Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-4134 (MFD5)
P.O. BOX 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Application Number: 06-00004134 Property Address: 47795 DUNE PALMS RD APN: 600-020-030- - Application description: DWELLING - 5 OR MORE FAMILY Property Zoning: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL Application valuation: 715537 Applicant: Architect or Engineer: BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT BUILDING PERMIT LICENSED CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 70001 of. Division 3 of the Business and Professionals Code, and my:License is in full force and effect. License' I sa: B__ee License fJo:; 3 9612 0 ate: `� w raCto,. Ty r• OWNER -BUILDER DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty.ot perjury that I. am exempt from the Contractor's State License Law for the following reason (Sec. 7031.5, Business and Professions Code: Any city or county that requires:a permit to construct,°alter, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its.issuance, also requires the applicant for the permit to file a signed statement that he or she is licensed pursuant to the'provisions of the Contractor's State License Law (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he or she is exempt therefromand the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a;permit-subjects the applicant to -a civil, penalty of not more than five -hundred dollars 1$500),' (_ 1 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 and Professions Code: The Contractors' State License Law does not apply to:en owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does the work himself or herself through his or her, own employees, provided that the improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement issold within one year of completion, the owner -builder will have.the burden of proving that he or she did not build or improve forthe purpose of sale.).. (_) I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec, 7044; Business and Professions Code: The Contractors' State License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who contractsfor. the projects with a contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractors' State License Low.). (_) I am exempt under Sec. , B.&P.C. for this reason. Date:: Owner: CONSTRUCTION LENDINGAGENCY I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that,there: is a.construction lendingagency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097, Civ. C.). Lender's Name: Lender's Address: VOICE (760) 777-7012 FAX (760) 777-7011 INSPECTIONS (760) 777-7153 Date: 1 / 2 5'/ 0 8 Owner: COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALS 45701 M_ONR_OE ST 1-G INDIO, CA 922.01 Contractor: BROWN CONSTRUCTION, INC. PO BOX 980700 WEST SARAMENTO, CA 95798 O ACJ 1�00 (916)373-9300 L' Lic. No.: 396120 ------------ r---- 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 carrievand policy number are: Carrier .AMER INC, Policy Number 3424477 _ I certify that, in the performance of the work for -which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become,subject to the workers' compensation laws of�Calftrnia, and agree that, if I should becom&subject to the workers' compensation' provisions of Section 3700 of the Cdft4woall forthwith comply with those provisions. f lice WARNING: FAIL RE TO SECURE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE IS UNLAWFUL -AND SHALL SUBJECT AN EMPLOYER TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL FINES UP TO ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000). IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF COMPENSATION, DAMAGES AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3706 OF7THE LABOR CODE, INTEREST, AND ATTORNEY'&FEES. APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IMPORTANT Application,is herebymadeto the.Director of Building and Safety for a permit subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth on this application: 1. Each person upon whose behalf this application ismade, each person at whose request and for whose, benefit work is performed under or pursuant to any,permit,issued as a result of this application, the owner, and the applicant, each agrees10, and shall defend, indemnify andholdharmless the City of La Ouinta, its officers, agents and employees for any act or omission related to the work being performed under or following issuance of this permit. 2. Any permitissued as aresuli of this application becomes null and void if'work is not commenced within IS0 days from date of issuance of such permit, or cessation of work for 1a0 days will subject permit to cancellation. 1 certify that I have read this application and ,state that the, above information is correct. I agree to comply with all city and county ordinances and state laws relating to buildin construction,. and hereby authorize representatives of this county t .enter upon the above -mentioned pro y or action purposes. Pea: y2riob ature(Applicant or Agent): C-aw3\ LQPERMIT k. Application Number . . . . . 06-00004134 Structure Information 11,125SF [TYPE:B]/V-lHR/RES-1/8 - DU Other struct info . . . . . CODE EDITION 2001/2004/2005 # BEDROOMS 2-4.00 FIRE SPRINKLERS FULLY FLOOD ZONE NO GARAGE SQ FTG .00 PATIO SQ FTG 12.33.00 NUMBER OF UNITS 8.00 1ST FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE 3639.00 2ND FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE 36.67.00 3RD FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE 2467.00 Permit Additional desc . Permit Fee . . . . Issue Date . . . . Expiration Date . BUILDING PERMIT 2687.50 7/23/08 Plan Check Fee 1746.88 Valuation . . . . 7.15537 Qty Unit Charge Per Extension BASE FEE 2039.5.0 216.00 --------------------------------------------------------------- .3..0000 THOU BLDG 500,001-1,000,000 648.00 Permit . . . MECHANICAL Additional desc . . Permit Fee . . . . 279.00 Plan Check Fee 69.75 Issue Date . . . . Valuation . . . . 0 Expiration Date 7/23/08 Qty Unit Charge Per Extension BASE FEE 15.00 8.00 4.5000 EA MECH VENT INST/ DUCT ALT 36.0.0 8.00 9.0006 EA MECH B/C <=3HP/100K BTU. 72.60 16.00 6.5000 EA MECH VENT FAN 104.00 8.00 6.500.0 EA MECH EXHAUST HOOD 52.06 Permit . . . Additional desc . . Permit Fee'. . . . . Issue Date . . . . Expiration Date . . ELEC-NEW RESIDENTIAL 310.57 Plan Check Fee . Valuation . . . . 7/23/08 Qty Unit Charge Per BASE FEE 9773.00 .0300ELEC NEW RES - MULTI FAMILY 77.64 0 Extension 15.00 2:93.19 LQPERMIT Application Number . . . . . 06-000,04134 Permit . .. . . . ELEC-NEW RESIDENTIAL . Qty Unit Charge Per Extension. 119.00 .0200 ELEC GARAGE OR NON-RESIDENTIAL 2.38 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit . . . PLUMBING Additional desc . . Permit Fee . . . . 687.00 Issue Date . . . . Expiration Date 1/23/08 Plan Check Fee 171.75 Valuation 0 Qty Unit Charge Per Extension BASE FEE 15.00 72.00 6.0000 EA PLB FIXTURE 432.00 1.00 15.0000 EA PLB BUILDING SEWER 15.00 8.00 7.5000 EA PLB WAT-ER.HEATER/VENT 6.0.00 8.00 3.0000 EA PLB WATER INST/ALT/REP 24.00 1.00 9.0000 EA PLB LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEM 9.00 16.00 7500 EA PLB GAS PIPE >=5 12.00 8.00 15.0000 EA PLB GAS METER 120.00 Permit . . . GRADING PERMIT Additional desc . ` Permit Fee . . . . 15.00 Plan Check Fee .00 Issue Date Valuation 0 Expiration Date . 7/23/08 Qty Unit Charge Per Extension BASE FEE 15.00 Special Notes and Comments 11,125SF [TYPE:C]/V-1HR/RES-1/8-UNITS - ALLOWABLE AREA INCREASES: MULTISTORY / FIRESPRINKLERES [3STORIES/4'2,000SF MAX] THIS PERMIT DOES NOT INCLUDE SITEWALLS, SITE LIGHTING, CARPORTS OR TRASH ENCLOSURES.. 2001 CBC, CPC, CMC., ,2004 CEC, 2005 ENERGY CODE. [BUILDING: 1200 - TYPE,: C] December 26, 2007 3:54:33 PM AORTEGA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Fees . . . ACCESSIBILITY PLAN REVIEW 174.69. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES-RES 1288.84 .DIF COMMUNITY CENTERS-RES 584.00 DIF CIVIC CENTER - RES 1832.00 ENERGY REVIEW .FEE 174.69, LQPERMIT Application Number . . . . . 06-00004134 ---- ---- Other Fees . . . --- ------ . . . . . . DIF ----------- FIRE PROTECTION-RES -- 256.00 DIF LIBRARIES - RES 2784.00 DIF PARK MAINT FAC - RES 168.00 DIE PARKS/REC - RES 7008.00 STRONG MOTION (SMI) - RES 71.55 DIF STREET MAINT FAC-RES 312.00 DIF TRANSPORTATION - RES 9016.00 Fee summary Charged Paid Credited Due -- - -- - Permit Fee Total ---------- 3979.07 -------- - ----- ---------- .00 .00 3979.07 Plan Check total 2066.02 .00 .00 2066.02 Other Fee.Total 2,3669.77 .00 .00 2.3669.77 Grand Total 29714.86 .00 .00 29714•.86. LQPEK IIT c CITY OF LA QUINTA ow B ILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT (760) 777-7012 INSPECTION REQUEST LINE (760) 777-7153 u� :CV IRMSING COALITION CTION l�-T'ONOB IN CONSPICUOUS PLACE UST SIGN ALL APPLICABLE SPACES JOB ADDRESS 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 11,125SF [TYPE:Cl/V-1HR/RES-1/8-UNITS- 2001 CBC, CPC, CNIC, 2004 CEC, 2005 ENERGY CODE. [BUILDING: 1200 - TYPE: Cl TYPE OF INSPECTION DATE INSP. TEMPORARY POWER SETBACKS U/G PLUMBING / WASTE U/G ELECTRICAL / GROUNDING FOOTINGS / STEEL CONCRETE SLAB • .� DO NOT POUR CONCRETE NTIL ABOVE SIGNED ROOF NAIL / PRE -ROOF (Z. •c9 ? , OKAY TO WRAP Z o FRAMING COMBINATION ROUGH ELECTRIC ROUGH PLUMBING ROUGH MECHANICAL INSULATION COVER NO WORK UNTIL ABOVE SIGNED INTERIOR GYP. BD. DRYWALL EXTERIOR LATH GAS TEST SEPTIC ABANDONMENT SEWER CONNECTION SEPTIC / GREASE INTERCEPTOR MASONRY INSPECTIONS FOOTINGS / STEEL BOND BEAM POOL / SPA / WATER FEATURE INSPECTIONS PRE-GUNITE / SETBACKS U/G PLUMBING U/G GAS U/G ELECTRICAL PRE -PLASTER ALARMS / BARRIERS FINAL INSPECTIONS TEMP. USE OF PERMANENT POWE - . Q ELECTRICAL PLUMBING MECHANICAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. t� FINAL / JOB COMPLETED CONTRACTOR'S MATERIAL & TEST CERTIFICATE FOR ABOVEGROUND PIPING Factory Additional copies of this form are Loss Prevention Publications - Training Resource Center Mutual available to insured from: Factory Mutual Engineering and Research, l 151 Boston -Providence Turnpike. P.O. Box 9102. Norwood M'A steOmfi1 PROCEDURE: Upon completion of work. inspection and tests shall be made by the contractor's representative and witnessed by an owner's representative. All efects shall be corrected and system left in service before contractor's personnel finally leave the job. A certificate shall be filled out and signed by both representatives. Copies shall be prepared for approving authorities, owners and contractor. It is understood the owner's representatives signature in no way prejudices any claim against the contractor for faulty material, poor workmanship, or failure to comply with aporovina anthority'S rPnnirpmpt2 — 1n 1 ,,.•r7:.,n.,,.o.. PROPERTY NAME: La Quints Dune Palms Neighborhood v�u JOB# 07205 1 DATE: July 21, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 47795 Dune Palms Road, La Quinta, Ca PLANS ACCEPTED BY APPROVING AUTHORITY'(S) NAMES: Riverside County Fire Dept. Indio/Palm Desert Office ADDRESS: 77-933 Las Montanas Rd. #210 INSTALLATION CONFORMS TO ACCEPTED PLANS YES X NO EQUIPMENT USED IS APPROVED (IF NO, STATE DEVIATIONS BELOW) YES X NO INSTRUCTIONS HAS PERSON IN CHARGE OF FIRE EQUIPMENT BEEN INSTRUCTED AS TO LOCATION OF CONTROL AND VALVES THE CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF THIS NEW EQUIPMENT? PES X NO IF NO, EXPLAIN: HAVE COPIES OF APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS AND CARE AND MAINTENANCE CHARTS BEEN LEFT ON YES X NO PREMISES? IF NO, EXPLAIN: LOCATION OF SYSTEM SUPPLIES BUILDINGS Building C 1200 SPRINKLERS MAKE TYCO MODEL PEAR OF MANUFACTURE ORIFICE SIZE QUANTITY TEMPERATURE RATING Concealed LF-H 2008 1/2" 63 1600 Pendent TY-FRB 2008 1/2" 7 2000 PIPE & FITTINGS PIPE CONFORMS TO NFPA #13 STANDARD YES X NO FITTINGS CONFORM TO NFPA #13 STANDARD YES X I NO ALARM VALVE OR FLOW INDICATOR ALARM DEVICE MAA'IMUM TIME TO OPERATE THROUGH TEST PIPE TYPE MAKE MODEL MIN. SEC. WATERFLOW SWITCH POTTER VSR-F 0 60 DRY PIPE OPERATING TEST DRY VALVE Q.O.D. MAKE MODEL SERIAL NO. MAKE MODEL SERIAL NO. TIME TO TRIP THRU TEST PIPE WATER PRESSURE AIR PRESSURE TRIP POINT AIR PRESSURE TIME WATER REACHED OUT. ALARM OPER- ATED PROPERLY MIN. SEC. PSI PSI PSI MIN. SEC. MIN. SEC. WITHOUT Q.O.D. WITH Q.O.D. IF NO, EXPLAIN: Riverside County Fire Department Fire Protection Planning Section Riverside Office: 2300 Market St., Ste. 150, Riverside, CA 92501 Ph. (951) 955-4777 Fax (951) 955-4886 Murrieta Office: 39493 Los Alamos Rd., Ste A, Mumeta, CA 92563 Ph. (951) 600-6160 Fax (951) 600-6164 Palm Desert Office: 77-933 Las Montanas Rd., # 201 Palm Desert, CA 92211.41 31 Ph. (760) 863-8886 (760) 863-7072 Fire Department Clearance/Release Date: /0 I I 1q- �_ To: �2 �CUihld yrldlYkl `' Sdf� Fax: TracVParcel Map #: LAa- 01- Q 0- OG b Permiftot #: I LD b #(2- r Job Site Address: �i — 7qs Om no I"d'h1 j L_ . Q. Final For Recordation Release For Building Permit(s) Shell Final Only (No Tenant) Final For Occupancy Building Plan Check Fees Paid Building Plan Check Fees Not Paid Other Fees Fees Not Required If you should have any questions, please contact the appropriate Riverside County Fire Protection Planning office for further assistance. , v Auth izin Signature For Release Print Name Form C - Revised 8/27/2009 December 24, 2007 Ms. Amy Yu, Engineering Assistant II City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92252 RE: Pad Certification - Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No. 33588, SDP 206-857 JN 1786 - CVHC Dune Palms Neighborhood Dear Amy: This letter is to verify that the locations and elevations of the building pads for the lots listed below for Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No. 33588 were field checked by MSA Consulting, Inc., and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved Precise Grading Plan. �. The results are as follows: 3 Building # Plan Field Difference 2200 A 60.9 60.9 +0.0 2100 A 60.3 60.3 +0.0 2300 A 59.4 59.4 +0.0 2400 C 59.2 59.2 +0.0 3100 C 59.7 59.7 +0.0 3300 K 59.1 59.1 +0.0 3200 C 58.3 58.3 +0.0 4100 A 57.1 57.1 +0.0 4200 A 55.8 55.8 +0.0 5100 B 53.7 53.7 +0.0 5200 B 52.7 52.7 +0.0 6100 B 52.8 52.8 +0_0 6200 B 52.0 52.0 +0.0 7100 B 53.4 7F 53.4 +0.0 34200 BcJIi HO PI_ Dpi\r = RnncHo Mir,A e Q CALlr()l;vl,a P71 ()?<7(1 ;_7`q ; F., v � w"uik; n;IC 4t' 1NO, I I 1IN1C,Ivr r''riat (—� Ms. Amy Yu, Engineering Assistant II Page Two December 24, 2007 I Building # Plan Field Difference 7200 B 52.2 52.1 -0.1 8100 C 53.8 53.8 +0.0 8200 C 54.0 54.0 +Q.Q 8300 C 54.9 54.9 +0.0 8400 C 55.5 55.5 +0.0 0100 D 54.8 54.8 +0.0 1100 B 55.3 55.3 +0.0 1200 C 55.8 55.8 +Q.Q If you have any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, Charles R. Harris, PLS 4989 Director of Survey and Mapping CRH:tt EC: Mike Troth ,6oNPL LAND SU\ CHARLES R. HARRIS O Exp'. 12/31!07 Cf)� No. 4989 T 34200 BOB I nn- Dr,Ivc R,ANO10 MIRAGF - CAI ITORNIA if 9-)-)70 FAY c: IvNvw IV1CA( nnicz iii�i.faii' i i»i �R'Letter of Transmittal Date: June 27, 2008 Via: Hand Delivery Job M 1786 To: Angelica Zarco CITY OF LA QUINTA Public Works/Engineering 78-495 Caile Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 From: Chuck Harris Re: Form Certification �- Project: CVHC Dune Palms Neighborhood EC: Mike Troth ❑ Urgent Q For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ As Requested ❑ Other r- QTY. ITEM 1 Original, wetsigned and stamped form certification letter, Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No. 33588, Buildings 1100 and1200 s Comments: If you have any questions, or we can be of further assistance, please contact our office. Thank you. 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE o RANCHO MIRAGE e CALIFORNI 92270 7f�(1 :'M C)41 1 = '7KA '111 "7Q01 r.,t v tm xv%imr MQ A (InxtQii> r rn r.7 'r rrvu r June 27, 2008 Ms. Angelica Zarco City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92252 RE: Form Certification — CVHC Dune Palms Neighborhood Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No.33588, Buildings 1100 and 1200 JN 1786 Dear Angelica: This letter is to verify that the locations and elevations of the building forms for Buildings 1100 and 1200 of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No. 33588 were field checked by MSA Consulting, Inc., and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved Precise Grading Plan. The results are as follows: Lot # Plan Field Difference Building 1100 66.00 56.00 +0.00 Building 1200 56.50 56.49 -0.01 If you have any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, 6 /?" � �- Charles R. Harris, PLS 4989 Director of Survey and Mapping CRH:tt EC: Mike Troth //"p LAND ,5��� CHARLES R. L�\ (� HARRIS O �. No. 4939 � Exp.12/31109 \T C1-��C A 34200 BoD HOPE DRTv a RANCHO MIRAGE M C:ALWORNIA W 92270 7AO-1?n-0541I I Fax' w www, M1sAC«NcUnT1W;1 arr MM 19-GRAYNER ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING November 20, 2008 City of La Quinta Building Department c/o Interactive Design Corp. 199 S. Civic Center Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Dune Palms Neighborhood 47-795 Dune Palms Road La Quinta, CA 92253 Building Number: 1200 Building Official: As the Engineer responsible for the Structural Design, I have performed visual structural observations of the structural system in compliance with 2001 CBC, Section 1709. To the best of my knowledge, the construction is in substantial conformance with the Approved Structural Drawings and is approved to wrap. Thank you for your review of this written Statement. Sincerely, 4 George H. Grayner, S. E. Grayner Engineering D, 4PpFESS�p ► f�. AQQ��Q`�E H CO W �ro �' s�A�Cr1Q`P�► ��� TFOF Cps\FOQ 41105 Vintage Circle . Temecula, CA 92591 . Telephone (951) 676-2529 . FAX (951) 699-3591 SO -ERN CALIFORNIA SOIL 6 TESTING, INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 • Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 ' Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS&T FILE NO: P.O. NO.: C PL NC I I FIX MW: 00486 0822004P PAGE I OF FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING O. C. CONCRETE ® ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE / STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING I -I PROJECTTnLE: PtI m* DMIOSHPOFILE NO.: DSA APP. NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJEcraoDREss 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD RMrr No.: .. 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: INTERACTIVE DESIGN ENGINEER: GRAYNER GENERALCONTRACTOR: BROWN SUBCONTRACTOR DRI ROOFING LOCATION of tNOFBC INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C ROOF TILE IN PROGRESS MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: FONTANA VULCASEAL #30 ASTM D-226 TYPE II, ICBO ES ER-5434, MCA CLAY ROOF TILE, PACIFIC MASTIC, 5/16" 8D ROOFING NAILS, WIND CLIPS DATE: 1/29/2009 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE ROOF TILE INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS) FOR BUILDING 1200 C. *GENERAL ROOF TILE INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS) LOOKS GOOD. TILE ARE SECURED WITH ONE 5/16" HEAD ROOFING NAIL PER TILE OVER TWO LAYERS OF #30 FONTANA VULCASEAL. WIND CLIPS WERE PLACED ON THE NOSE OF THE FIRST COARSE OF TILE. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLASHINGS ARE SEALED WITH MASTIC AND ARE BIBBED WITH FELT. HIP AND RIDGE NAILERS HAVE FELT UNDER AND OVER ONTO THE ROOF DECK 3" MIN. NO OVEREXPOSED TILE WERE OBSERVED. TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL ROOFING INSTALLATION. **NOTE- PUNCH LIST ITEM LISTED ON MY REPORT ON 1/29/2009 WAS CORRECTED AS REQUESTED. ROOFERS ADDED MASTIC AT THE PIPE TO FLASHING INTERSECTION AS REQUESTED. **WORK OBSERVED APEARS TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS PER PLANS AND THE TRI ROOFING MANUAL. CBC 1 hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work. Lkdsea noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the c requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in ICC #5077516-10 accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected complies with the OSHPD approved documents. N/A Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials: INSPECTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work In accordance with the 1/29/2009 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected *SUPERINTENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE corn If with the DSA approved documents. - Q Inspector Initials: N/A •signature autlrorizea the above work SCS872D5 REV 2/08 Yes No: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL S TESTING. INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 * Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 ' Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS&T FILE NO: P.O. NO.: F-C Jf► I P� NC FIX MW: 00542 0822004P PAGE I nP I FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING 0. C. CONCRETE ® ROOFING I WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE / STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS [IH.S. BOLTING ❑ PROJECT TITLE: PHASE #: DSA 1OSHPD FILE NO.: DSA APP. NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILL: No.: 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: ENGINEER INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUBCONTRACTOR: BROWN COMMERCIAL CAULKING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MATERIALI ION: SIKA FLEX 2C NS EZ MIX 2 COMPONENT POLYURETHANE ELASTOMERIC SEALANT, CLOSED CELL BACKER ROD FONTANA VULCASEAL #30 ASTM D-226 TYPE II, ICBO ES ER-5434, MCA CLAY ROOF TILE, PACIFIC MASTIC DATE: 2/25/2009 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE TO OBSERVE THE INSTALLATION OF THE CAULKING AT THE SIESMIC JOINT BETWEEN THE TWO STORY AND THREE STORY SECTIONS ON BUILDING 1200. ALSO PROVIDED LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE ROOF TILE INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS). *CLOSED CELL BACKER ROD WAS INSTALLED OVER THE MFM SUBSEAL TO MAINTAIN A UNIFORM DEPTH BETWEEN 3/8"- 1/2" NEXT THE SIKA FLEX 2C NS EZ MIX 2 COMPONENT POLYURETHANE ELASTOMERIC SEALANT WAS HAND TOOLED AT THE SEISMIC JOINTS. CAULKING APEARED TO BE OF UNIFORM THICKNESS WITH A CLEAN FINISH AND GOOD ADHESION. NEXT THE CAULKERS ADDED A SAND FINISH TO THE SEALANT. TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL SIESMIC JOINT CAULKING INSTALLATION. *TILE WERE INSTALLED OVER TWO LAYERS OF #30 FONTANA VULCASEAL FELT WITH ONE 5/16" 8D ROOF NAIL PER TILE. WIND CLIPS WERE PLACED ON THE NOSE OF THE FIRST COARSE OF TILE. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLASHINGS ARE BIBBED WITH FELT AND ARE SEALED WITH MASTIC AT THE PIPE TO FLASHING INTERSECTION. HIP AND RIDGE NAILERS ARE WRAPPED UNDER AND OVER WITH FELT LAPPED ONTO THE ROOF DECK 3". NO OVER EXPOSED TILE WERE OBSERVED. TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL ROOFING INSTALLATION. CBC I hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected ICC #5077516-10 complies with the OSHPD approved documents. Yes:= NO:= Inspector Initials: N/A INSPECTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 2/25/2009 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were Conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected 'SUPERIMENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE com lies with the DSA approved documents. Yes: No: Inspector Initials: N/A 'signature authorizes the above work SCS6T 205 REV 1/fle SOUTHERN CA IFORNM SOIL & TESTING, INC. l r' i SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.: 00548 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 : Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 * Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS&T FILE NO: 0822004P C x PL NC17 FIX I I PAGE I OF I FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING Q. C. CONCRETE ® ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE / STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING n PROJECTTIILE PHASE#: DSA IOSHPDFILE NO.: DSAAPP.NO.: DUNE PALMS I BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMIT NO.: 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR: SUBCONTRACTOR: BROWN DRI ROOFING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C ROOF TILE IN PROGRESS MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: FONTANA VULCASEAL #30 ASTM D-226 TYPE II, ICBO ES ER-5434, MCA CLAY ROOF TILE, PACIFIC MASTIC, 5/16" 8D ROOFING NAILS, WIND CLIPS DATE: 2/27/2009 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE ROOF TILE INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS) FOR BUILDING 1200. *GENERAL ROOF TILE INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS) LOOKS GOOD. TILE ARE SECURED WITH ONE 5/16" HEAD ROOFING NAIL PER TILE OVER TWO LAYERS OF #30 FONTANA VULCASEAL. WIND CLIPS WERE PLACED ON THE NOSE OF THE FIRST COARSE OF TILE. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLASHINGS ARE SEALED WITH MASTIC AND ARE BIBBED WITH FELT. HIP AND RIDGE NAILERS HAVE FELT UNDER AND OVER ONTO THE ROOF DECK 3" MIN. NO OVEREXPOSED TILE WERE OBSERVED. TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL ROOFING INSTALLATION. *NOTE- HIP NAILER ON THE NORTH EAST ELEVATION HAS A BACKWARD LAP ON THE FELT. THIS AREA NEEDS TO BE LAPPED WITH FELT IN WEATHERBOARD FASHION. **WORK OBSERVED APEARS TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS PER PLANS AND THE TRI ROOFING MANUAL OTHER THAN AREA MENTIONED ABOVE. CRC I hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in �j� accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected ICC #5077516-10 complies with the OSHPD approved documents. N/A Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials: I ECTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION N0, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 2/27/2009 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected 'SUPERINTENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE com lies with the DSA approved documents. Yes: No: = Inspector Initials: N/A 'signature authorizes the above work scsaT zas REV vos SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL S, TESTING, INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. MW. 00552 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 s Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 - Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS&T FILE NO: 0822004P P.O. NO.: 1 C Tr PL NC Fix PAGE I OF 1 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING Q. C. CONCRETE ® ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE / STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING F1 PROJECT TITLE: PHASE* DSA /OSHPD FILE NO.: DSA AM. NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMIT NO.:PLAN HLL NO.: 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR: R: BROWN DRI ROOFING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C ROOF TILE IN PROGRESS MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: FONTANA VULCASEAL #30 ASTM D-226 TYPE II, ICBO ES ER-5434, MCA CLAY ROOF TILE, PACIFIC MASTIC, 5/16" 8D ROOFING NAILS, WIND CLIPS DATE: 3/02/2009 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE ROOF TILE INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS) FOR BUILDING 1200. *GENERAL ROOF TILE INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS) LOOKS GOOD. TILE ARE SECURED WITH ONE 5/16" HEAD ROOFING NAIL PER TILE OVER TWO LAYERS OF 430 FONTANA VULCASEAL. WIND CLIPS WERE PLACED ON THE NOSE OF THE FIRST COARSE OF TILE. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLASHINGS ARE SEALED WITH MASTIC AND ARE BIBBED WITH FELT. HIP AND RIDGE NAILERS HAVE FELT UNDER AND OVER ONTO THE ROOF DECK 3" MIN. NO OVEREXPOSED TILE WERE OBSERVED. TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL ROOFING INSTALLATION. *NOTE- HIP NAILER ON THE NORTH EAST ELEVATION WHICH WAS MENTIONED IN MY REPORT ON 2/27/2009 WAS REPAIRED AS REQUESTED. THE ROOFER INSTALLED AN ADITIONAL PIECE OF FELT IN WEATHERBOARD FASHION TO ELIMINATE THE BACKWARD LAP. **WORK OBSERVED APEARS TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS PER PLANS AND THE TRI ROOFING MANUAL. CBC 1 hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, OWECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: Kw. OSHPD I hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in �� accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected ICC #5077516-10 complies with the OSHPD approved documents. Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials: N/A I PECTORS SI NATURE REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 3/02/2009 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected 'SUPERItlTENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE corn lies with the DSA approved documents. Yes: No: 0 Inspector Initials: N/A *signature authorizes the above work SCS&T 205 REV P 06 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL S TESTING. INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 : Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 ' Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS&T FILE NO: P.O. NO.: Nj` : 00572 0822004P C x PL NC FIX PAGE 1 OF 1- FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING O. C. CONCRETE © ROOFING I WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE I STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING[—] PROJECT TITLE: PHASE #: DSA IOSHPD FILE NO.: DSA APP. NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMIT NO.:PLAN FILE NO.: 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR: SUBCONTRACTOR: BROWN DRI ROOFING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: FONTANA VULCASEAL #30 ASTM D-226 TYPE I1, ICBO ES ER-5434, MCA CLAY ROOF TILE, PACIFIC MASTIC, 5/16" 8D ROOFING NAILS, DATE: 3/11/2009 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: [DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE FINISHED TILE ROOF ASSEMBLY FOR BUILDING 1200. *GENERAL ROOF TILE INSTALLATION LOOKS GOOD. TILE ARE SECURED WITH ONE 5/16" HEAD ROOFING NAIL PER TILE WITH WIND CLIPS ON THE NOSE OF THE FIRST COARSE OF TILE. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLASHINGS ARE SEALED WITH MASTIC AND ARE BIBBED WITH FELT. HIP AND RIDGE NAILERS HAVE FELT UNDER AND OVER. TRIM TILE HAVE MASTIC IN PLACE OVER THE NAIL HEADS ENCAPSULATING THE FASTENER. CUT TILES IN THE VALLEYS ARE SECURED TO A FIXED TILE WITH RAINBUSTER 850 TILE ADHESIVE. **PUNCH LIST** *LOW ROOF- LAST COARSE OF TILE AT THE RIDGE IS OVEREXPOSED, NEED TO ADD 1/2 COARSE OF TILE. CUT TILE IN THE VALLEYS NEED TO BE SECURED WITH TILE ADHESIVE. *WORK OBSERVED APEARS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRI ROOFING MANUAL AND PROJECT PLANS OTHER THAN PUNCH LIST ITEMS LISTED. CBC I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD 1 hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in / accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected ��✓ ICC #SO77516-1 O complies with the OSHPD approved documents. Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials: N/A INSPECTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 3/11/2009 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected 'SUPERINTENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE com�p li—es w7ith the DSA approved documents. Yes:L_I No: = Inspector Initials: N/A 'signature authorizes the above work SCS&T 205 REV 2106 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA /SOIL &TESTING.INC- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 • Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 ' Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS&T FILE NO:_ P.O. NO.:_ M` : 00483 0822004P l�X-1 PL %iC. Fix PAGE 1 OF FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING O. C. CONCRETE © ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE / STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING ❑ PROJECTTiRE PHASE#: DSAIOSHPD FILE NO.: DSA APP. NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE NO.: 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR: SUBCONTRACTOR: BROWN DRI ROOFING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C ROOF TILE IN PROGRESS MATE IAL CLASSI TION: FONTANA VULCASEAL #30 ASTM D-226 TYPE II, ICBO ES ER-5434, MCA CLAY ROOF TILE, PACIFIC MASTIC, 5/16" 8D ROOFING NAILS, WIND CLIPS DATE: 1/29/2009 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE ROOF TILE INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS) FOR BUILDING 1200 C. *GENERAL ROOF TILE INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS) LOOKS GOOD. TILE ARE SECURED WITH ONE 5/16" HEAD ROOFING NAIL PER TILE OVER TWO LAYERS OF #30 FONTANA VULCASEAL. WIND CLIPS WERE PLACED ON THE NOSE OF THE FIRST COARSE OF TILE. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLASHINGS ARE SEALED WITH MASTIC AND ARE BIBBED WITH FELT. HIP AND RIDGE NAILERS HAVE FELT UNDER AND OVER ONTO THE ROOF DECK 3" MIN. NO OVEREXPOSED TILE WERE OBSERVED. TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL ROOFING INSTALLATION. PUNCH LIST ITEMS LISTED BELOW. **NOTE- PRIMARY FLASHINGS NEED MORE MASTIC AT THE FLASHING COLLAR TO PIPE INTERSECTIONS. I MARKED THESE AREAS WITH ORANGE MARKING PAINT WHEN THERE WAS A VOID OR CRACK IN THE MASTIC. **WORK OBSERVED APEARS TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS PER PLANS AND THE TRI ROOFING MANUAL OTHER THAN ITEM LISTED ABOVE. CSC I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were Conducted in _ accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected ICC #5077516-10 complies with the OSHPD approved documents. Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials: N/A IN9PECTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 1/29/2009 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were Conducted in DATE accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected SUPERINTENDENTS SIGNATURE com lies with the DSA approved documents. N/A `signafure authorizes the above work . Yes.: N.:= Inspector Initials: SCS&T205REVzws SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL 6 TESTING, INC. 1a7V7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. MW: 00469 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 * Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 ' Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 PL NC FII— T SCS&T FILE NO: 0822004P P.O. NO.: PAGE I na FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING O. C. CONCRETE ® ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE / STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING n PROJECT TITLE: PHASE #: DSA IOSHPD FILE NO.: DSA APP. NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMIT NO.: 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: ENGINEER INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR: SUB CONTRACTOR: BROWN CALIFORNIA PLASTERING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: GMC 60 MIN BUILDING PAPER X 2 LAYERS, RAINBUSTER 900 POLYURETHANE SEALANT, MFM SU13SEAL 16 GAUGE GALVANIZED STAPLES, 1.5" LEG, 15/16" CROWN, 6"X 18" GALVANIZED LATH BUTTERFLY'S, MFM SUBSL DATE: 1/22/2009 1 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE LATH INSTALLATION FINISHED ASSEMBLY PRIOR TO SCRATCH KOTE. *LATH OBSERVED WAS STAPLED STUD TO STUD WITH 16 GAUGE GALVANIZED STAPLES, 1.5" LEG 15/16" CROWN AT 6" O.C. VERTICALLY. BUILDING PAPER IS 60 MINUTE GMC X TWO LAYERS WITH 3"-4" HEADLAPS AND 6" SIDELAPS. POT SHELVES HAVE MFM SUBSEAL RAN UP THE SIDEWALLS 6"-8", UP THE SILL AS WELL AS ONTO THE VERTICAL WALL BELOW THE POT SHELF 4"-6" SHINGLE LAPPED OVER THE BUILDING PAPER. 6"X 18" CEMCO BUTTERFLY'S ARE IN PLACE AT THE CORNERS OF THE WINDOWS FOR REINFORCMENT. MILCOR IS USED THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING TO PROPERLY TERMINATE THE STUCCO. RAINBUSTER 900 POLYURETHANE SEALANT WAS USED TO SEAL PENETRATIONS. DOUBLE V EXPANSION WAS USED AT CANTILEVERED AREAS AND SOFFITS AS A DRIP EDGE TO PREVENT WATER INTRUSION. X J EXPANSION METAL WAS USED TO HELP PREVENT STUCCO CRACKING. *MARKED TEARS, CUTS, AS WELL AS MINOR CORRECTIONS WITH ORANGE MARKING PAINT. THESE AREAS WERE REPAIRED PRIOR TO SCRATCH KOTE INSTALLATION. CBC I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in Compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODAR.D Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD I hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were Conducted in accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected �� ICC #5077516-10 complies with the OSHPD approved documents. . Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials: N/A INSPECTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATIONNO, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 1/22/2009 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected 'SUPERINTENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE com lies with the DSA approved documents. Yes: No: 0 Inspector Initials: N/A `signature audra*es the above work SCS6T 205 REV 7105 SOUTHERN CA FORNM SOIL & TESTING. INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 * Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 . Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCSSIT FILE NO:. C X F PL I NC I I I FIX I I - FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ O. C. CONCRETE © ROOFING 1 WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE/ STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS wHasE it. I DSA 1OSHPD FILE NO.: DUNE PALMS I BLDG 1200 N/A PERMIT NO.: 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD -- 06-4134 MW: 00_ 418 0822004P P.O. NO.: PAGE 1 OF 1 WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ H.S. BOLTING n DSA APP. NO.: N/A LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: GRAYNER INTERACTIVE DESIGN GENERAL CONTRACTOR: SUBCONTRACTOR: BROWN I l.GUY EVANS/ CALIFORNIA PLASTERING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: PELLA FIBERGLASS WINDOWS, 12" MFM SUBSEAL, PELLA BUTYL TAP GMC 60 MIN BUILDING PAPER X 2 LAYERS, MFM SUBSEAL, RAIN13USTER 900 POLYURETHANE SEALANT DATE: 12/24/2008 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE LATH INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS) FIRST FLOOR. * TWO LAYERS OF GMC 60 MIN BUILDING PAPER HAS 3"-4" HEADLAPS AND 6" SIDELAPS . POT SHELVES HAVE SOLID BACKING WITH MFM SUBSEAL EXTENDED UP THE SILL AND SIDE WALLS APROX. 6"-8" AND ONTO THE VERTICAL WALL BELOW THE POT SHELVES A MIN OF 4". 6"X18"RIB LATH BUTTERFLIES WERE PLACED AT THE WINDOW CORNERS FOR REINFORCMENT. MILCOR IS USED AS STUCCO STOP IN MULTIPLE AREAS TO PROPERLY TERMINATE THE STUCCO. TEARS, CUTS, NAIL POPS ETC. ARE CAULKED WITH RAINBUSTER 900 POLYURETHANE SEALANT. TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL LATH INSTALLATION. CBC 1 hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD I hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected Complies with the OSHPD approved documents. Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials. N/A �--^ DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the / requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected complies with the DSA approved documents. N/A Yes,=No: = Inspector Initials: MILES WOODARD SIGMA ICC #5077516-10 REGISTRATION NO, 12/24/2008 'SUPERINTENDEMS SIGNATURE DATE 'signature authorizes the above work or,K pn,K SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.; ooa2g 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 * Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 - Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS81T FILE NO: 0822004P P.O. NO.: F C I I PL N� FIPane 1 nc FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING O. C. CONCRETE ® ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P,T. CONCRETE / STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING n PROJECTTME: PHASEM DSAJOSHMRLENO.: DSA APP. NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECTAMREW PERNrrNO.: 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: €NGINE€R INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR: su13 CONTRACTOR: BROWN GUY EVANS/ CALIFORNIA PLASTERING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: PELLA FIBERGLASS WINDOWS, 12" MFM SUBSEAL, PELLA BUTYL TAPE GMC 60 MIN BUILDING PAPER X 2 LAYERS, MFM SUBSEAL, RAINBUSTER 900 POLYURETHANE SEALANT DATE: 12/31/2008 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: TDESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE LATH INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS) FIRST FLOOR. * TWO LAYERS OF GMC 60 MIN BUILDING PAPER HAS 3"4" HEADLAPS AND 6" SIDELAPS . POT SHELVES HAVE SOLID BACKING WITH MFM SUBSEAL EXTENDED UP THE SILL AND SIDE WALLS APROX. 6"-8" AND ONTO THE VERTICAL WALL BELOW THE POT SHELVES A MIN OF 4". 6"X18"RIB LATH BUTTERFLIES WERE PLACED AT THE WINDOW CORNERS FOR REINFORCMENT. MILCOR IS USED AS STUCCO STOP IN MULTIPLE AREAS TO PROPERLY TERMINATE THE STUCCO. TEARS, CUTS, NAIL POPS ETC. ARE CAULKED WITH RA.INBUSTER 900 POLYURETHANE SEALANT. TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL LATH INSTALLATION. CBC I hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected ICC #507751&10 complies with the OSHPD approved documents. Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials: N/A lNSftCTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 12/31/2UU8 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected 'SIPEPoNTI]VDE4If5 SIGNATURE DATE Complies with the DSA approved documents. Yes: No: 0 Inspector Initials: N/A *signature authorizes the above work SCS&T 205 REV 205 SOUTHERN C-FORNUI SOIL & TESTING, INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.: 00395 6280 RIVE ,DALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 s Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 ' Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS&T FILE NO: 0822004P P.O. FTDC P NC FIX PAGE I OF I FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING CI. C. CONCRETE ❑ ROOFING I WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE I STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING © EARTHBOUND PROJMMITLE: PHASE#: DM XWFV FILE NO.: DSA APP. NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMR NO.: .. 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: ENGINEER INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERALCONIRACTOR: SUBCONTRACTOR: BROWN TONE FRAMING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MATERIAL CUISSIFICATION: EARTHBOUND SEISMIC HOLDOWN SYSTEM ICBO#5378, I/2"-1" ALL THREAD, COUPLERS AND SLACKJACKS, BEARING PLATES DATE: 12/11/2008 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE EARTHBOUND SIESMIC HOLD DOWN SYSTEM FOR THE FINISHED ASSEMBLY TO ENSURE ACTIVATION OF THE SYSTEM. .*GENERAL EARTHBOUND INSTALLATION APEARS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EARTHBOUND DRAWINGS. 1/2"-7/8" ALL THREAD WERE COUPLED WITH BRIDGE TRIMMERS STICH NAILED AND BLOCKING WITH SLACK JACK DEVICE AND BEARING PLATES IN PLACE AS SHOWN ON THE EARTHBOUND PLANS. *PUNCH LIST ITEMS ON THE EARTHBOUND HOLDOWN SYSTEM FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS WERE CORRECTED AS REQUESTED. THE 3/4" IMP 216 AT LINE B 5.5 WAS INSTALLED IN THE PROPER LOCATION AS WAS THE 7/8" IMP 217 AT A- 15. AS PER RFI #357 AND #358. *EARTHBOUND SIESMIC HOLDOWN SYSTEM HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AT ALL SLACK JACK DEVICES. CBC I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (P) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W.OSHPD 1 hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected ICC #5077516-10 complies with the OSHPD approved documents. Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials: N/A INSP CTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby Certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 12/ 1 1/2008 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in 'SUPERINTENDENTS DATE accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected SIGNATURE corn Ies with the DSA approved documents. = Inspector Initials: N/A `signature authorizes the above work Yes: No: SCS&T M REV I/06 son- TES NG. NC. r!-] CALIFORNIA SOILCA 92120 * PhoneS& TEST6ING'7 NC. SOUTHERN 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIE GO 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 ' Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (76 SCSBT FILE NO:— NC FIX n PL n 1 ED MASONRY C' FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE LJ n= O, C. CONCRETE ❑ ROOFING I WATERPROOFING 11 ❑ P.T. CONCRETE 1 STRESS EPDXYANCHORS PHASE #: DSA/OSHPD FILE NO.: N/A IRaecrrmF: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200ocafelT No.: 06-4134 a NE PALMS ROAD ENGINEERACTIVE DESIGN suecoNTRACTOR: BROWN MW: 00363 0822004P P.O. NO.: PAGE 1 OF 1 WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING ❑ H.S. BOLnNG fill SHEAR NAIL DSA APP. NO.: N/A GRAYNER TONE FRAMING LA QUINTA LOCATION of WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING DING 1200 C MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: 15/321 STR 1 O.S.B. 8D AND IOD FASTENERS ON SHEAR WALLS, CS16 COIL STRAP, A35'S/LTP4'S, SDS SCREWS TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DATE: 11/26/2008 DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE SHEAR NAILING FOR THE SECOND FLOOR OF BUILDNIG 1200. *GENERAL SHEAR WALL INSTALLATION AS FOLLOWS, 15/32" STR 1 O.S.B NAILED PER 5/S1.5C SCHEDULE. 1 OD AND 8D FASTENERS WERE FLUSH NAILED WITH MIMMAL OVER PENETRATION WITH 1/2" EDGE NAILING DISTANCE AT PANEL EDGES AND ENDS. CS16 COIL STRAP WAS IN PLACE TOP AND BOTTOM OF OPENINGS AS PER DETAIL 2/S1.5C. A35 CLIPS WERE IN PLACE AT KING STUDS TOP BOTTOM AS AND PER 2/S1.5C AS WELL. PUNCH LIST ITEMS ARE LISTED BELOW. **PUNCH LIST** *GRID LINES J 6-8- ADD SDS SCREWS AT BLOCKS PER 12/S6.3C *GRID LINES G 6-8- ADD SDS SCREWS AT LEDGER PER 6/S6.4C CBC J hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. M.W. Inspector Initials: OSHPD I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the OSHPO approved documents. The work inspected rrrs"+ rnq- "me..f .J.,",c,A.» - Yes:No:u Inspector Initials: N/A DSA 1 hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the renn)m I, of BSA »nnrP,veA AardmenfS: S—Pline and Iw Iina were ranductwd in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected f cOmPlies with the DSA approved documents. LYes=NojInspector Initials: N/A INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) I P.E. REVIEW: MILES WOODARD SIGNATURE 'signature authorizes the above work ICC #5077516-10 REGISTRATION NO, 11/26/2008 DATE SOUTN- CALIFORNIA SOIL 6 TESTING, INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 * Phone (619) 2804321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 ' Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCSBT FILE NO: P.O. NO.: C OV PL NC FIX MW; 00356 0822004P PAGE I OF I FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING Cl.C.CONCRETE ❑ ROOFING I WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE/STRESS ❑ EPDXYANCHORS RED IRON GRT ❑ H.S. BOLTING n PROJECTTITLE: PHASE#: DSA/OSHPDFILE NO.: MAAPP. NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMR NO,; :LA 47795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 QUINTA ARCHITECT: ENGINEER INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR: SUBCONTRACTOR BROWN SDR LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: HUB 100 H NON SHRINK HIGH STRENGTH GROUT ASTM C-1107 HUB 100 ALL RESIN CLEAR CURE DATE: 11/24/2008 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE HIGH STRENGTH GROUTING AT THE BASE PLATES ON THE RED IRON FOR THE STAIRS GRID LINES 14-14.8, J.5-6 AS WELL AS GRID LINES 4-6, J-H. A TOTAL OF 15 BASE PLATES WERE GROUTED. *GROUT WAS MIXED WITH APROX. 3.5 TO 4 QUARTS OF WATER TO ACHIEVE LIQUID STATE, 3 MINUTES. GROUT WAS PLACED AT THE BASE PLATES OF THE RED IRON APROX. 2" OUTSIDE OF THE PLATES. AFTER THE PLACEMENT OF THE GROUT HUB 100 ALL RESIN CLEAR CURE WAS APPLIED. HIGH STRENGTH GROUTING PROCEDURE APEARS TO BE IN ACORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMENDATIONS. CBC I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W- OSHP I I hereby Certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPO approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected ICC #5077516-92 complies with the OSHPD approved documents. Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials: N/A INS 00R,, SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 11/24/2008 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordanoe with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected 'SUPEPoNTENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE corn lies with the DSA approved documents. I. No: = Inspector Initials: N/A 'signature authorizes the above work SCS&T 205 REV ?/OB SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL S TESTING, INC_ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.: 00355 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 * Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 * Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS&T FILE NO: 0822004P P.O. NO.: FC� PL NC FIX PAGE I OF FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING 0 C. CONCRETE © ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P,T. CONCRETE I STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING n PROJECTTTILE: PHASEM DSA /OSHPDFILE NO.: OSAAPP. NO.: DUNE PALMS I BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJE ADDRESS PERMR NO.: .. 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT. ENGINEER: INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR: SU BCONTRACTOR: BROWN GUY EVANS/ CALIFORNIA PLASTERING/ DRI ROOFING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MATERIAL LASSIFICATION: PELLA FIBERGLASS WINDOWS, 12" MOISTOP, PELLA BUTYL TAPE, 26 GUAGE DECK/ EDGE METAL,SIKAFLEX GMC 60 MIN BUILDING PAPER X 2 LAYERS, MFM SUBSEAL, RAINBUSTER 900 SEALANT. FONTANA VULCASEAL DATE: 11/24/2008 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE WINDOW INSTALLATION (IN PROGRESS). ALSO PROVIDED LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE BALCONY DECK METAL/ EDGE METAL AS WELL AS THE INSTALLATION OF THE ROOF UNDERLAYMENT. WINDOWS WERE INSTALLED USING THE NEW INSTALLATION PROCEDURE. TWO BUTTERFLY'S OF MFM SUBSEAL WERE INSTALLED AT THE UPPER CORNERS OF THE RECESSED WINDOWS NEXT THE INSTALLATION OF PELLA TAPE WAS PLACED INSIDE THE ROUGH OPENING AT THE SILL. MFM SUBSEAL WAS INSTALLED AT THE POT SHELF/ SILL UP THE VERTICAL RISE AND ON THE SIDE WALLS 6"-8". NEXT 12" MFM SUBSEAL WAS INSTALLED AT THE JAMBS IN WEATHERBOARD FASHION. PELLA BUTYL TAPE WAS PLACED OVER THE NAILING FIN TO ENCAPSULATE THE FASTENERS, FOLLOWED BY THE HEAD FLASHING OF 12" MFM SUBSEAL. TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL WINDOW INSTALLATION. *DECK TO WALL METAL OBSERVED WAS 26 GAUGE 6" VERTICAL FLANGE ONTO THE WALLS AND 4" HORIZONTAL ONTO THE DECK. EDGE METAL WAS 26 GAUGE 4" ONTO THE DECK WITH A 2" DRIP EDGE WITH A HEM. DECK METAL WAS FASTENED WITH SHEET METAL NAILS, AND BACK CAULKED AT THE SEAMS WITH SIKAFLEX POLYURETHANE SEALANT. TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL METAL INSTALLATION. *GENERAL FELT INSTALLAITION LOOKS GOOD WITH Y-4" HEADLAPS AND 6" SIDELAPS WITH TWO LAYERS OF FONTANA VULCASEAL. PRIMARY FLASHINGS ARE BIBBED WITH FELT AND ARE SEALED AT THE FLASHING TO PIPE INTERSECTION. HIP AND RIDGE NAILERS HAVE FELT UNDER AND OVER ONTO THE ROOF DECK 311.TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOS OF TYPICAL ROOF UNDERLAYMENT INSTALLATION. CBC 1 hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in� accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected ICC #5077510-10 complies with the OSHPD approved documents. NSA Yes:= No:= Inspector Initials: INSPECTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the - 11/24/2008 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in DATE accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected SUPERINTENDENTS SIGNATURE com lies with the DSA approved documents. Yes: No: = Inspector Initials: N/A Srgrrature alAf10I2eS the above xmrfr SCS&T205 REV 206 SOUTHERN CI FORNM SOIL S TESTING. INC_ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. MW. 00303 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 * Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 - Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS&T FILE NO: 0822004P P.O. NO.: �� PL NC FIX PAGE I OF FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING 0. C. CONCRETE ❑ ROOFING I WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE / STRESS ® EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING n PROJECT TITLE* PFU1SEi: BSA 10SHPD FILE NO.: DSA APP. NO.: DUNE PALMS 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMIT NO.: PLAIN FILE NO.: 47795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134::1 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR: SUBCONTRACTOR: BROWN SDR LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MATERIAL IF17-n N: 3/4" AND 7/8" ALL THREAD, HILTI HIT-HY 150 EPDXY BATCH #095514L2 05/2009 ICBO ER#5193 EARTHBOUND SEISMIC HOLDOWN SYSTEM ICBO #5378 DATE: 10/30/2008 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE EPDXY RETROFIT FOR MISPLACED 3/4" AND 7/8" EARTHBOUND HOLD DOWNS AT GRID LINES B, 5.5 AND A, 15. *EACH HOLE OBSERVED WAS DRILLED 1/8" LARGER THAN ALL THREAD DIAMETER AND WAS PROPERLY CLEANED WITH AN AIR HOSE AND A WIRE BRUSH. 3/4" AND 7/8" ALL THREAD WERE EMBEDDED 201, AS PER RFI #357 AND #358. HILTI HIT-HY 150 EPDXY BATCH #095514L2 05/2009 ICBO ER#5193 WAS USED TO SET BOLTS. CBC I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordancewith the/�G✓J requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conductedin accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work Inspected ICC #5077516-92 complies with the OSHPD approved documents. Yes. No:= Inspector Initials: N/A INSP TOR�RE REGISTRATION N0, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 10/30/2008 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected 'SUPERINTENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE corn lies with the DSA approved documents. N/A 'signature authorizes the above work Yes: No: Inspector Initials: SCS&T 205 REV 2/06 I SOIL & TESTING, iNc. Z c- m SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING; INC. 9 2 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 • Phone (619) 2804321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 • Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 C PL I I NC I I I FIX SCS&T FILE NO. = r P.O. NO. • PAGE OF FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING Q. C. CONCRETE ❑ ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE / STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING PROJECT TITLE: PHASE #: DSA FILE NO.: DSA APR. NO.: PROJECT ADDRESS a t PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE NO.: - '' - ARCHITECT: - _ -_ - - _ I` ENGINEER: — — - - 1 �- GENERAL CONTRACTOR: SUB CONTRACTOR: r f r 1_t C', ...�`-• %ter i ;, : LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: - h 1 DATE DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: } tj ,'J 7 ! i ;, yt ,,'• 1lT. L C.1rJ '11 ( ___ - ..�^ a i. 1': �: t�`, pL ✓1 - .... �� ._ cf ,� C--•l, - T.1'_VIl t `i . r i_ h - C.-. ^ .�i ,'J J i' �•: J i '.l�_ i+.'4 - - 1 f r ,r lBulC P.E. REVIEW: I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise e work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, •cifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. Ipector Initials -- INSPECTORS SIGNTATURE REGISTRATION NO. SA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the - requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in -: t. accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected *SUPERINTENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE complies with the DSA approved documents. above authorizes the abwork Yes: No: Inspector Initials: Scs&T 205 REV 2rob SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL, & TESTING, INC. MW: 00265 6290 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 * Phone (619) 28"321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 - Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCSBT FILE NO: 0822004P i OKLI16 E I " FX 1 PL NC I I fIX PAGE I OF I FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING O. C. CONCRETE ® ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE / STRESS 0 EPDXYANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING ®DIAPHRAM NL PROJECT TITLE: PHASE tk DSAIOSHPD FILE NO.: DSAAPP. NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMR NO.: .. 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA ARCHITECT: ENGINEER INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERALCONTRACTM: SUBCONTRACTOR: BROWN TONE FRAMING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MUERK CLASSIFICATIOW. 19/32" STR 1 APA RATED O.S-B.1 OD COMMON NAILS HATE: 9/29/2008 TIME ARRIVED° TIME DEPAIVI ED: DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE ROOF DIAPHRAGM NAILING FINISHED ASSEMBLY FOR BUILDING 1200. *THE ROOF SHEATHING OBSERVED WAS 19/32" STRUCT. I A.P.A. RATED O.S.B., UNBLOCKED. DIAPHRAM NAILING WAS PER PLAN IOD @ 6" O.C. ON BOUNDARY AND EDGES AND 12" O.C. AT INTERMEDIATE FRAMING MEMBERS. DRAGS WERE NAILED @ 6" O.C. AS WELL. FASTENERS WERE FLUSH NAILED WITH MINIMAL OVER PENETRATION. NO DEFLECTION WAS GREATER THAN 1/2" WHILE STANDING ON THE UNBLOCKED SEAMS. NO GAPS WERE OBSERVED WHICH WERE GREATER THAN 1/4". NO PIPES OR PENETRATIONS WERE OBSERVED IN THE VALLEYS. *FRAMER WALKED THE ROOF SHEATHING WITH ME DURRING INSPECTION AND TOOK CARE OF MINOR CORRECTIONS ON THE SPOT. *WORK OBSERVED APEARS TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS PER PROJECT PLANS AND TRI ROOFING MANUAL. COC t hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD .I hereby certify that] have inspected the above reported work in acoordance !dh the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in+- <'/� iCC #50775 i 6- i O accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected Conts with the �OS—HPID approved documents. YeN.= Inspector Initials: N/A IN CTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 9/29/2008 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted In SLPEItI MI)ENTS DATE accmdance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected .SIMTURE corn lies with the DSA approved documents. Yes: No: Q Inspector Initials: N/A above work SCS&T 205 REv 20 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. MW: 00286 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 " Phone (619) 280-4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 ' Phone (760) 775-5983 Fax (760) 775-8362 SCS&T FILE NO: 0822004P P.O. NO.: I � I � 1 PL I NC 1 1 FFIX PAGE 1 OF FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING CL C. CONCRETE ❑ ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE / STRESS ❑ EPDXY ANCHORS EARTHBOUND ❑ H.S. BOLTING n PROJECT TITLE: PHASE#: DMIOSHPO FILE NO.: DUNE PALMS BLDG 1200 N/A N/A PROJECT ADDRESS PERMR NO.: PLAQUINTA 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 ARCHITECT: ENGINEER INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUBCONTRACTOR: BROWN TONE FRAMING LOCATION OF WORK INSPECTED: BUILDING 1200 C MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION: EARTHBOUND SEISMIC HOLDOWN SYSTEM ICBO#5378, 1/2"- l" ALL THREAD, COUPLERS AND SLACKJACKS, BEARING PLATES DATE: 10/07/2008 TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: FDESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE EARTHBOUND SIESMIC HOLD DOWN SYSTEM FOR THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR FINISHED ASSEMBLY. *GENERAL EARTHBOUND INSTALLATION APEARS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EARTHBOUND DRAWINGS. 1/2"- 1" ALL THREAD WERE COUPLED WITH BRIDGE TRIMMERS STITCH NAILED AND BLOCKING WITH SLACK JACK DEVICE AND BEARING PLATES IN PLACE AS SHOWN ON THE EARTHBOUND PLANS. PUNCH LIST ITEMS LISTED BELOW. **PUNCH LIST** *GRID LINE B -5.5 NEED TO EPDXY 3/4" EARTHBOUND PER RFI #357 AND #358. *GRID LINE A -15 NEED TO EPDXY 7/8" EARTHBOUND PER RFI #357 AND #358. CBC I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, INSPECTORS NAME: (Printed) P.E. REVIEW: the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. MILES WOODARD Inspector Initials: M.W. OSHPD I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the . / requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work Inspected h the OSHPD approved documents. dance : No:= Inspector Initials: N/A ti� �� ICC #50775 ] 6-] Q SIGNATUR� REGISTRATION NO, DSA I hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the 10/07/2008 requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected 'SUPERINTENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE com lies with the DSA approved documents. Yes: No: = Inspector Initials: N/A 'signature authorizes the above work SCSdT 205 REV 2106 V CALIFORNIA -STING, INC� SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL a TESTING, INCMW: 00281 �y 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, SAN DIEGO CA 92120 `Phone (619) 280 4321 Fax (619) 280-4717 775-5983 Fax (76 83-740 CITRUS AVENUE, SUITE G, INDIO, CA 92201 - Phone (760) 0) 775 83L 0822004P SCS&T FILE NO: P.O. NO.: C FIX PAGE 1 OF 1 REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ WELDING ❑ FIREPROOFING (PROJECT D INSPECTION REPORT FOR: ❑ SHEAR NAIL C. CONCRETE ❑ ROOFING / WATERPROOFING ❑ P.T. CONCRETE I STRESS ❑EPDXY ANCHORS ❑ H.S. BOLTING Uzi DSA APP. NO.: PHASE#: DSAIOSHPDFILENO.: NIA TITLE: BLDG 1200 N/A DUNE PALMS ECT ADDRESS 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD 06-4134 LA QUINTA INTERACTIVE DESIGN GRAYNER SUB CONTRACTOR: BROWN TONE FRAMING OF WORK IMPEL; I tu: BUILDING 1200 C 15/32" STR 1 O.S.B. 8D AND IOD FASTENERS ON SHEAR WALLS, CS16 COIL STRAP, A35'S/LTP4'S, SDS SCREWS TIME ARRIVED: TIME DEPARTED: E' 10/06/2008 DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED: *ON SITE FOR THE LIMITED VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE SHEAR NAILING FOR THE FIRST FLOOR OF BUILDNIG 1200 (IN PROGRESS). _ENERAL SHEAR WALL INSTALLATION AS FOLLOWS, 15/32" STR 1 O.S.B NAILED PER S1.5C-5 SCHEDULE. 1 OD AND 8D FASTENERS WERE FLUSH NAILED WITH MINIMAL OVER PENETRATION WITH 1/2" EDGE NAILING DISTANCE AT PANEL EDGES AND ENDS. CS16 COIL STRAP WAS IN PLACE TOP AND BOTTOM OF OPENINGS AS PER DETAIL S 1.5C-2. A35 CLIPS WERE IN PLACE AT KING STUDS TOP AND BOTTOM AS PER S1.5C-2 AS WELL. PUNCH LIST ITEMS ARE LISTED BELOW. **PUNCH LIST** *GRID LINE O 4-5 NAIL #6 SHEAR WALL PER S1.5C-5 SCHEDULE. *GRID LINE 7 N-O NAIL #6 SHEAR WALL. *SHEAR WALLS AT STAIRS NOT COMPLETE. CBC 1 hereby certify that 1 have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. M.W. Inspector Initials: OSHPD I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of OSHPD approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the OSHPD approved documents. The work inspected -om ,es with the OSHPD approved documents. N/A Is:= No:= Inspector Initials: —1 oSA 1 hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work in accordance with the requirements of DSA approved documents. Sampling and testing were conducted In accordance with the requirements of the DSA approved documents. The work inspected corn�p lie—s —w1ith the DSA approved documents. N/A Yes: No: F71 Inspector Initials: P.E. MILES WOODARD ICC #5077516-10 REGISTRATION NO, 10/06/2008 'SUPERINTENDENTS SIGNATURE DATE -signature authorizes the above work Earth Systems Southwest -- 79-81113 Country Club Drive I F— FE+ I(: �^ I i Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (760) 345-1588 (800)924-7015 �y 7 FAX (760) 345-7315 August 9, 2007 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 45-701 Monroe Street, Plaza 1, Suite G Indio California 92201 Attention: Mr. Brian Peulicke E IY OF LA QUINTA BUIILDING & SAFETY DEFT. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION File No.: 09571-04 07-08-739 Subject: Addendum 2 — Supplemental Grading Recommendations and Update of the Geotechnical Engineering Report Project: Proposed Multi -Family Residential Development Northwest Corner of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 La Quinta, California References: 1. Earth Systems Southwest, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Multi - Family Residential Development, Northwest Corner of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48, La Quinta, California, File No.: 09571-04, Document No.: 06-07- 734, dated July 13, 2006. 2. Earth Systems Southwest, Addendum to Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Multi -Family Residential Development, Northwest Corner of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48, La Quinta, California, File No.: 09571-04, Document No.: 06-08-778, dated August 14, 2006. Dear Mr. Peulicke: As requested, we have reviewed the project plans with regards to the currently proposed construction associated with underground parking facility at the subject site. We understand that the structure will include two levels above -grade, of wood -frame construction, with one subterranean level that will be of reinforced concrete construction and will be used for parking. We understand the anticipated loads will be less than 350 kips. Recommendations are provided in Reference 2 to over -excavate to a depth of 5 feet below the footing level to a distance of 10 feet beyond the outer edge of the exterior footings. Based on our discussions with the owner (Coachella Valley Housing Coalition), structural engineer (Grayner Engineering), and general contractor (Brown Construction, Inc.), the following revised grading recommendations are offered for your use. The lateral limits of the recommended over excavation may be reduced to 5 feet; however, the owner, contractor, and surveyor should take care as to the accuracy of the field staking. ESSW does not verify line and grade and will rely on the accuracy of work performed by others. The site soils are predominately poorly graded sands and silty sands with localized areas that contain higher silt contents. It is feasible to perform a partial over excavation, pre -water the resulting surface, and compact using loaded scrapers. Therefore, the basement should be excavated to a depth of two to three feet below the bottom of the proposed footings. The resulting surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the optimum moisture content to a depth of an additional 3 feet. The bottom of the excavation should then be compacted using loaded scrapers. A series of test pits should be excavated to verify the depth of moisture �t4 August 9, 2007 2 File No.: 09571-04 07-08-739 penetration, and compaction tests should be taken to verify the effects of the applied compactive effort. If localized pumping occurs as a result of the presence of silt, localized deepening of the over excavation will be required to remove the unstable 'soils. We suggest that at least 3 test strips be prepared as outlined above to verify the effectiveness of this method of treatment. If the subsurface soils exhibit erratic response, then a physical removal is suggested. In addition, we have reviewed the referenced geotechnical engineering report as to the applicability to the currently proposed development. Except as modified in this report, it is our opinion that the referenced documents are applicable to the proposed development. We make no representation as to the accuracy of the dimensions, measurements, calculations, or any portion of the design. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner, or the owner's representative, has the responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project so that they are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. The owner, or the owner's representative, also has the responsibility to take the necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors follow such recommendations. It is further understood that the owner or the owner's representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. As the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project, Earth Systems 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. 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. If there are any questions regarding this letter or if additional information is desired, please call the undersigned at (760) 345-1588. Respectfully submit EARTH SYST� / Cf. 38234 Craig S. Hill Exp.03l31/09' CE 38234 �gfFOF CAL�`p LTR/csh/aj f Distribution: 2/Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 2/Interactive Design Group 2/MSA, Inc. Attention: Ms. Melody Maccarone 1 /RC File 2BD File EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 0Earth Systems 10MR, Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 August 14, 2006 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 45-701 Monroe Street, Plaza 1, Suite G Indio, California 92201 Attention: Mr. Steve Crowell Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Engineering Report Project: Proposed Multi -Family Residential Development Northwest Corner of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 La Quinta, California File No.: 09571-04 06-08-778 Reference: Earth Systems Southwest, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Multi - Family Residential Development, Northwest Corner of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48, La Quinta, California, File No.: 09571-04, Document No.: 06-07-734, dated July 13, 2006. Dear Mr. Crowell: As requested by Mr. George Grayner, we present this addendum to the referenced geotechnical engineering report prepared for the proposed multi -family residential development to be located on the northwest corner of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 in the City of La Quinta, California. We understand that a three-story concrete parking structure with basement is planned. The maximum column load is 350 kips and the maximum wall loading is 5 kips per linear foot for this parking structure. The referenced geotechnical engineering report is applicable for other buildings and the following grading and foundation recommendations are applicable for this parking structure. Grading Recommendations Soils within the zone of influence include silty sands and sands. Due to this relatively non- uniform and variable subsurface condition, we recommend over -excavation and recompaction of soils in the building area to provide a uniform bearing layer below the footings. The existing surface soils within the building pad and foundation areas should be over -excavated to a minimum of 5 feet below the footing level. The over -excavation should extend for at least 10 feet beyond the outer edge of exterior footings. The bottom of the sub -excavation should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum, and recompacted to at least 95% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) for an additional depth of 1 foot. Engineered Fill Soils: The native sandy 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 August 14, 2006 2 File No.: 09571-04 06-08-778 should be placed in maximum 8-inch lifts (loose) and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near its optimum moisture content. Compaction should be verified by testing. Imported fill soils (if needed) 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 no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near optimum moisture content. Foundation Design Recommendations 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 representative of ESSW should observe foundation excavations before placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Loose soil or construction debris should be removed from footing excavations before placement of concrete. A summary of our design recommendations for spread foundations for columns are as follows: Design Allowable Minimum Anticipated Estimated Column Bearing Footing Size Total Static Differentia Load Pressure Settlement 1 Settlement 350 kips 4000 psf 9.5 ft x 9.5 ft 1 inch 0.5 inch Excavations and Utility Trenches Excavations should be made in accordance with CalOSHA requirements. Our site exploration and knowledge of the general area indicates there is a potential for caving of site excavations (utilities, footings, etc.). Excavations within sandy soil should be kept moist, but not saturated, to reduce the potential of caving or sloughing. Where excavations over 4 feet deep are planned, lateral bracing or appropriate cut slopes of 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) should be provided. No surcharge loads from stockpiled soils or construction materials should be allowed within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope and equal to the depth of the excavation. Utility Trenches: Backfill of utilities within roads 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. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST August 14, 2006 3 File No.: 09571-04 06-08-778 We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact our office if there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations. Respectfully submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Hongbin uo, Ph.D. Project Engineer SER/hh/lk/ajf Distribution: 3/Coachella Valley Housing 1/RC File 2/BD File Reviewed by, 44 utz e, PE 5801, GE 493 Senior Vice -President Q�OfESSIOZ K No. GE 493 z * Ext s�raTfCHN�G��a�P \� OF CAL\F�/ EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION 45-701 MONROE STREET, PLAZA 1, SUITE G INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST CORNER OF DUNE PALMS ROAD AND AVENUE 48 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA July 13, 2006 0 2006 Earth Systems Southwest Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Earth Systems Southwest. File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 0Earth Systems ;,� Southwest July 13, 2006 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 45-701 Monroe Street, Plaza 1, Suite G Indio, California 92201 Attention: Mr. Steve Crowell Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Project: Proposed Multi -Family Residential Development Northwest Corner of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 La Quinta, California Dear Mr. Crowell: 79-811 B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (760)345-1588 (800) 924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 We take pleasure in presenting this geotechnical engineering report prepared for the proposed multi -family residential development to be located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 in the City of La Quinta, California. This report presents our findings and recommendations for site grading and foundation design, incorporating the information provided to our office. The site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are followed in design and construction. In general, the upper soils should be compacted to improve bearing capacity and reduce the potential for differential settlement. The site is subject to strong ground motion from regional faults, including the San Andreas fault. 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 February 22, 2006. Other services that may be required, such as plan review and grading observation, are additional services and will be billed according to our Fee Schedule in effect at the time services are provided. Unless requested in writing, the client is responsible for distributing this report to the appropriate governing agency or other members of the design team. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact our office if there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations. Respectfully submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Hongbin Huo, Ph.D. Project Engineer SER/hh/csh/reh Distribution: 6/Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 1/RC File 2/BD File Reviewed by, Craig S. Hill CE 38234 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... .. Section 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... I 1.1 Project Description............................................................................................1 1.2 Site Description.................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work..............................................................................2 Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION...............................................................3 2.1 Field Exploration............................................................................................... 3 2.2 Laboratory Testing.............................................................................................3 Section3 DISCUSSION...................................................................................................4 3.1 Soil Conditions..................................................................................................4 3.2 Groundwater...................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Geologic Setting................................................................................................4 3.4 Geologic Hazards...............................................................................................5 3.4.1 Seismic Hazards....................................................................................5 3.4.2 Secondary Hazards................................................................................6 3.4.3 Site Acceleration and Seismic Coefficients...........................................7 Section 4 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................9 Section 5 RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................10 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING.................................................................10 5.1 Site Development — Grading...........................................................................10 5.2 Excavations and Utility Trenches....................................................................11 5.3 Slope Stability of Graded Slopes..................................................................... I I STRUCTURES............................................................................................................12 5.4 Foundations.....................................................................................................12 5.5 Slabs-on-Grade................................................................................................13 5.6 Retaining Walls...............................................................................................14 5.7 Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete.....................................................15 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria...................................................................................15 5.9 Pavements........................................................................................................16 Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES....................................18 6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations......................................................18 6.2 Additional Services..........................................................................................19 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................20 APPENDIX A Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Boring Location Map Table 1 — Fault Parameters Terms and Symbols used on Boring Logs Soil Classification System Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Earth Systems Southwest has prepared this executive summary solely to provide a general overview of the report. The report itself should be relied upon for information about the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and other concerns. The site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 in the City of La Quinta, California. The proposed development will consist of about 31 multi -unit buildings and a community center with pool and spa. We understand that the proposed structures will be of wood -frame and stucco construction supported with perimeter wall foundations and concrete slabs -on -grade. The proposed project may be constructed as planned, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated in the final design and construction. Site development will include clearing and grubbing of vegetation, site grading, building pad preparation, underground utility installation, street and parking lot construction, and concrete driveway and sidewalks placement. Based on the non -uniform nature and hydrocollapse potential of the near surface soils, remedial site grading is recommended to provide uniform support for the foundations. We consider the most significant geologic hazard to the project to be the potential for moderate to severe seismic shaking that is likely to occur during the design life of the proposed structures. The project site is located in the highly seismic Southern California region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. The site is located in Seismic Zone 4 of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC). Structures should be designed in accordance with the values and parameters given within the CBC. The seismic design parameters are presented in the following table and within the report. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST iii SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Design Item Recommended Parameter Reference Section No. Foundations Allowable Bearing Pressure Continuous wall footings Pad (Column) footings 1,500 psf 2,000 psf 5.4 Foundation Type Spread Footing 5.4 Bearing Materials Engineered fill Allowable Passive Pressure 250 pcf 5.4 Active Pressure 35 pcf 5.6 At -rest Pressure 55 pcf 5.6 Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.35 5.4 Soil Expansion Potential Very low (EI < 20) 3.1 and Seismic Hazards -Geologic Liquefaction Potential Negligible 3.4.2 Significant Fault and Magnitude San Andreas, M7.7 3.4.3; 5.8 Fault Type A 3.4.3; 5.8 Seismic Zone 4 3.4.3; 5.8 Soil Profile Type Sp 3.4.3; 5.8 Near -Source Distance 8.9 km 3.4.3; 5.8 Near Source Factor, Na 1.05 3.4.3; 5.8 Near Source Factor, N„ 1.29 3.4.3; 5.8 Pavement TI equal to 4.5 3.0" AC / 4.0" AB 5.9 TI equal to 5.0 3.0" AC / 4.0" AB 5.9 Slabs Building Floor Slabs On engineered fill 5.5 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 200 pci 5.5 Existing Site Conditions Existin Fill N/A Soil Corrosivity low sulfates low chlorides severe resistivity (protect buried metal pipes) 5.7 Groundwater Depth > 100 feet 3.2 Estimated Fill and Cut 15 feet 1.1 The recommendations contained within this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 6 of this report. We recommend that all individuals using this report read the limitations. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST CORNER OF DUNE PALMS ROAD AND AVENUE 48 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 This geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for the proposed multi -family residential development to be located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 in the City of La Quinta, California. We understand that the proposed development will include about 31 multi -unit buildings and a community center with pool and spa. The proposed residential development will be single- or multi -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 clearing and grubbing of vegetation, site grading, building pad preparation, underground utility installation, street and parking lot construction, and concrete driveway and sidewalks placement. The development also consists of underground parking facilities. Based on existing site topography and ground conditions, site grading is expected to consist of cuts and fills of about 15 feet. We used maximum column loads of 20 kips and a maximum wall loading of 2 kips per linear foot as a basis for the foundation recommendations. All loading is assumed to be dead plus actual live load. If actual structural loading exceeds these assumed values, we would need to reevaluate the given recommendations. 1.2 Site Description The proposed multi -family residential development is to be constructed on the northwest corner of the intersection of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 in the City of La Quinta, California. The site location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The site consists of abandoned agricultural land described as a portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 29, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino baseline and meridian. The history of past use and development of the property was not investigated as part of our scope of services. The northern portion of the site was previously occupied by structures assumed to be residential. Remnants of previous concrete foundations, wood, and other construction debris are present on the site. The southeast corner of the site appears to have been graded in the past. Grass clippings and clayey soils were observed in the southwest corner of the site and extend in a northwest direction off -site. There may be underground utilities near and within the building area. These utility lines include, but are not limited to, domestic water, electric, sewer, telephone, cable, and irrigation lines. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 2 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 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 eight exploratory borings to depths ranging from approximately 19 to 51.5 feet below existing grade. ➢ Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings. ➢ A review of selected published technical literature pertaining to the site. ➢ An 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 seismic hazards. ➢ Graphic and tabulated results of laboratory tests 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 design parameters. • Preliminary pavement 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 cathodic protection of concrete or buried pipes. ➢ An environmental assessment. ➢ An 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. The client did not direct ESSW to provide any service to investigate or detect the presence of moisture, mold, or other biological contaminates in or around any structure, or any service that was designed or intended to prevent or lower the risk or the occurrence of the amplification of the same. Client acknowledges that mold is ubiquitous to the environment, with mold amplification occurring when building materials are impacted by moisture. Client further acknowledges that site conditions are outside ofESSW's control and that mold amplification will likely occur or continue to occur in the presence of moisture. As such, ESS W cannot and shall not be held responsible for the occurrence or recurrence of mold amplification. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Field Exploration 3 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 Eight exploratory borings were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 19 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 May 12 and 16, 2006 using 8-inch outside diameter hollow - stem augers, powered by a CME 55 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 exploration. The final logs are included in Appendix A of this report. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, although the transitions may be gradational. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Samples were reviewed along with field logs to select those that would be analyzed further. Those selected for laboratory testing include soils that would be exposed and used during grading and those deemed to be within the influence of the proposed structure. Test results are presented in graphic and tabular form in Appendix B of this report. The tests were conducted in general accordance with the procedures of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other standardized methods as referenced below. Our testing program consisted of the following: ➢ In -situ Moisture Content and Unit Dry Weight for the ring samples. ➢ Maximum density tests to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of typical soils encountered. ➢ Particle Size Analysis to classify and evaluate soil composition. The gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by hydrometer and sieve analysis procedures. ➢ Consolidation (Collapse Potential) to evaluate the compressibility and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential of the soil. ➢ Chemical Analyses (Soluble Sulfates and Chlorides, pH, and Electrical Resistivity) to evaluate the potential adverse effects of the soil on concrete and steel. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 4 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 Section 3 DISCUSSION 3.1 Soil Conditions The field exploration indicates that site soils consist generally of silty sand, poorly graded sand with silt, and silt (Unified Soils Classification System symbols SM, SP-SM, and ML). 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 (EI < 20) category in accordance with Table 18A-I-B of the California Building Code. In arid 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 testing indicates 2.2% collapse upon inundation and collapse is therefore considered a moderate site risk. The hydroconsolidation potential is commonly mitigated by recompaction of a zone beneath building pads. The site lies within a recognized blow sand hazard area. Fine particulate matter (PMio) can create an air quality hazard if dust is blowing. Watering the surface, planting grass or landscaping, or placing hardscape normally mitigates this hazard. 3.2 Groundwater Free groundwater was not encountered in the borings during exploration. The depth to groundwater at the site was evaluated by contacting the Coachella Valley Water District [CVWD]. Mr. Brad Gummer of the CVWD indicated the average depth to groundwater for Township 5 South, Range 7 East, Section 29, was 148.84 feet in 2004. The groundwater levels may fluctuate with precipitation, irrigation, drainage, regional pumping from wells, and site grading. Groundwater should, not be a factor in design or construction at this site. 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 approximately 180 miles from the San Gorgonio Pass 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 part of the Salton Trough. The Coachella Valley contains a thick sequence of Miocene to Holocene sedimentary deposits. Mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the northeast, foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and Mesozoic granitic rocks. The San Andreas fault zone within the Coachella Valley consists of the Garnet EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 5 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 Hill fault, the Banning fault, and the Mission Creek fault that traverse along the northeast margin of the valley. Local Geology: The project site is located approximately 60 feet above mean sea level in the central part of the Coachella Valley. The sediments within the valley consist of fine- to coarse -grained sands with interbedded clays, silts, gravels, and cobbles of aeolian (wind-blown), lacustrine (lake -bed), and alluvial (water -laid) origin. Dune sand is present on the property. The depth to crystalline basement rock beneath the site is estimated to be in excess of 2000 feet (Envicom, 1976). 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 ground shaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults. The Maximum Magnitude Earthquake (MmpX) listed is from published geologic information available for each fault (Cao et al., CGS, 2003). The Mmax 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, 1997). Well -delineated fault lines cross through this region as shown on California Geological Survey (CGS) maps (Jennings, 1994); however, no active faults are mapped in the immediate vicinity of the site. 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 in 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 La Quinta 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 Coachella Valley area and caused structural damage, as well as injuries. • Joshua Tree Earthquake — On April 22, 1992, a magnitude 6.1 ML (6.1 Mw) earthquake occurred in the mountains 9 miles east of Desert Hot Springs. Structural damage and minor injuries occurred in the Coachella Valley area as a result of this earthquake. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 6 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 • Landers and 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 La Quinta area. • Hector Mine Earthquake — On October 16, 1999, a magnitude 7.1 Mw earthquake occurred on the Lavic Lake and Bullion Mountain faults north of Twentynine Palms. While this event was widely felt, no significant structural damage has been reported in the Coachella Valley. Seismic Risk: While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, various agencies have conducted statistical risk analyses. In 2002, the California Geological Survey (CGS) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed the latest generation of probabilistic seismic hazard maps. 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 and 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 7.7 for the Southern Segment of the fault (USGS, 2002). This segment has the longest elapsed time since rupture of any part 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 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 subsidence, tsunamis, and seiches. The site is far inland, so the hazard from tsunamis is non-existent. At the present time, no water storage reservoirs are located in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, hazards from seiches are considered negligible at this time. Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sudden shock (usually earthquake shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. In general, for the effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the surface, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface and the soils within the saturated zone must also be susceptible to liquefaction. The site lies within a moderate liquefaction hazard area established by the 2002 Riverside County General Plan, based on historic high groundwater from 50 to 100 feet and very susceptible (Holocene) sediments. Quantitative liquefaction analyses are typically not required for general construction where groundwater depth exceeds 50 feet. The potential for liquefaction to occur at this site is negligible because the existing depth of groundwater beneath the site exceeds 50 feet and is not expected to return to levels above 50 feet. Therefore, no special mitigation for soil liquefaction is warranted for this project. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 7 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 Ground Subsidence: The potential for seismically induced ground subsidence is considered to be low 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, ground motion, and earthquake duration. Uncompacted fill areas may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement. Slope 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 is in an area where sheet flooding and erosion could occur. 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 by the horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA), measured in "g" forces. Included in Table I 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 are also dependent upon attenuation by rock and soil deposits, direction of rupture, and type of fault. For these reasons, ground motions may vary considerably in the same general area. This variability can be expressed statistically by a standard deviation about a mean relationship. The following table provides the probabilistic estimate of the PGA taken from the 2002 CGS/USGS seismic hazard maps. Estimate of PGA from 2002 CGS/USGS Prohahilistic Seismic Hazard Mans Risk Equivalent Return Period (years) PGA () t 10% exceedance in 50 years 1 475 0.56 Notes: 1. Based on a soft rock site, SB/C, and soil amplification factor of 1.0 for Soil Profile Type Sp. 2001 CBC Seismic Coefficients: The .California Building Code (CBC) seismic design criteria 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 estimate given above is provided for information on the seismic risk inherent in the CBC design. The seismic and site coefficients given in Chapter 16 of the 2001 California Building Code are provided in Section 5.8 of this report and below. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 8 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 2001 CBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter 16 Seismic Provisions Reference Seismic Zone: 4 Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone Factor, Z: 0.4 Table 16-I Soil Profile Type: Sp Table 16-J Seismic Source Type: A Table 16-U Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source: 8.9 km = 5.5 miles (San Andreas fault) Near Source Factor, Na: 1.05 Table 16-5 Near Source Factor, Nv: 1.29 Table 16-T Seismic Coefficient, Ca: 0.46 = 0.44Na Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv: 0.83 = 0.64Nv Table 16-R Seismic Hazard Zones: The site lies within a moderate liquefaction hazard area established by the 2002 Riverside County General Plan, based on historic high groundwater from 50 to 100 feet and very susceptible (Holocene) sediments. Quantitative liquefaction analyses are typically not required for general construction where groundwater depth exceeds 50 feet. The potential for liquefaction to occur at this site is negligible because the existing depth of groundwater beneath the site exceeds 50 feet and is not expected to return to levels above 50 feet. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 9 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 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, provided the recommendations in this report are followed in the design and construction of this project. Geotechnical Constraints and Mitigation: ➢ 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 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, is of soil profile Type SD, and is about 8.9 km from a Type A seismic source as defined in the California Building Code. A qualified professional should design any permanent structure constructed on the site. The minimum seismic design should comply with the 2001 edition of the California Building Code. ➢ Ground subsidence from seismic events and hydroconsolidation are potential hazards in the 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. ➢ 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. Site grading should be in strict compliance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). ➢ Other geologic hazards, including fault 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 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 the potential for differential settlement from static loading. Soils can be readily cut by normal grading equipment. ➢ The native soils were found to have low sulfate and chloride ion concentrations. Electrical resistivity testing of the soil suggests that site soils may present a "severe" potential for metal loss from electrochemical corrosion processes. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 10 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 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 bottoms of excavations before placing fill. Local variations in soil conditions may warrant increasing the depth of recompaction and over -excavation. Clearing and Grubbing: At the start of site grading, existing vegetation, trees, large roots, pavements, foundations, non -engineered fill, construction debris, trash, and abandoned underground utilities should be removed from the proposed building, structural, and pavement areas. The surface should be stripped of organic growth and removed from the construction area. Areas disturbed during clearing should be properly backfilled and compacted as described below. Dust control should also be implemented during construction. Site grading should be in strict compliance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Building Pad Preparation: Because of the relatively non -uniform and under -compacted nature of the site soils, we recommend recompaction of soils in the building area. The existing surface soils within the building pad and foundation areas should be over -excavated to a minimum of 4 feet below existing or finished grade or a minimum of 2 feet below the footing level (whichever is lower). For the underground parking lots, the over -excavation should be 2 feet below the footing level. The over -excavation should extend for 5 feet beyond the outer edge of exterior footings. The bottom of the sub -excavation should be scarified, thoroughly moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) for an additional depth of 1 foot. 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 to extend only 2 feet beyond the face of the footing. Subgrade Preparation: In areas to receive fill, pavements, or hardscape, the subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) for a depth of 1 foot below finished subgrades. Compaction should be verified by testing. Engineered Fill Soils: The native sandy soil is suitable for use as engineered fill and utility trench backfrll, 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. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 11 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 Imported fill soils (if needed) should be non -expansive, granular soils meeting the USCS classifications of SM, SP-SM, or SW-SM with a maximum rock size of 3 inches and 5 to 35% passing the No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the import fill soils before hauling to the site. However, because of the potential variations within the borrow source, import soil will not be prequalified by ESSW. The imported fill should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near optimum moisture content. Shrinkage: The shrinkage factor for earthwork is expected to range from 5 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 knowledge of the general area indicates there is a potential for caving of site excavations (utilities, footings, etc.). Excavations within sandy soil should be kept moist, but not saturated, to reduce the potential of caving or sloughing. Where excavations over 4 feet deep are planned, lateral bracing or appropriate cut slopes of 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) should be provided. No surcharge loads from stockpiled soils or construction materials should be allowed within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope and equal to the depth of the excavation. Utility Trenches: Backfill of utilities within roads 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: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 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 July 13, 2006 12 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 STRUCTURES In our professional opinion, structure foundations can be supported on shallow foundations bearing on a zone of properly prepared and compacted soils placed as recommended in Section 5.1. The recommendations that follow are based on "very low" expansion category soils. 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 single -story structures and 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade for two-story structures. A representative of ESSW should observe foundation excavations before placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Loose soil or construction debris should be removed from footing excavations before placement of concrete. Conventional Spread Foundations: Allowable soil bearing pressures are given below for foundations bearing on recompacted soils as described in Section 5.1. Allowable bearing pressures are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be neglected). ➢ Continuous wall foundations, 12-inch minimum width and 12 inches below grade, or as noted above: 1,500 psf for dead plus design live loads Allowable increases of 300 psf per each foot of additional footing width and 300 psf for each additional 0.5 foot of footing depth may be used up to a maximum value of 3000 psf. ➢ Isolated pad foundations, 2 x 2 foot minimum in plan and 18 inches below grade: 2,000 psf for dead plus design live loads Allowable increases of 200 psf per each foot of additional footing width and 400 psf for each additional 0.5 foot of footing depth may be used up to a maximum value of 3000 psf. A one-third ('/3) increase in the bearing pressure may be used when calculating resistance to wind or seismic loads. The allowable bearing values indicated are based on the anticipated maximum loads stated in Section 1.1 of this report. If the anticipated loads exceed these values, the geotechnical engineer must reevaluate the allowable bearing values and the grading requirements. Minimum reinforcement for continuous wall footings (as specified in the California Building Code) 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 structural engineer. Expected Settlement: Estimated total static settlement should be less than 1 inch, based on footings founded on firm soils as recommended. Differential settlement between exterior and interior bearing members should be less than '/2 inch, expressed in a post -construction angular distortion ratio of 1:480 or less. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 13 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 Frictional and Lateral Coefficients: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on the base of foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation walls. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 of dead load may be used. An allowable passive equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf may also be used. These values include a factor of safety of 1.5. Passive resistance and frictional resistance may be used in combination if the friction coefficient is reduced by one-third. A one-third ('/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 backfill next to foundations is properly compacted. 5.5 Slabs -on -Grade Subgrade: Concrete slabs -on -grade and flatwork should be supported by compacted soil placed in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report. Vapor Retarder: In areas of moisture sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor retarder should be installed to reduce moisture transmission from the subgrade soil to the slab. For these areas, an impermeable membrane (10-mil thickness) should underlie the floor slabs. The membrane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to help protect it during construction and to aid in concrete curing. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete. Low -slump concrete should be used to help reduce the potential for concrete shrinkage. The effectiveness of the membrane is dependent upon its quality, the method of overlapping, its protection during construction, and the successful sealing of the membrane around utility lines. The following minimum slab recommendations are intended to address geotechnical concerns such as potential variations of the subgrade and are not to be construed as superseding any structural design. The design engineer and/or project architect should ensure compliance with SB800 with regards to moisture and moisture vapor. Slab Thickness and Reinforcement: Slab thickness and reinforcement of slabs -on -grade are contingent on the recommendations of the structural engineer or architect and the expansion index of the supporting soil. Based upon our findings, a modulus of subgrade reaction of approximately 200 pounds per cubic inch can be used in concrete slab design for the expected very low expansion subgrade. Concrete slabs and flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches thick (actual, not nominal). We suggest that the concrete slabs be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 rebars at 18-inch centers, both horizontal directions, placed at slab mid -height to resist cracking. Concrete floor slabs may either be monolithically placed with the foundations or doweled after footing placement. The thickness and reinforcing given are not intended to supersede any structural requirements provided by the structural engineer. The project architect or geotechnical engineer should continually observe all reinforcing steel in slabs during placement of concrete to check for proper location within the slab. Control Joints: Control joints should be provided in all concrete slabs -on -grade at a maximum 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 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 14 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 the slabs should be tooled at the time of the pour or saw cut ('/4 of slab depth) within 8 hours of concrete placement. Construction (cold) joints should consist of thickened butt joints with %2-inch dowels at 18-inches on center or a thickened keyed joint to resist vertical deflection at the joint. All construction joints in exterior flatwork should be sealed to reduce the potential of moisture or foreign material intrusion. These procedures will reduce the potential for randomly oriented cracks, but may not prevent them from occurring. Curing and Quality Control: The contractor should take precautions to reduce the potential of curling of slabs in this arid desert region using proper batching, placement, and curing methods. Curing is highly affected by temperature, wind, and humidity. Quality control procedures may be used, including trial batch mix designs, batch plant inspection, and on -site special inspection and testing. Typically, for this type of construction and using 2500-psi concrete, many of these quality control procedures are not required. 5.6 Retaining Walls The following table presents lateral earth pressures for use in retaining wall design. The values are given as equivalent fluid pressures without surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressure. Lateral Pressures and Sliding Resistance t Granular Backfill Passive Pressure 375 pcf - level ground Active Pressure (cantilever walls) Use when wall is permitted to rotate 0.1 % of wall height 35 pcf - level ground At -Rest Pressure (restrained walls) 55 pcf - level ground Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure 2 Acting at 0.6H, where H is height of backfill in feet 50 pcf Base Lateral Sliding Resistance Dead load x Coefficient of Friction: 0.50 Notes: l . 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 and not supporting inhabitable structures need not consider this increased pressure (reference: CBC Section 1630A. 1. 1.5). 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 designer's specifications. Water EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 15 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 should not be allowed to pond near the top of the wall. To accomplish this, the final backfll 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. 5.7 Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete Selected chemical analyses for corrosivity were conducted on soil samples from the project site as shown in Appendix B. The native soils were found to have low sulfate ion concentrations (22 to 45 ppm) and low chloride ion concentrations (127 to 144 ppm). 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 California Building Code does not require any special provisions for concrete for these low concentrations as tested. Normal concrete mixes may be used. A minimum concrete cover of three (3) inches should be provided around steel reinforcing or embedded components exposed to native soil or landscape water. Additionally, the concrete should be thoroughly vibrated during placement. Electrical resistivity testing of the soil suggests that the site soils may present a "severe" potential for metal loss from electrochemical corrosion processes. Corrosion protection of steel can be achieved by using epoxy corrosion inhibitors, asphalt coatings, cathodic protection, or encapsulating with densely consolidated concrete. The information provided above should be considered preliminary. These values can potentially change based on several factors, such as importing soil from another job site and the quality of construction water used during grading and subsequent landscape irrigation. Earth Systems does not practice corrosion engineering. We recommend that a qualified corrosion engineer evaluate the corrosion potential on metal construction materials and concrete at the site to provide mitigation of corrosive effects, if further guidance is desired. 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria This site is subject to strong ground shaking due to potential fault movements along regional faults, including 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 2001 edition of the California Building Code using seismic coefficients given in the table below. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 16 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 2001 CBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter 16 Seismic Provisions Reference Seismic Zone: 4 Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone Factor, Z: 0.4 Table 16-1 Soil Profile Type: SD Table 16-J Seismic Source Type: A Table 16-U Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source: 8.9 km = 5.5 miles (San Andreas fault) Near Source Factor, Na: 1.05 Table 16-S Near Source Factor, Nv: 1.29 Table 16-T Seismic Coefficient, Ca: 0.46 = 0.44Na Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv: 0.83 = 0.64Nv Table 16-R The CBC seismic coefficients are based on scientific knowledge, engineering judgment, and compromise. If further information on seismic design is needed, a site -specific probabilistic seismic analysis should be conducted. The intent of the CBC lateral force requirements is to provide a structural design that will resist collapse to provide reasonable life safety from a major earthquake, but may experience some structural and nonstructural damage. A fundamental tenet of seismic design is that inelastic yielding is allowed to adapt to the seismic demand on the structure. In other words, damage is allowed. The CBC lateral force requirements should be considered a minimum design. The owner and the designer should evaluate the level of risk and performance that is acceptable. Performance based criteria could be set in the design. The design engineer should exercise special care so that all components of the design are 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. Estimated peak (mean plus one standard deviation) horizontal site accelerations based upon a probabilistic analysis (10% probability of occurrence in 50 years) is approximately 0.56 g for a stiff soil site. Actual accelerations may be more or less than estimated. Vertical accelerations are typically %3 to 2/3 of the horizontal accelerations, but can equal or exceed the horizontal accelerations, depending upon the local site effects and amplification. 5.9 Pavements Since no traffic loading was 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 advised 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 recommendations should be based on design traffic indices and R-value tests conducted during grading after actual subgrade soils are exposed. EARTH sYS'rEMS SOUTH WES"r July 13, 2006 17 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED PAVEMENTS SECTIONS R-Value Subgrade Soils — 50 (assumed) Design Method — CALTRANS 1995 Flexible Pavements Rigid Pavements Asphaltic Aggregate Portland Aggregate Traffic Pavement Use Concrete Base Cement Base Index Thickness Thickness Concrete Thickness (Assumed) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) 4.5 Auto Parking Areas 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Residential Streets 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Notes: 1. Asphaltic concrete should be Caltrans, Type B, ''/2-in. or 1/4-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 12 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 at 28 days. 5. Equivalent Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) may be used instead of Caltrans specifications for asphaltic concrete and aggregate base. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 18 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES 6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, our findings and recommendations are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. Variations in soil or groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our recommendations. Findings of this report are valid as of the issued date of the report. However, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time, whether they are from natural processes or works of man, on this or adjoining properties. In addition, changes in applicable standards occur, whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or the owner's representative has the responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project so that they are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. The owner or the owner's representative also has the responsibility to verify 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 geoteehnical 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 an investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 19 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property. 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 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. • A review of the building and grading plans to observe that recommendations of our report have been properly implemented into the design. • Observation and testing during site preparation, grading, and placement of engineered fill as required by CBC Sections 1701 and 3317 or local grading ordinances. • Consultation as needed during construction. •1• Appendices as cited are attached and complete this report. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 13, 2006 20 File No.: 09571-04 06-07-734 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), 2004, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Parts 1 through 5. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2003, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-02 California Department of Water Resources, 1964, Coachella Valley Investigation, Bulletin No. 108, 146 pp. California Geologic Survey (CGS), 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. Cao, T, Bryant, W.A., Rowhandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C., 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, California Geologic Survey (CGS), June 2003. Envicom Corporation and the County of Riverside Planning Department, 1976, Seismic Safety and Safety General Plan Elements Technical Report, County of Riverside. Frankel, A.D., et al., 2002, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps, USGS Open -File Report 02-420. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. International Code Council (ICC), 2002, California Building Code, 2001 Edition. Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000. 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. Riverside County Planning Department, 2002, Geotechnical Element of the Riverside County General Plan — Hearing Draft. Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California - Santa Ana Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000. 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. Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p. 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. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST APPENDIX A Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Boring Location Map Table 1 — Fault Parameters Terms and Symbols used on Boring Logs Soil Classification System Logs of Borings EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 116°18'0"W 565000 116017'15"W 116°16'30" 6V 116°15'45"W 566000 567000 568000 569000 0 G M M M 0 0 0 0 M F M MILES L9 PP AVENUS r % li ? \ ''' U '-i �'r, Ai,"H�T�4, � Trra7h�J,�'�,11•�._a`�; .. ., �• '.>�y:�I ,I `t x `�•�-°�-te.:pr•: qM-72 - �, ; +:• i iitt� it ?If Li l . > railer NO •i •,� i - Y. rj r' '• ;t'.: Ave �'4� Nam{` • nue - We ' ...SIT E r .A, r ,jj{: +� • '� t' V 33A well .. � ���'3.1 ` ' 1. "� �� `I• ..,,, `' j ,�; _- � �_. 1 565000 116°18'0"W 666000 116°17'15"W r• 1 _i U Jd I>t AVENU _ It I Well 7 n G 0 0 00 N M < 567000 568000 569000 116°16'30"W 116015 45"W 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4.000 5,000 Feel Figure 1 LEGEND N Site Location Map Multi -Family Residential Development Site Boundary NWC Dune Palms Road & Avenue 48 La Quinta, Riverside County, California A�Earth Systems Southwest Reference: www.terraserverusa.com 07/13/06 1 File No.: 09571-04 v '^ M 566700 116'16'42"W 566900 567000 567100 0 0 0 rn N F M ti R M M O O M 04 N F M O O a rn N F M O O N O N M M 116°l6'42"W 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 R Feet ' Figure 2 LEGEND N Boring Location Map Approximate Boring Location Multi -Family Residential Development NWC Dune Palms Road & Avenue 48 La Quinta Riverside County, California t Site Boundary ' ...... : joft Earth Systems Southwest Reference: www.globexplorer.com 07/13/06 1 File No.: 09571-04 NWC Dune Palms and Avenue 48, La Quinta, CA 09571-04 Table 1 Fault Parameters & Deterministic Estimates of Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) Fault Name or Seismic Zone Distance from Site (mi) (km) Fault Type Maximum Magnitude Mmax (Mw) Avg Slip Rate (mm/yr) Avg Return Period (yrs) Fault Length (km) Mean Site PGA W Reference Notes: I 2 3 (4) (2(2)_(2) (5 San Andreas - Southern 5.5 8.9 SS A 7.7 24 220 199 0.44 San Andreas - Banning Branch 5.9 9.5 SS A 7.2 10 220 98 0.37 San Andreas - Mission Crk. Branch 5.9 9.5 SS A 7.2 25 220 95 0.37 Blue Cut 14.3 22.9 SS C 6.8 1 760 30 0.17 San Jacinto (Hot Spgs - Buck Ridge) 17.1 27.4 SS C 6.5 2 354 70 0.12 Burnt Mtn. 17.6 28.4 SS B 6.5 0.6 5000 21 0.12 Eureka Peak 18.5 29.8 SS B 6.4 0.6 5000 19 0.11 San Jacinto -Anna 21.4 34.4 SS A 7.2 12 250 91 0.14 San Jacinto -Coyote Creek 21.8 35.1 SS B 6.8 4 175 41 0.11 Morongo 29.0 46.7 SS C 6.5 0.6 1170 23 0.07 Pinto Mountain 30.5 49.1 SS B 7.2 2.5 499 74 0.10 Emerson So. - Copper Mtn. 31.8 51.2 SS B 7.0 0.6 5000 54 0.09 Landers 32.7 52.7 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 83 0.10 Pisgah -Bullion Mtn. -Mesquite Lk 33.8 54.4 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 89 0.10 San Jacinto - Borrego 35.1 56.5 SS B 6.6 4 175 29 0.06 San Jacinto -San Jacinto Valley 36.8 59.3 SS B 6.9 12 83 43 0.07 North Frontal Fault Zone (East) 38.9 62.6 RV B 6.7 0.5 1727 27 0.08 Earthquake Valley 40.1 64.5 SS B 6.5 2 351 20 0.05 Brawley Seismic Zone 41.0 66.1 SS B 6.4 25 24 42 0.05 Johnson Valley (Northern) 43.5 70.0 SS B 6.7 0.6 5000 35 0.06 Elsinore -Julian 44.2 71.1 SS A 7.1 5 340 76 0.07 Calico - Hidalgo 45.2 72.7 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 95 0.08 Elsinore -Temecula 48.0 77.2 SS B 6.8 5 240 43 0.05 Elmore Ranch 49.2 79.2 SS B 6.6 1 225 29 0.05 Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman Sprgs 49.3 79.4 SS B 7.5 0.6 5000 145 0.08 North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 50.0 80.5 RV B 7.2 1 1314 50 0.08 Elsinore -Coyote Mountain 51.2 82.4 SS B 6.8 4 625 39 0.05 Superstition Mtn. (San Jacinto) 53.2 85.6 SS B 6.6 5 500 24 0.04 Superstition Hills (San Jacinto) 54.0 86.9 SS B 6.6 4 250 23 0.04 Helendale - S. Lockhardt 57.2 92.1 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 97 0.06 San Jacinto -San Bernardino 59.1 95.2 SS B 6.7 12 100 36 0.04 Elsinore -Glen Ivy 61.7 99.3 SS B 6.8 5 340 36 0.04 Notes: 1. Jennings (1994) and California Geologic Survey (CGS) (2003) 2. CGS (2003), SS = Strike -Slip, RV = Reverse, DS = Dip Slip (normal), BT = Blind Thrust 3. 2001 CBC, where Type A faults: Mmax > 7 & slip rate >5 mm/yr & Type C faults: Mmax <6.5 & slip rate < 2 mm/yr 4. CGS (2003) 5. 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 at; (3) 1997 Campbell, (4) 1997 Abrahamson & Silva (mean plus sigma values are about 1.5 to 1.6 times higher) Based on Site Coordinates: 33.704 N Latitude, 116.277 W Longtude and Site Soil Type D EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil classification is based on ASTM Designations D 2487 and D 2488 (Unified Soil Classification System). Information on each boring log is a compilation of subsurface conditions obtained from the field as well as from laboratory testing of selected samples. The indicated boundaries between strata on the boring logs are approximate only and may be transitional. 12" 3" 3/4" SOIL GRAIN SIZE U.S. STANDARD SIEVE 4 10 40 200 BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL I SAND SILT CLAY COARSE I FINE I COARSE I MEDIUM FINE 305 76.2 19.1 4.76 2.00 0.42 0.074 SOIL GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.002 RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS (GRAVELS, SANDS, AND NON -PLASTIC SILTS) Very Loose *N=0-4 RD=0-30 Easily push a 1/2-inch reinforcing rod by hand Loose N=5-10 RD=30-50 Push a 1/2-inch reinforcing rod by hand Medium Dense N=11-30 RD=50-70 Easily drive a 1/2-inch reinforcing rod with hammer Dense N=31-50 RD=70-90 Drive a 1/2-inch reinforcing rod 1 foot with difficulty by a hammer Very Dense N>50 RD=90-100 Drive a 1/2-inch reinforcing rod a few inches with hammer *N=Blows per foot in the Standard Penetration Test at 60% theoretical energy. For the 3-inch diameter Modified California sampler, 140-pound weight, multiply the blow count by 0.63 (about 2/3) to estimate N, If automatic hammer is used, multiply a factor of 1.3 to 1.5 to estimate N. RD=Relative Density (%). C=Undrained shear strength (cohesion). CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS (CLAY OR CLAYEY SOILS) Very Soft *N=0-1 *C=0-250 psf Squeezes between fingers Soft N=24 C=250-500 psf Easily molded by finger pressure Medium Stiff N=5-8 C=500-1000 psf Molded by strong finger pressure Stiff N=9-15 C=1000-2000 psf Dented by strong finger pressure Very Stiff N=16-30 C=2000-4000 psf Dented slightly by finger pressure Hard N>30 C>4000 Dented slightly by a pencil point or thumbnail MOISTURE DENSITY Moisture Condition: An observational term; dry, damp, moist, wet, saturated. Moisture Content: The weight of water in a sample divided by the weight of dry soil in the soil sample expressed as a percentage. Dry Density: The pounds of dry soil in a cubic foot. MOISTURE CONDITION RELATIVE PROPORTIONS Dry .....................Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Trace ............. minor amount (<5%) Damp................Slight indication of moisture with/some...... significant amount Moist.................Color change with short period of air exposure (granular soil) modifier/and... sufficient amount to Below optimum moisture content (cohesive soil) influence material behavior Wet....................High degree of saturation by visual and touch (granular soil) (Typically >30%) Above optimum moisture content (cohesive soil) Saturated .......... Free surface water LOG KEY SYMBOLS PLASTICITY ' Bulk, Bag or Grab Sample DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST Nonplastic A 1/8 in. (3-mm) thread cannot be rolled Standard Penetration Split Spoon Sampler Low at any moisture content. The thread can barely be rolled. (2' outside diameter) Medium The thread is easy to roll and not much Modified California Sampler time is required to reach the plastic limit. ' (3" outside diameter) High The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. No Recovery GROUNDWATER LEVEL Water Level (measured or after drilling) Terms and Symbols used on Boring L Water Level (during drilling) GRAPHIC LETTERSYMBOL MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand CLEAN GW mixtures, little or no fines GRAVELS rs ri•'rlia raa•�i• < 5% FINES GRAVEL AND GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand GRAVELLY +�+r: + +�++r+ mixtures. Little or no fines SOILS r••r••r,•r••r•r•r••r•• . .....:. .... GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt More than 50% of GRAVELS mixtures COARSE GRAINED SOILS coarse fraction FINES WITH WITH re i e on No. 4 > FINES Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay sieve GC mixtures SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SAND AND CLEAN SAND SANDY SOILS Little or no fines < 5% SP Poorly -graded sands, gravelly More than 50% of sands, little or no fines material is larger than No. 200 sieve size SAND WITH FINE SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures More than 50% of (appreciable coarse fraction amount of fines) passing No. 4 sieve ' 1270 SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sands, ML rock flour, silty low clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity LIQUID LIMIT Inorganic clays of low to medium FINE-GRAINED LESS THAN 50 CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy SOILS clays, silty clays, lean clays OL Organic silts and organic silly clays of low plasticity SILTSAND Inorganic silty, micaceous, or CLAYS MH diatomaceous fine sand or silty soils ;� , , CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays 50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER sieve size THAN 50 ............ OH Organic clays of medium to high ............ plasticity, organic silts yyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyy Peat, humus, swamp soils with HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS '1y\>'"1yy1y1Vyy\>' yyyyyyyyyyy PT high organic contents �v\y1y1y1y"\y1y"\Y1>1 VARIOUS SOILS AND MAN MADE MATERIALS Fill Materials MAN MADE MATERIALS Asphalt and concrete Soil Classification System Earth Systems Southwest 0 Earth Systems Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone (760) 345-1588. rax (760) 345-73 15 Boring No: B-1 Drilling Date: May 12, 2006 Project Name: NWC Dune Palms Rd. & Ave. 48, La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 09571-04 Drill Type: Williams CME 55 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins v Sample Type w Penetration _ N Description of Units Page 1 of 1 F Resistance A °' o CL = ° Note: The stratification lines shown represent the -, o T b, � o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic''rend p m N 0 (Blows/6") q U and the transition may be gradational, Blow Count Dry Density SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, very loose, dry, fine to medium grained 5 4,6,9 92 1 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained 10 3,5,8 88 4 pale to moderate yellowish brown, damp 15 4,6,10 92 3 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, damp, fine to medium grained 20 5,9,14 89 10 25 Total Depth 21.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered 30 35 40 45 50 55 cn % Earth Systems IVIN Southwest 79.811 B Country Chub Drive, Bemmda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315 Boring No: B-2 Drilling Date: May 12, 2006 Project Name: NWC Dune Palms Rd. & Ave. 48, La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 09571-04 Drill Type: Williams CME 55 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins Samle Type w Penetration Description of Units Page l of 1 � � Resistance � � Q � •= � No Note: The stratification lines shown rep resent the o q �g � o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend q m' (B1ows/6") q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, loose, dry, fine to medium grained, with mica 2,4,4 85 2 5 2,3,5 86 6 damp, silty sand lenses 10 4,6,8 88 2 medium dense, dry 15 6,12,20 dense 20 Total Depth 19 feet No Groundwater Encountered 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 cn Earth Systems Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bennuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone (760) 345-1588, Fnx (760) 345-73 15 Boring No: B-3 Drilling Date: May 16, 2006 Project Name: NWC Dune Palms Rd. & Ave. 48, La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 09571-04 Drill Type: Williams CME 55 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins v Sample Types Penetration•c 4)' Description of Units Page I of 1 Resistance n U °' q Q 0 ,�, Note: The stratification lines shown represent the 0 44 Q T � � o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend q (IIlows/6") q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, loose, dry, fine to medium grained 5 2,3,5 92 3 10 3,4,7 90 4 medium dense, damp 15 4,9,10 100 3 dry, trace coarse grained sand 20 6,12,15 92 4 dry to damp, lenses of silty sand 25 7,12,10 92 G SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, damp, fine to medium grained 30 7114,22 97 2 Sp-SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, dense, damp, fine to medium grained 35 Total Depth 31.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered 40 45 50 55 4n Earth Systems '�✓ Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone. (760)345-1588,Fax (760)345-7315 Boring No: B-4 Drilling Date: May 16, 2006 Project Name: NWC Dune Palms Rd, & Ave. 48, La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 09571-04 Drill Type: Williams CME 55 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins v Sample Type Penetration C a Description of Units Page 1 of 1 F a w Resistance N A a •o � Note: The stratification lines shown represent the Y A T o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend p m 0 (Blows/6") N p U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, loose, dry, fine to medium grained 5 3.4.5 98 1 SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, loose, dry, fine to medium grained 10 314,8 97 14 medium dense IS 6,10,12 87 14 gM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, damp, fine to medium grained, lenses of sandy silt 20 8,8,11 85 4 fine grained 25 5,10,13 89 11 1v1L SANDY SILT: pale yellowish brown, dense, dry, fine grained, lenses of silty sand 30 4,6,7 SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained 35 Total Depth 31.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered 40 45 50 55 cn Earth Systems RSouthwest 79-81 1 B Country Club Drive, Bennuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone (760) 345-1588, fax (760) 345-7315 Boring No: B-5 Drilling Date: May 16, 2006 Project Name: NWC Dune Palms Rd. & Ave. 48, La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 09571-04 Drill Type: Williams CME 55 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins v Sample Type Penetration 'y � .. Description of Units Page 1 of I P �� u Resistance _ ° .A U Cn °' q n, H ,e Note: The stratification lines shown represent the To approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend q 0 (Blows/6") q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: loose, dry, no recovery 2,4,5 5 2,5,6 medium dense, no recovery 10 4,6,8 96 1 pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry ML SANDY SILT: moderate yellowish brown, medium dense, dry to damp, fine to medium grained 15 3,7,11 97 12 20 5,10,12 85 18 moist 25 6,6,8 damp, with fine grained sand 30 4,5,7 damp 35 3,9,9 pale to moderate yellowish brown, with fine to medium grained sand 40 5 9,9 SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained 45 ❑ 4 7 g SM SILTY SAND: pale to moderate yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained 50 9 16 )g SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, dense, dry, fine to medium grained 55 Total Depth 51.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered Gn 0Earth Systems 2OR; Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone (760) 345-1588• Fax (760) 345-7315 Boring No: B-6 Drilling Date: May 16, 2006 Project Name: NWC Dune Palms Rd. & Ave. 48, La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 09571-04 Drill Type: Williams CME 55 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins k Sample Type Penetration Description of Units Page 1 of I a Resistance 0 U 0 chi p y r- Note: The stratification lines shown represent the :D �` o c approximate bounds between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend pP boundary Yp p Ca m °vi 5 (Blows/6" rn p o U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, loose, dry, tine to medium grained 2,4,4 - I 5 3,6,8 82 3 medium dense 10 5,6,10 88 4 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium 15 dense, dry, fine grained 5,10,12 90 2 dry to damp, sand with silt lenses 20 5,9,16 94 13 moist, poor recovery 25 1 t,14,►8 99 2 sP-sM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, dense, 30 dry, fine to medium grained 5,7,8 medium dense 35 ❑ 5,7,8 40 Total Depth 39 feet No Groundwater Encountered 45 50 55 Earth Systems WN-1 Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bennuda Duties, CA 92203 Phone (760) 345-1588. Fax (760) 345-7315 Boring No: B-7 Drilling Date: May 16, 2006 Project Name: NWC Dune Palms Rd. & Ave. 48, La Quinia, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 09571-04 Drill Type: Williams CME 55 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins Sample Type.., Penetration 7' Description of Units Page I of t L _ n u Resistance q a .o Note: The stratification lines shown represent the A T q �v o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend q (Blows/6") q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density sP SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained 2,4,6 92 1 5 90 1 10 5,10,14 S2 3 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium 15 dense, dry, fine grained 10,14,16 86 2 20 6,11.12 91 2 25 7,11,11 SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, medium dense to dense, dry, fine to medium grained 30 9,14,15 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, dense, dry, fine to medium grained, trace coarse grained 35 7,13,15 40 T. 7,12,10 45 4,10,12 T. fine grained 50 'total Depth 49 feet No Groundwater Encountered 55 �n Earth Systems `O, Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone (760) 345-1588. Fax (760) 345-7315 Boring No: B-8 Drilling Date: May 16, 2006 Project Name NWC Dune Palms Rd. & Ave. 48, La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 09571-04 Drill Type: Williams CME 55 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins v Sample Type,,: Penetration '� �' Description of Units Page 1 of I a Resistance o � rUn °' q Q o „ Note: The stratification lines shown represent the �v c o approximate bounds between soil and/or rock es Graphic Trend boundary bP P q 0 Blows/6" ( ) 0) q U and and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained 5 316,8 93 2 10 3,6,7 86 7 15 5,10,11 88 1 20 7,10,12 89 2 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, very fine to fine grained 25 11,17,22 93 1 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, dense, dry, fine to medium grained 30 7,18,17 35 5,10,13 T. SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, dense, dry, fine to medium grained 40 ❑ 6,11,9 45 Total Depth 41.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered 50 55 4n A APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 09571-04 July 13, 2006 Lab No.: 06-0281 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: NWC Dune Palms & Ave 48, LQ, CA Sample Location Depth (feet) Unit Dry Density (pco Moisture Content (%) USCS Group Symbol B1 5 -- 1 SM B 1 10 88 4 SM B 1 15 92 3 SM B 1 20 89 10 SM B2 2.5 85 2 SP-SM B2 7.5 86 6 SP-SM B2 12.5 88 2 SP-SM B3 5 92 3 SP-SM B3 10 90 4 SP-SM B3 15 100 3 SP-SM B3 20 92 4 SP-SM B3 25 92 6 SM B3 30 97 2 SP-SM B4 5 98 1 SP-SM B4 10 97 14 SP-SM B4 15 87 14 SM B4 20 85 4 SM B4 25 89 11 ML B5 10 96 1 SP-SM B5 15 97 12 ML B5 20 85 18 ML EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 09571-04 July 13, 2006 Lab No.: 06-0281 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: NWC Dune Palms & Ave 48, LQ, CA Sample Location Depth (feet) Unit Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) USCS Group Symbol B6 2.5 -- I SP-SM B6 7.5 82 3 SP-SM B6 12.5 88 4 SM B6 17.5 90 2 SM B6 22.5 94 13 SM B6 27.5 99 2 SP-SM B7 2.5 92 1 SP B7 7.5 90 1 SP B7 12.5 82 3 SM B7 17.5 86 2 SM B7 22.5 91 2 SM B8 5 93 2 SP-SM B8 10 86 7 SP-SM B8 15 88 1 SP-SM B8 20 89 2 SM B8 25 93 1 SM EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 09571-04 July 13, 2006 Job Name: NWC Dune Palms & Ave 48, LQ, CA Lab Number: 06-0281 AMOUNT PASSING NO.200 SIEVE ASTM D 1140 Fines USCS Sample Depth Content Group Location (feet) (%) Symbol B1 15 21 SM B4 25 67 ML B5 15 70 ML B6 12.5 46 SM B7 2.5- 4 SP B8 20 42 SM EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 09571-04 July 13, 2006 Lab No.: 06-0281 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: NWC Dune Palms & Ave 48, LQ, CA Sample ID: B1 @ 1-4 Feet Description: Brown Silty Sand (SM) 100 90 80 70 °�° 60 ° 50 C L 40 30 20 10 0 100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 1- 1/2 100 1" 100 3/4" 100 1 /2" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 #8 100 #16 99 #30 98 #50 94 #100 73 #200 41 % Gravel: 0 % Sand: 59 % Silt: 31 % Clay (3 micron): 10 (Clay content by short hydrometer method) t 10 1 0.1 Particle Size ( mm) 0.01 0.001 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 09571-04 July 13, 2006 Lab No.: 06-0281 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: NWC Dune Palms & Ave 48, LQ, CA Sample 1D: B4 @ 1-4 Feet Description: Brown Silty Sand (SM) 100 90 80 70 60 50 a 40 30 20 10 0 Sieve Percent Size Passing 1-1/2" 100 111 100 3/411 100 1 /2" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 #8 100 #16 100 #30 100 #50 93 #100 57 #200 19 % Gravel: 0 % Sand: 81 % Silt: 14 % Clay (3 micron): S (Clay content by short hydrometer method) � •I �; _� it ; i I I i t' 4- 100 10 1 0.1 Particle Size ( mm) 0.01 0.001 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 09571-04 Lab No.: 06-0281 July 13, 2006 CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435 & D 5333 NWC Dune Palms & Ave 48, LQ, CA B-6 @ 2.5 feet Silty F Sand (SM) Ring Sample 2 1 0 -1 -2 Initial Dry Density: 77.9 pcf Initial Moisture, %: 1.0% Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 1.140 Hydrocollapse: 2.2% @ 2,0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram Saturation , ter'---a-Hydrocollapse ■ After Saturation ---)I—Rebound - 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf 10.0 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 09571-04 July 13, 2006 Lab No.: 06-0281 MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified) Job Name: NWC Dune Palms & Ave 48, LQ, CA Procedure Used: A Sample ID: 1 Preparation Method: Moist Location: B 1 @ 1-4' Feet Rammer Type: Mechanical Description: Brown Silty Sand (SM) Lab Numbe 06-0281 Sieve Size % Retained Maximum Density: 109 pcf 3/4" 0.0 Optimum Moisture: 14% 3/8" 0.0 #4 0.1 140 135 130 110 • 105 100 \ate■ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Moisture Content, percent EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 09571-04 July 13, 2006 Lab No,: 06-0281 MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified) Job Name: NWC Dune Palms & Ave 48, LQ, CA Procedure Used: A Sample ID: 2 Preparation Method: Moist Location: B4 @ 1-4 Feet Rammer Type: Mechanical Description: Brown Silty Sand (SM) Lab Numbe 06-0281 Sieve Size % Retained Maximum Density: 106 pef 3/4" 0.0 Optimum Moisture: 14% 3/8" 0.0 #4 0.0 140 135 130 125 . 110 105 I 1-4 I3 I 1 � ' I I } Zero Air Voids Lines,3 -i sg =2.65, 2,70, 2,75 --; }- -i- 1 I ' I 1 . -- f 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Moisture Content, percent EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 09571-04 July 13, 2006 Lab No.: 06-0281 SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES Job Name: NWC Dune Palms & Ave 48, LQ, CA Job No.: 09571-04 Sample ID: B1 B4 Sample Depth, feet: 1-4' 1-4' DF RL Sulfate, mg/Kg (ppm): 45 22 1 0.50 Chloride, mg/Kg (ppm): 144 127 1 0.20 pH, (pH Units): 7.90 7.70 I 0.41 Resistivity, (ohm -cm): 1,650 1,490 N/A N/A Conductivity, (µmhos -cm): I 2.00 Note: Tests performed by Subcontract Laboratory: Surabian AG Laboratory DF: Dilution Factor 105 Tesori Drive RL: Reporting Limit Palm Desert, California 92211 Tel: (760) 200-4498 General Guidelines for Soil Corrosivity Chemical A ent Amount in Soil Degree of Corrosivity Soluble 0 -1000 mg/Kg (ppm) [ 0-.1%] Low Sulfates 1000 - 2000 mg/Kg (ppm) [0.1-0.2%] Moderate 2000 - 20,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [0.2-2.0%] Severe > 20,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [>2.0%] 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 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST L oo,,rAlg Permlt #,"rtrurkrq$\ Buildlng s, Safety Dtvlslon P.O. 8ox 1504,78-495 CalleTamplco la Qulnta, CA,92253 - (760) 777-7012 Bullding Permit Application and Tracking Sheer Cicy of IA Quinua fu.JE%3+/*r€-77sProject eAdrcss: 4V Owncr's Name ^v/117 - .^3.) -A. P. Numbcr:1q44fuEAddrcss: e7Legal Dcscription:City,SlZip: ,/ADA. & iclcphone: rub- 7f7 -AOTContractor: P/A Addrcss:ProjectDoscription: Z/8 LV<-nf W city, ST, Zip:r?rutz ar'rz4\ zs r/&ttrzrtz H Telephonc:fuitPrt*A/D@.@ State Lic. # :City Lic. #:ow/6@m: Arch., Engr., Dcsigncr: -ruDA a-fu/ae6 ?77E olrr ,5.A//1 City, ST, Zip:ffi/*/ /et z Addrcss: 4 Tclephone: f$r- 3ZS - fr/o Construction Type: * t+t< Occupancy, F-/ Statc Lic. #: I /a Project typc (circle on";:rfc?) Add'n Alter Repair Demo Name of Contact Person: t W)g- fAJ,<4 Sq. Ft.: &5,54 # Stories: Z/3 # Units: -% Telcphone # of Contact Person: APPLICANT: DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Estimated Value of #Submittel Req'd Rec'd TRACKING PERMIT FEES 1 Plen Sets PIen Check submittcd tV Item Amount w lr7Structunl Crlcr.fr 'L "tiit 3 u"/,,^g$cvicwcd, rcrdy for corrections ill o Phn CheckDcposit Truss Celcs.Crlled Contrct Person n I rr1 II,l I PIen Chcck Brlence L . Tittc 24 Cailcs, e*l ,7\6,tur5 Plens picked up I Construction ,4Flood plein plen RPlens rcsubmittcd t Mcchgnicel Greding plen 2d Review, .."4y lorg@irru.1 ,l J 6l Elcctricel Subcontrctor List Cellcd Conttct Pcrron n1rlu Plumbing . Grent Dced Phns pickcd up s.M.I. H.O.A. Approvrl Plrns rcsubmittcd Greding IN IIOUSE:-rd Rcview, retdy for corrections/issue Devcloper Imprct Fcc Planning Approvel Cellcd Contrct Person A.I.P.P. Pub. Wks. Appr Detc of pcrmlt issuc Schoril Fees Z *its?,,,*,rt,fr/,.J'f*l l^l ^-<0 Total Pcrmit Fccs 0. II T[ IL ffl rll teb'l\leRre(",@2,fi-ur??& 'ldY- NG bI(-0dtE ctr@ rt Pt l.,P rlo oD qt n^A I P.O. Box I 504 78.495 CALLE TevPICO Le QurNTA, CALIFoRNte 92253 To: Greg Butler, Building & Safety Manager From: Les Johnson, Director-Planning Permit: 06-4134 BurlorNc & Sepprv DrpeRrugNr (760) 777-70t2 FAX (760) 777-7011 Building Plans Approval (This is an approval to issue a Building Permit) The Community Development Department has reviewed the Building PIans for the following project: Description: Address or General Location: Applicant Contact: To CDD. Auqust 21 ,2007 Due Date:September 04, 2007 Status 2nd Review Affordable Housinq Comolex - 218 Units 47-795 Dune Palms Road - Buildinq Tvpe C Reuel Younq (760) 323-4990 The Community Development Department finds that: ...these Building Plans do not require Community Development Department approval. r ...these Building Plans are approved by the Community Development Department. tr ...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 revl o J on,tre ctor-Planning Date W"P&Wa tr 77-8M Dr. Palm Desert, Ca.92211 e 36e,5770 r.(760)o Letter of Transmittal To: City of La Quinta Today's Date: City Due Date : Project Address: 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta , Ca 92253 Attn:Plan Check #: Submittal:n ts 1"t tr tr tr 4th uil2nd-th5 F 3'd Other We are forwarding:By Messenger tr By Mail (Fed Ex or UPS)Your Pickup lncludes: tr tr ,e- Ftr KkL tr #ot Copies: Descriptions: Structural Plans lncludes:Descriptions: Revised Structural Plans Structural Calcs g EI h tr tr tr tr n tr Revised Structural Calcst-I 2 l Truss Calcs Revised Truss Calcs Revised Soils Report Correction List RedlrneM Redlrneffi Redlrned Truss Calcs Approved Structural Plans Approved Structural Calcs Approved Truss Calcs Approved Soils Report Redlined Soils Reports Other: Comments: Thank you! This Material Sent for: tr Your Fites tr Your Review tr Checking Other: tr tr PerYour Request tr Approval tr At the request of: IL W\q 0 By: Palm Desert Office : I Washington Office : ! # (760 360-5770 il # (760) 404-95s6 N* iw It& v #ot Copies: ( I EIGRAY]'I ER Erufi fl il{ TilHfl NG STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Mr. Greg Butler City of LaQuinta P.O. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tamfico LaQuinta, CA 92253 RE: Dune Palms Neighborhood 47-795 Dune Palms Rd-, Bldg - C, CI, and C3 LaQuinta, CA PIan Check #06 -4L34 Greg: August 2L,' 2007 Job No. 0 57 . I0 r c3. have reviewed the Truss Design for Buildings C, CI, The Truss Design is in accordance with the Framing for these Buildings. If we can be of any further and , P Ian S service, please contact me at ( 9 5 I ) 67 5-2529 . S incereIY, GRAYNER ENGINEERTNGvplf George H.Grayner, SE 1809 41105 Vintage Circle . Temecula, CA 92591 . Telephone.(951) 676'2529 . FAX (951) 699-3591 4-,r Certificate of Occupancy T4&f oF 4QKMrw Building & Safety Department This Certificate is issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 109 of the California Building Code, certifying that, at the time of issuance, this structure was in compliance with the provisions of the Building Code and the various ordinances of the City regulating building construction and/or use. BUILDING ADDRESS: 47-795 DUNE PALMS ROAD (BUILDING # 1200) Use classification: APARTMENTS Building Permit No.: 06-4134 Occupancy Group: R-1 Type of Construction: V-NR Land Use Zone: CR Owner of Building: COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALI Address: 45-701 MONROE ST 1-G City, ST, ZIP: INDIO, CA 92201 By: STEVE TRAXEL 7 �.. Date: November 24, 2009 Building Official CONSPICUOUS PLACE