on or near paved areas. The following table provides our preliminary recommendations for pavement sections. Final pavement sections recam-end tTo7ni- shoulzd b -e bwezi—i-des -traffic -Indrecs- anti R=value tests conducted -during grading after actual subgrade soils are exposed. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED PAVEMENTS SECTIONS R -Value Suberade Soils - 50 (assumed) l)ecian MPthnri _ ("ATTR AMO, t 445 Notes: 1. Asphaltic concrete should be Caltrans, Type B; 1/2 -in. or 3/4 -in. maximum -medium grading and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the 75 -blow Marshall density (ASTM D 1559) or equivalent. 2. Aggregate base should be Caltrans Class 2 (3/4 in. maximum) and compacted to a minimum of 95% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture. 3. All pavements should be placed on 18 inches of moisture -conditioned subgrade, compacted to a' minimum of 90% of ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density near its optimum,moisture. 4. Portland cement concrete should have a minimum of 3250 psi compressive strength @.28 days. 5.: Equivalent Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) may be used instead of Caltrans specifications for asphaltic concrete and aggregate'base. Flexible Pavements Rigid Pavements Asphaltic ' Aggregate Portland Aggregate Traffic Concrete Base' Cement Base Index Pavement Use Thickness Thickness Concrete Thickness (Assumed) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) 4:0 Auto. Parking Areas 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0' Drive Lanes 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Notes: 1. Asphaltic concrete should be Caltrans, Type B; 1/2 -in. or 3/4 -in. maximum -medium grading and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the 75 -blow Marshall density (ASTM D 1559) or equivalent. 2. Aggregate base should be Caltrans Class 2 (3/4 in. maximum) and compacted to a minimum of 95% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture. 3. All pavements should be placed on 18 inches of moisture -conditioned subgrade, compacted to a' minimum of 90% of ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density near its optimum,moisture. 4. Portland cement concrete should have a minimum of 3250 psi compressive strength @.28 days. 5.: Equivalent Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) may be used instead of Caltrans specifications for asphaltic concrete and aggregate'base. April 11, 2001 -17- File No.: 08119`-61 01-0.1-716 I 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 E exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, our findings and recommendations are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. Variations in soil or ' groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our recommendations. Findings of this report are valid as of the issued date of the report. However, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they are from natural processes or works of man on this or adjoining properties. In addition, changes in applicable standards { occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of 1_ this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. ' In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless i 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 i the architect and engineers for the project so that they are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. The owner, or the owner's representative, also has the responsibility to take the necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors - ` follow such recommendations. It is further understood that the owner or the owner's representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. ` As the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project, Earth Systems Southwest (ESSW) 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. ESSW should be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If ESSW is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. Although available through ESSW, the current scope of our services does not include an environmental assessment, or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST April. 1,1,.2001, -:18 - File No.: 08119-01 01-04-716 i 6.2 Additional Services ''• This report is based on, the assumption that an adequate program of client consultation, . construction monitoring, and testing will be performed during the final. design and construction phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining ESSW 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 7 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`regiiired by IJBC Sections 1701 and 3317 or local grading ordinances:: • Consultation as required during construction. I -000- s Appendices as cited are attached and complete this report.. ; I EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST April 11, 2001 _19- File No.: 08110001 01-04-716 4 l REFERENCES Abrahamson, N., and Shedlock, K., editors, 1997, Ground motion attenuation relationships: Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 1, January 1997 special issue, 256 p. American Concrete Institute (ACI), 1996, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Parts 1 through S. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2000, ASCE Standard 7-98, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Blake, B.F., 2000, FRISKSP v. 4.00, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources, Users Manual. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1993, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report; U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 93-509, 15 p. . Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and F TIE?,. 1994, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak. Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report, Part2, U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 94-127. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. California Department of Water Resources, 1964, Coachella Valley Investigation, Bulletin No. 108, 146 pp. Department of Defense, 1997, Soil Dynamics and Special Design Aspects, MIL-HDBK-1007/3, superseding NAVFAC DM 7.3. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), 1986, Foundations and Earth Structures, NAVFAC DM 7.02. Envicom Corporation and the County of Riverside Planning Department, 1976, Seismic Safety and Safety General Plan Elements Technical Report, County of Riverside. Ellsworth, W.L., .1990, "Earthquake History, 1769-1989" in: The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1997, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for. New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 1 — Provisions and Part 2 - Commentary. _i • Hart, E.W., 1994, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 34 p. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. i International Conference of Building Officials, 2000, International Building Code, 2000 Edition. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST April 11, 2001 -20- File No.: 08119-01 01-04-7.16 Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000. f Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Leinkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwarz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 96-08. Prakash, S., 1982, Soil Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Company Proctor; R. J., 1968, Geology of the Desert ' Hot Springs - Upper Coachella Valley Area, California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG_Special Report 94. - Reichard, E.G. and Mead, J.K., 1991, Evaluation of a Groundwater Flow and Transport Model of the Upper Coachella Valley, California, U:S.G.S. Open -File Report 91-4142. Riverside County Planning Department, 1984, Seismic Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan, Amended. =. Roger -s,- T.H- 1966,.- Geo logic-Map-o-f_Cali-fornix-.Santa Ana -Sheet, Cali-fornia Division of Mines. . and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000. Sieh, K., Stuiver, M., and-Brillinger, D., 1989, A More Precise Chronology of Earthquakes Produced by: the San Andreas Fault in Southern California:' Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 94, 'No.' B1, January 10, 1989, pp. 603-623. j Structural Engineers -Association of California (SEAOC), 1996, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. Tokimatsu, K, and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of. Settlements in Sands Due To Earthquake Shaking, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, August 1987. Van de Kamp, P.C., 1973, Holocene Continental Sedimentation in the Salton Basin, California: A Reconnaissance, Geological Society of America, Vol. 84; March 1973. Working Group on. California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of -America, Vol.. 85, No. 2, pp. 379-439. Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault. System, California: U.S: Geological ' Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p. APPENDIX A Site Location, Map Boring Location Map Table 1 Fault Parameters 2000 International Building Code (IBC) Seismic Parameters Logs of Borings p I - r �'F•' t .zp °. % J'?: s' ,f'k �.'' xY'.w'.' . ya i s� $'a. - G• sr 1 .. ' 'S t ` 9' + (f,'ilU` 3,�. 4 •, 4 }�_ �iia',j;. 'd . '. �y. n � _ f i " 1 �'^'"!;`k-t . a. rr£ � r n •' �f ' b"t °� � .� to ''� 9 - . � •'-a �-1 9�p�•Y�� a3� tl er �' 'Q 1� ' 4 k1 �y, 1 h ,�' •1�"" "� '-� -- - �PS9 •Fr Y�' li. s. S� f� 'f Y,�'i•.��C� f't `,T� .�S b ,p it�$��. ' � ��`� �: C v3 a �. 2 f 'err. � � 1 �e't n ,•,E11 i� v . �.�, � , xb �� - • 'dda �- �� g a y �` �� ' it � ,� x . - aNt y - � • b, .. "" r :ilui" � Cas � r ¢�.'� r s r � - $ it'�' �„F^w _ �'�1 � J '�'Y';'� '�.A. - � '` {z's .4 mss' �' I "`f�Y.+.Yrt .T•5�. , '! y. tY x t V. .. .< .. .. '�,- , ,a?. � _. � 'a�€'T . 5'4".; _ �v `zw 4.. a -.a �� .� �"P, t� ♦ � �x.'fa'#7s' • 1 _ W < f s _ '�� .. aka �} • S R f 6 >X F y rZ P -`.`$ 1 ��`, it��"'' •+r"'ita f�� t � f 1 s �.-y't..4_ � t4 �:d �'_¢. Ul xi X y; -:� y3f' +� =°rirrt - y, s4� �_P < � � Lf . 'IJ " YA5 cy'�,9'>` 41. � . ��23•:' � •moi_. - l� •+•Rp. ��✓ 3'�qj .,,a' _ fi,. Y '.4< ,.. P.= h ?'r� `�Y� � �i.�,, rl r':w2'k '�•' - �', � �,,5`J';� ryj._`f• r p�J ~ r�,¢ `ftp 1�' a+'£ ` A. a 4 Figure 1�:-Site Vicinity CMaleo Bay Comercial Development ' -Project No.: 08119-01 I j Earth Systems _ Southwest 'TIP tA ism I lkv U 11 16 71 as 10 V. rim "Ar jm lialmn J 1; 11FAM Mda 1 talet Bays Commericial_ 08119-01 t Table 1, ' Fault Parameters & & Deterministic Estimates of MeanPP1k (3rnunrl Arr:alarn*inn [Pr -AN Fault Name or Seismic Zone - • Distance from Site (mi) (km) Fault Type UBC Maximum: Magnitude Mmax (MW) 'Avg Slip Rate (-m/yr) Avg Return Period (yrs) Fault -. Length (km) Date of Last, Rupture ' (year) Largest Historic Event >5.5M (year) Mean Site PGA (g) Reference Notes: 1) (2) (3) (4) (2) (2) •(2) (5) (6 San Andreas - Banning Branch 6.1 9.8 SS A 7.1 10 220. +, 98 6.2 1986 0.37 ' San Andreas - Southern (C V +S B M) 6 9.6 SS A - 7.4 24 220 203 c. 1690 0.41 San Andreas - Coachella Valley 6 9.6 SS A -7.1 25 220 95 c. 1690 0.37 San Andreas - Mission Crk. Branch 6 9.7 SS A 7.1 25 220 95 ' 6.5 1948 0.37 Blue Cut 14 23. SS C 6.8 1 760 30 0.16 San Jacinto (Hot Spgs - Buck Ridge) 17 27 SS C 6.5 2 : , '3'54 70 6.3 1937 0.12 Burnt Mountain 17 28 SS B 6.4 0.6 5000 20 1992 7.3 1992 0.11 Eureka Peak 18 29 SS B '6.4 0.6 ' 5000 19 1992 6.1 1992 0.10 San Andreas - San Bernardino Mtn. 18 29 SS A *7.3 24 • 433 107 1812 7.0 1812 0.17- .17-San SanJacinto -Anza 21 34 SS A 7.2 12 250 90 • 1918 6.8 1918 0.14 San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 21 34 SS B 6.8 4 175 40 1968 6.5 , 1968 0.11 Morongo 28 46. '.SS C 6.5 0.6 1170 23 5.5 1947 0.07 Pinto Mountain 30 48 SS B 7.0 2.5 500 73 ,. 0.09 - IM-e-rsan So: - Copper Mtn. -32 51 .....SS. B' 6.9 0:6 500- 54 Landers 32 52 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 83 ' 1992 7.3 1992 0.10 Pisgah -Bullion Mtn. -Mesquite Lk 34 55 SS . B 7.0 0.6 5000 88 .1999 7.1 1999 0.08 San Jacinto - Borrego Mountain 35 57 SS B 6.6 4- 175 29 6.5 1942 0.06 San Jacinto -San Jacinto Valley 36 58 SS B 6.9 12 83 42 r 6.8 1899 0.07 Earthquake Valley 40' 64 SS B 6.5 2 351 20 0.05 , Brawley Seismic Zone 42 67 SS B 6.4 25 24• 42.. ` 5.9 1981 0.04 Johnson Valley (Northern) 43 69 SS B 6.7 0.6 5000 36' -- 0.05 North Frontal Fault Zone (East) 44 70 DS B•' 6.7 0.5 -1730 a27.' 0.06 Elsinore -Julian. 44 71 SS A 7.1 5 346- 75 0.06 Calico -Hidalgo 45 72 SS B 7.1 0.6 5060 95 0.06 Elsinore - Temecula 47 76 SS B• 6.8 5 240 -42 0,05 Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman Spgs 49 78 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 149 0.06 Elmore Ranch ' 50 • 81 SS B 6.6 1 • 225 29 1987 5.9 1987 0.04 •Elsinore =Coyote Mountain . -, 51 83 • SS B 6.8 ,' 4 625 38 :6 ' , ' , 0.04 San Jacinto - Superstition Mountain 54 86 SS B 6.6 5, 500 23 c. 1440' -- 0.04 San Jacinto -.Superstition Hills 55 88 SS B e6 4 250. 22 1987 . 6.5 1987 0.04 North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 56 90' DS B 7.0 1 1310` 50 0.05 Helendale - S. Lockhardt 56 91 SS B 7.1 . 0.6' • . 5000 970.05 .1923 San Jacinto -San Bernardino . 58 94 SS B 6.7 12 100 35 6.0 0.04 z Notes: _ } 1. Jennings (1994) and CDMG (1996) . 2: CDMG & USGS (1996), SS = Strike -Slip, DS = Dip Slip 3. ICBO (1997), where Type A faults: Mmax > 7 and slip rate >5 mm/yr &Type.0 faults: Mmax <6.5 and slip rate'< 2 mm/yr 4. CDMG (1996) based on Wells & Coppersmith (1994), Mw= moment magnitude 5.' Modified from Ellsworth Catalog (1990) in USGS Professional Paper 1515 6. The estimates of the mean Site PGA are based on the following attenuation relationships: Average of: (1) 1997 Boore, Joyner & Fumal; (2) 1997 Sadigh et al; (3) 1997 Campbell (mean plus sigma values are about 1.6 times higher) Based on Site Coordinates: 33.707 N., Latitude, 116.293 W Longtude and Site Soil Type D , r EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Caleo Bay Commericial 081101'� Table 2 2000 International Building Code (IBC) Seismic Parameters .3 i Seismic Category D Table 1613.3(1) Site Class D Table 1615. 1.1 Latitude: 33.707 N Longitude: -116.293 W Maximum Considered Earthquake CE) Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Reponse Ss 1.50 g Figure1615(3) 1 second Spectral Response S, 0.60 g Figure1615(4) Site Coefficient Fa 1.00 Table 1615.1.2(1) _ Site Coefficient FV 1.50 Table 1615.1.2(2) SMs 1.50 g = Fa*Ss SMI 0.90 g = Fv*Sl Desmon Earthquake Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Reponse SDs 1.00 g = 2/3*SMs t 1 second Spectral Response SD1 0.60 g = 2/3*SMi To . "0-12- sec - 02-SDI%SDs Ts 0.60 sec = SDI./SDS E f Period Sa 2000 IBC Equivalent Elastic Static Response Spectrum T (sec) g 4 0.00 0.40 s 0.05 0.65 1.2 1.20 0.12 1.00 0.46 1.40 0.20 1.00 1.0 1.60 0.30 rn 0.35 1.80 0.60 1.00 0.32 1 ®. U) 0.27 r 0.80 0.75 0.8 i 090 C L a� 0.6 U 3 Q CU 0.4 m a 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.05 0.65 0.55 1.20 0.12 1.00 0.46 1.40 0.20 1.00 0.40 1.60 0.30 1.00 0.35 1.80 0.60 1.00 0.32 1 ®. 0.86 0.27 r 0.80 0.75 i 090 067 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Period (sec) EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 1.00 0.05 0.65 0.55 1.20 0.12 1.00 0.46 1.40 0.20 1.00 0.40 1.60 0.30 1.00 0.35 1.80 0.60 1.00 0.32 2.00 0.70 0.86 0.27 0.80 0.75 090 067 1.0 1.5 2.0 Period (sec) EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 1.00 0.60 1.10. 0.55 1.20 0.50 1.30 0.46 1.40 0.43 1.50 0.40 1.60 0.38 1.70 0.35 1.80 .0.33 1.90 0.32 2.00 0.30 2.20 0.27 (L■�� Earth Systems Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive, Bcrniuda Dunes, CA 92201 r Phone 7601345-1488 FAX 760 4 0 5 l0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 3 5-731 Boris No.:B - 1 SILTY SAND: Light olive, loose, damp, fine grained, concrete slab encountered at —4 inches Drilling Date: March 8, 2001 Project Name: Caleo Bay Commercial Development 7, 11, 18 Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 08119-01 7 Drill Type: Mobile B-61 w/ Autohammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Karl A. Harmon t: Sample Type Penetration Description Of Units Paged of 1 nResistance q = aCi Note: The stratification lines shown represent the Q o O (Blows/6") >. rn p v ° e 0 approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend m V3 2 damp, fine to very fine grained, lenses of silt and sandy silt and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 0 5 l0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 SM SILTY SAND: Light olive, loose, damp, fine grained, concrete slab encountered at —4 inches 7, 11, 18 ML 85 7 SILT: Light olive, medium dense, damp 7, 10, 11 SM SILTY SAND: Light olive, medium dense, dry to damp, fine grained, some SP -SM 7, 9; 15 93 2 damp, fine to very fine grained, lenses of silt and sandy silt 6, 11, 12 medium dense to dense, lenses of SP -SM 6, 9, 16 86 2 7, 12, 13 SP -SM SAND: Light olive, dense, dry to damp, fine to medium grained, some silty sand TOTAL DEPTH: 30.0 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I C Earth Systems Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive, BernmdLobunes. CA 922 11 Boring No.:B - 2 4, 8, 10 4, 5, 7 Drilling Datc: March 8, 2001 Project Name: Calco Bay Commercial Development 100 1 Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 08119-01 ML Drill Type: Mobile B-61 w/ Autohammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Karl A. Harmon v Sample yp Type Penetration ?? = Description of Units Page I of 1 a ` u Resistance E � 3, 5, 9 a •= v Note: The stratification lines shown represent the p C) 79N0 (Blows/6") rip i"— c approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend lenses of silt U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 5 1C 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 4, 8, 10 4, 5, 7 SP -SM 100 1 SAND: Light olive, medium dense, damp, fine grained SANDY SILT: Light olive, medium dense, dry to ML damp, some silty sand SM SILTY SAND: Light olive -gray, medium dense, dry 3, 5, 9 77 1 to damp, fine to very fine grained, some SP -SM 5, 7, 7 lenses of silt 5, 10, 12 3,5,7 TOTAL DEPTH: 29.0 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered Earth Systems _ �• ^�� i. •SOuthWeSt 79-81 IB Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone 760) 345-1588 F AJC (760) 345-7315 Boring No.:B - 3 Drilling Date: March 8;2001, Project Name: Caleo Bay Commercial Development SILT: Light olive, loose, damp Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 08119-01 Drill Type: Mobile B-61 w/ Autohammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 SM Logged By: Karl A. Harmon v Sample yp `Penetration Type . _ � '� y " Description of Units Page 1 of 1 aResistance $ U q •o Note: The stratification lines shown represent the (Blows/6") p 0 rn Z,� a approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend sandy silt d Q U - and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density ML SILT: Light olive, loose, damp SM SILTY.SAND: Light olive, loose to medium dense, dry to damp, fine grained, interbedded layers of 7, 9, 11 sandy silt ML . SILT: Light olive, medium dense, damp to moist, lenses of silty clay .0 .; 3, 7, 10 79 12 sm SILTY SAND: Olive medium dense dams fine grained, interbedded lenses and layers of silt 5,'7, 8 ML SANDY SILT: Light olive, medium dense, damp, some silty sand 4,7 12 80 7 SP-SMSAND: Light olive -gray, medium dense, dry to damp, fine grained, some SP -SM 4, 7,10 SM SILTY SAND: Olive, medium dense,. damp, fine to very fine grained, some SP -SM 6, 11, 17 4, 7, 9 damp to moist ML SILT: Light olive, medium dense, damp, some very 4, 10,20 fine sand SM SILTY SAND: Light olive -brown, medium dense, damp, fine to very fine grained, some sandy silt 6, 7, 12 SP -SM SAND: Light olive -brown, dense, damp, fine grained. 8, 18, 30 TOTAL DEPTH: 51.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered Earth Sy; �� Southwest MS 79-311 B Country Club Drive. Bennudafluries; CA 92201 Boring No.:B - 4 4, 4, 5 8,11,12 5, 7, 8 .0 Drilling Date: March 8, 2001 Project Name: Calco Bay Commercial Development 79 3 Drilling Method:' 8" Hollow Stem Augcr File Number: 08119-01 SM Drill Type: Mobile B-61 w/ Autohammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Karl A. Harmon I; SamplePage Type` Penetration � 2 1 of Description of Units 1 B. u Resistance U vc q -= a c Note: The stratification lines shown represent the q ,� o 0 (Blows/6") v) q p .. E approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend ML q f SILT: Olive, medium dense, damp to moist, trace U and the transition may be gradational. Y S� Blow Count Dry Density 0 5 e 1Q 15 i 1 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 4, 4, 5 8,11,12 5, 7, 8 SM ML 79 3 SILTY SAND: Light olive -brown, medium dense, dry to damp, fine to very fine grained, lenses of silt SILT: Light olive, medium dense, damp, interbedded with sandy silt and silty sand SILTY SAND: Light olive, medium dense, dry to SM ---damp;-fine-to-very-fine-grained- - 3, 8, 13 ML 79 5 SANDY SILT: Olive, medium dense, damp, some clayey silt lenses, some silty sand ML SILT: Olive, medium dense, damp to moist, trace 7, 9, 12 very fine sand 6, 8, 12 108 2 interbedded lenses of sandy silt and silty sand SM SILTY SAND: Light olive -brown, medium dense, damp, fine to very fine grained 4, 6, 9 TOTAL DEPTH: 34.0 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered tartn syszems , r.Club Drive, Bcmwda Dunes, CA 92201 rW..1 Souttiwe79-811 B Comm toile _ 40 45 i 50 i 55'.P i 0 Phone 7601345-1588 FAX (7601345-7315 Borinc, No.:B - 5 ,10 SILTY SAND: Gray, medium dense to dense, dry, Drilling Datc:.March 8, 2001 r c Project Name: Caleo Bay Commercial Development Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 08119-01 - Drill Type: Mobile B-61 w/ Autohammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 4 Logged By: Karl A. Harmon Sample • 35 6.5 ft. w Type ` Penetration 8, 15, 15 Description of Units Page I of I aResistance _8 •= q d Note: The stratification lines shown represent the q a J n o (Blows/6") >, rn q w o 0 approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend co 0 O and the transition may be gradational. y Blow Count Dry Density 40 45 i 50 i 55'.P i 0 E 5 ,10 SILTY SAND: Gray, medium dense to dense, dry, 15 20 7 fine grained, lenses of SP -SNI, clayey silt layer @ r 25 30 • 35 40 45 i 50 i 55'.P i SM SILTY SAND: Gray, medium dense to dense, dry, fine grained, lenses of SP -SNI, clayey silt layer @ 6.5 ft. 8, 15, 15 100 3 ML SILT: Olive -brown, medium dense, damp to moist, interbedded sandy and clayey 4, 7, 9 SM _ _ _ SILTY SAND: Olive -brown, medium dense, damps fine to very.fine grained, some sandy silt 4, 61 10 87 2 i 4, 6, 9 - SP -Slut SAND: dense, dy to damp, sample lost 5, 12, 20 ML SILT: Light olive, dense, damp; some very fine sand 10, 12, 14 6, 18,26 87 3 Light olive-gray„interbedded sandy and silty, some silty ' sand ML SANDY SILT: Light olive -gray, dense, damp, some. very fine silty sand 6,12,12 TOTAL DEPTH: 40.0 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered APPENDIX DD - - --- -'- - -- - ory Test ' °- ir File No.: 08.119-01 April 11, 20011 'UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT a: ASTM D29374& D2216 Job Name: Caleo Bay Commercial Development, La Quinta E B1 5 85 Unit Moisture . USCS Sample Depth Dry Content-. " ,Group Location (feet) Density (pco (%) Symbol . E B1 5 85 7 ML B1 15 93 2 : SM BI 25 86 2 SM B2 2.5. 100 1 'SP -SM • B2 12.5 77 1 SM _ B3 :10- 79 • 12 ML --= -- ---------------B3--- �_----2.0_-------._x_8.0-- --- -----_7—:.== -----�---=------- _ --- - ------ ---=- B3 3.0 91 3 SM B3 40 85 6 ML . B3 50 104 1 SP -SM B4 7.5 .3 ML ° B4 +79 17.5 79.` 5 ML B4 27.5 108 - 2 ML s B5 5. 100 3 SM 1 B5 15 87, 2 SM B5 35. .' 87. 3. ML t • J , EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 100 90 80 70 60 caN 50 0j U a. 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 Particle Size ( mm) EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 0.01 0.001 " File No.: 08119-01 April 11, 2001 1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS i S ASTM D-422 Job Name: Caleo Bay Commercial Development, La Quinta Sample ID: 131 @ 1-4' Feet 1 Description: Silty Sand: fine grained with trace gravel (SM) Sieve Percent Size Passing 1-1/2" 100 — 1" 100 3/4" 100 1/2" 100 3/8" 99 #4 99 #8 98 fi #16 98 % Gravel: 1 #30 97 % Sand: 74 #50 91 % Silt: 19 #100 43 % Clay (3 micron): 6 #200 25 (Clay content by short hydrometer method) 100 90 80 70 60 caN 50 0j U a. 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 Particle Size ( mm) EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 0.01 0.001 File No.: 08119-01 r April 11, 2001 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM n-422 Job Name: Caleo Bay. Commercial Development, La`Quinta , Sample ID: B3 @ 5' Feet - Description: Silty Sand: fine grained (SM) Sieve Size % Passing By Hydrometer Method: j 3" 100 Particle Size .% Passing 2" 100 53 Micron 30 s 1-1/2" 100 22 Micron 9 1 " .100 13 Micron 7 ' 3/4" 100 7 Micron 5 1/2" 100 5 Micron 4 3/8" 100 3.4 Micron 4 #4 100 2.7 Micron 4 1 #8. 100 1.4 Micron 2 #16 100 #30. .100 % Gravel: ' : _ p . #50 99 /0 Sand:, 61 #1004 '84 —. _.. _... .. -% Silt:. 35 L #200,, 39 % Clay (3 micron): 4 -. 100 j 90 f 80 i 70 60 i 2 50 o 40. 30 • .� 20 10 1 - 1 ` . �110. 100 r` 10 1 ' 0.1 0:01 0.001 Particle Size (mm) EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 08119-01 ' April 11, 2001 NSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435 & D 5333 Caleo Bay Commercial Development, La Quinta Initial Dry Density: 71.0 pcf 133 @ 10' Feet Initial Moisture, %: 12.2% Silt (ML) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 1.347 Hydrocollapse: 3.6% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram 8 Before Saturation -Hydrocollapse N After Saturation --*--Rebound 0.1 1.0 10.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No::,08119-01 April 11, 2001 CONSOLIDATION TEST -ASTM D 2435 & D 5333 Caleo Bay Commercial Development, La Quinta ' Initial Dry Density:' 79.0-pcf B4 @ 17.5' Feet , i _ t Initial Moisture, %: 5.1% Sandy Silt (ML) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 1.111 Hydrocollapse: 2.2% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssare Diagram -Before Saturation ; _ Hydrocollapse ■ After Saturation Rebound i 2 e -2 -4 -5 • y u. . -8 -10 -11 -12 1 r " 0.1Y 1.0 inn" File No.: 08119-01 April 11, 2001 MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified) Job Name: Caleo Bay Commercial Development, La Quinta Procedure Used: A Sample ID: B1 @ 1-4' Feet Preparation Method: Moist Location: Native Rammer Type: Mechanical Description: Brown; Silty Sand: fine grained with trace gravel (SM) Sieve Size % Retained Maximum Density: 111 pcf 3/4" 0.0 Optimum Moisture: 11% 3/8" 0.0 #4 0.3 14( 135 130 125 110 105 we 5 10 15 20 25 Moisture Content, percent EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST a File No.: 08119-01 April 11, 2001- ` SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES Job Name: Caleo Bay Commercial Development, La Quinta Job No.: 08119-01 Sample ID: B-1 B-2 Sample Depth, feet: 1-4 1-4 - ` pH: 7.6 7.7 Resistivity (ohm=cm): 128 175 Chloride (Cl), ppm: 930 910 Sulfate (SO4), ppm: 1;013 1,988 Note: Tests performed by Subcontract Laboratory: Soil & Plant Laboratory and Consultants, Inc. 79-607 Country Club Drive. ..-Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201. Tel: (760) 772-7995 General Guidelines for Soil Corrosivity Chemical Agent Amount in Soil Degree of Corrosivity .-Soluble 0 -1000 ppm ' Low Sulfates 1000 - 2000 ppm Moderate 2000 - 5000 ppm Severe - > 5000 pprh Very Severe Resistivity 1-1000 ohm -cm Very Severe 1000-2000 ohm -cm Severe 2000-10,000 ohm -cm Moderate 10,000+ ohm -cm Low. .igineering, Planning, 75-150 Sheryl Avenue Environmental Sciences.and Suite C Management Services Palm Desert, California 92211 760.341.6660 Fax 760.346.6118 January 14, 2003 Job # 2432-07 Mr. Tim Jonasson, City Engineer City of La Quinta, Engineering Department P.O Box 1504 La Quinta;CA92253 Attn: Mr. Tim Jonasson Regarding: Pad Certification, Parcels 2-11, Parcel Map No. 29889 La Quinta Professional Plaza Dear Mr. Tim Jonasson: - - The pad elevation for the subject Parcel was verified on January 13, 2003, and found to be in substantial conformance with the City of La Quinta approved Rough Grade and Paving Plan. PARCEL NO. PLAN ELEVATION AS -BUILT ELEVATION 2 63.5 63.6 3 63.0 63.1 4 63.0 63.0 62.0 - _._.. _ - -- 62.1. 6 63.0 63.0 7 63.0 63.0 8 63.0 63.0 9 63..0 63.0 10 63.0 63.0 11 62.0 62.'0- Parcel 12 is currently the temporary bank facility, and the pad as shown on the approved plan is not yet built. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, �oF�ssro,� Dudek & Associates, Inca ,2Y'. No. 2 069 llusoneji, P.E. B EY? 1�-39-2:7t� ;',: Principal 1Ar MAY 2.-" 2063 JS:mo cc: C. McDermott, Palm Desert National Bank R. Walters, Dateland Construction