3556Yi.
NOTE:
With proper validation
this form constitutes an
encroachment permit
CITY OF LA QUINTA
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (ENCROACHMENT)
For the construction of public or private' curbs, driveways, pavements, sidewalks, parking lots, sewers, water mains
and other like public works improvements in connection with MINOR IMPROVEMENTS and APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
DATE: 10/31/2001
Subdivision Improvement Permit — Class I I I
Minor Improvement Permit Class IV
LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION 77-480 LOMA VISTA LOT 43 TRACT 25237
(Street address or Description of Location)
PURPOSE O.F CONSTVUCTI,ON EXCAVATE AND GRADE LOT FOR Sketch (attach construction plans if appropriate)
�.UH81:RUUTjLU1 t�lSINGLE 11AMIL DWhLL NG
DESCRIPTION 0.F CONST UC.,TION SEE ATTACHED SPECIAL CONDITIONS
b�iG YLAWS it IJ►is`IA6 LS Oi GWW.1NU AtJATIO14 ,
DIMENSION OF INSTALLATION OR REMOVAL
SIZE OF EXCAVATION, IF NEEDED
APPROXIMATE TIME WHEN WORK WILL BEGIN
APPROXIMATE TIME OF COMPLETION
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 9 3'000.00
(Including removal of all obstruction, materials, and debris, backfilling, com-
paction and placing permanent resurfacing and/or replacing improvements) _
In consideration of the granting of this permit, the applicant hereby agrees to:
OCT 31
L_ 2001 U
Ci'tYOF
Indemnify, defend• and save the City, its authorized agents, officers, representatives and employees, harmless from and against any and all
penalties, liabilities or loss resulting from claims or court action and arising out of any accident, loss or damage to persons or property
happening or occurring as a proximate result of any work undertaken under the permit -granted pursuant to this application.
Notify the Administrative Authority at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance o� time when work will be started.
Comply with all applicable City Ordinances, the terms and conditions ,of the permit and all applicable rules and, regulations of the City of
La Quinta and to pay for any additional replacement necessary as the result of this work. 1
'i a` to e'of Applicant or Agent
CHRISTINE HARtIS 76-623 BEGONIA LANE PALM DESERT CA 92211 760 360 3310
Name of Applicant (please print) Business Address Telephone No.
71ore'S Fi,aAirvs d'Ord%f129 %Wlf-,7t1,-,Ab La
Name of Contractor and Job F reman
Contractor's License No.
Business Address
Telephone No.
City Business License No.
Applicant's Insurance Company Policy Number
FEES: Subdivision Improvement Permit —Class III
Public improvements: 3% of estimated construction costs
Private improvements: 3% of estimated construction costs
Minor Improvement Permit — Class IV: See attached schedule
270.00
Inspection Fee $
100.00
Permit Fee
Penalty
Cash Deposit -Surety Bond 750.00 duot control deposit
if required
TOTAL: $ 1,120.00
Receipt No.
Received by Date
Recorded by
3556
PERMIT VALIDATION
PERMIT NO. 3556
DATE APPROVED 10/29/2001
EXPIRATION DATE 10/29/2002
DATE ISSUED 161,31101 ,(".r—
By �i U 11
iC Administrative Authority
Telephone: (760) 777-7075
0
fleD I -
NOTE:
With proper validation
this form constitutes an CITY OF LA OUINTA
encroachment permit
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (ENCROACHMENT)
For the construction of public or private curbs, driveways, pavements, sidewalks, parking lots, sewers, water mains
and other like public works improvements in connection with MINOR IMPROVEMENTS and APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
Subdivision Improvement Permit — Class III
DATE:_ ��� a 00 / Minor Improvement Permit Class IV
LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION——�f/ //UQ ilL.D %� .
(Street address or Description of Location) y�
PURP SE OF CON RUCTION—C�f-CU i-� ( fSl�Sketch (attach construction plans if appropriate)
�,
DESCRIPTION OF CONJRSI.CT10
DIMENSION OF INSTALLATION OR REMOVAL
SIZE OF EXCAVATION, IF NEEDED
APPROXIMATE TIME WHEN WORK WILL BEGIN
OCT 2 5 2001
BLIC Wr��cc N c
APPROXIMATE TIME OF COMPLETION
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ n �10`t
'
' (Including removal of all obstruction, materiad debris, backfilling, com- Se L �de j l�(J yl.
paction and placing permanent resurfacing and/or replacing improvements)
In consideration of the granting of this permit, the applicant hereby agrees to:
Indemnify, defend and save the City, its authorized agents, officers, representatives and employees, harmless from and against any and all
penalties, liabilities or loss resulting from claims or court action and arising out of any accident, loss or damage to persons or property
happening or occurring as a proximate result of any work undertaken under the permit granted pursuant to this application.
Notify the Administrative Authority at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the time when work will be started.
Comply with all applicable City Ordinances, the terms and conditions of the permit and all applicable rules and regulations of the City of
Le Ouinta and to pay for any additional replacement necessary as the result of this work. .
Signature of Applicant or Agent
Name of Applicant (please print) Business Address Telephone No. ,A V/
3 O--53/O
Name of Contractor and Job Foreman Business Address Telephone No.
Contractor's License No.
City Business License No.
Applicant's Insurance Company Policy Number
FEES: Subdivision Improvement Permit —Class III
Public improvements: 3% of'estimated construction costs
Private improvements: 3% of estimated construction costs
Minor. Improvement Permit — Class IV: See attached schedule
a �o
Inspection Fee $
I��� do
Permit Fee
Penalty
Cash Deposit -Surety Bond �1
if required /Uyf r btJ/ 90L
TOTAL: $ l: (Zv
Receipt No.
Received by Date
Recorded by
3527
PERMIT VALIDATION
PERMIT NO. 5 S
DATE APPROVEDT/ D/
EXPIRATION DATE
DATE SUED
ey
dministrative Authority
Telephone: (760) 777-7075
to
OCT-18-2001 14:44
7605649591 P.01
,mac
PCTN
-erequisites for Grading Permit
Issuance Checklist
Mnta Etignecring Department assigns a specific city staff member as a Project
to every grading proja't that is proposed. If you have questions regarding the
M checkiing process or need assistance regarding any of the prerequisite items
,eeklist see prerequisites for Grading Permit Issuance - Instructions or contact
the Project Manager assigned to your project.
your Project Manager is ; he may be reached at (760) I t I
1. Environmental Assessment- ..................................................... ............................................. ❑
2. Archaeology Study ............................... :.......................................................................................
3. Approved Project Concept ........... I ................ ................. I ........ I ................ ........................ ❑
4. Compliance with special prerequisite Conditions of Approval tied to grading ............................... O
Approved grading plan and soils report... ................. ...........--...........------............._................. ❑
6. Third party approval(s) for offsite grading ..................... ......................................................... ❑
7. Third party approval(s) for acceptance of drainage ...... :.................................. .............................. ❑
Approved Fugitive Dust (PM,a) Mitigation Plan. ........... ................ ..... o
9. Approved Stortn Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP).................... ............ I ...... .................. ❑
10. NPDES General Permit, Notice of Intent (NOD............................................................................ o
1�1 List of Professionals. .................................................................................................................... ❑
Surveyor
Soils Engineer/Technologist
Archaeologist
12 Application for Grading Permit....................................................................................................
13
13. insurance CertificM ------------- ....................................................................................................... t7
14. City Business License ....... ............................................................ ..........-------- .............................. ❑
ES A DEPOSITS
15. Basic Fees
a. Plan Checking Fee..................................................................................................... ❑
GradingPermit Fee........ ........................................................ ....................... ........... ❑ _ ........
16. Fringe -toed Lizard Fee .................... ........................... ..................................................................
17. As -Built plan security deposit ...................................................
Fugitive Dust Control Security Deposit .....................................
..... ................ ..•---I.......... ......... O
.............. I .................. ............. ❑
F109
1101
Page 1 of 7
The following General and Special Provisions are attached to and made a part of Permit No. % ✓ �+'
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following shall always apply:
ENROACE M M ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: This permit authorizes work to be accomplished within City of La Quints right of
way ONLY. Whenever construction extends within private property, it is the responsibility of the permittee for his contractors to
secure permission from abutting property owners. Such authorization must be secured by the permittee prior to starting work.
TRACKLAYING CONSTRUCIION EQUIPMENT' Cleated tracklaying construction equipment shall not be permitted to operate on
any paved surface unless fitted with smooth -faced street pads. All mecbanical outriggers shall be fitted with rubber street shoes to
protect the paving during excavations. Rubber -tired equipment only shall be used in backfill operations in paved areas. If the existing
pavement is scarred, spelled, or broken during the term of this contract, or if the pavement is marred, City of La Quints shall request
that these portions of road be resurfaced over their entire width. Resurfacing shall consist of one coat of two inches (2") of A.C.
surfacing plus appropriate seal cost as specified above.
PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC: All excavations and work areas shall be properly ligbted and barricaded as deemed necessary by the
City Engineer or La Quints City Public Works inspectors. Suitable detours and detour signs shall be placed and maintained for the
duration of the project. The City shall be notified.24 hours in advance of any traffic detours or delineations.
CARE OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES: Any drainage structure including corrugated metal pipe, concrete pipe, steel culvert and
concrete structures encountered during excavation which necessitate removal shall be replaced in (rind. In the event it becomes
necessary to remove or cut existing drainage structures, City of La Quints shall be notified prior to commencement of this work.
Drainage structures and open drains shall be kept free of debris at all times for proper drainage.
RIGHT OF WAY CLEANUP: Any surplus material resulting from excavation and backfill operations shall- be removed from the -right
of way. All paved surfaces shall be broomed clean of earth and other objectionable materials immediately after backfill and'compaction.
Existing gutter line and drainage ditches 'shall be replaced to their original standard or better. All excess material shall be removed
prior to paving. Water tanker shall be used, as required, to sprinkle the job site to keep down dust conditions and shall be used
immediately after backfill.
DE -WATER OPERATIONS: If de -watering operations are required and pumps are forcing water on City of La Quints roads, it shall
be the responsibility of the permittee (contractor) to control this water and to provide off-street barricades when necessary..
CLOSING STREETS: No street shall be closed. A minimum of one lane of traffic shall be maintained at all times to provide limited
access for the adjoining property owners and emergency vehicles. In the event it is felt by the permittee that be 'must close a street for
any length of time, permittee shall contact this office to obtain the necessary permission.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
The following shall apply when indicated:
NOTIFICATION: Peimittee shall notify the City at (619)777-7075 at least 48 hours in advance of starting construction.
2 UTII,TTY CLEARANCE: (Substructures) Prior to making any excavation within the City of La Quinta right of way
authorized by permit, the permittee shall contact all concerned utility companies relative to the location of existing
substructures. Damage to existing substructures resulting from operations conducted under this permit shall be the sole
responsibility of the permittee.
R3 UrILITY CLEARANCE: (Surface Structures) No work shall be done under this permit until all utilities are clear of the
proposed work site. The permittee shall notify all concerned utility companies of the proposed work.
R4 PAVEMENT WIDENING: Area between the proposed concrete gutter line and the existing road pavement shall be surfaced
with inches of A.C. paving placed on inches of class aggregate subbase course having an 'R'
value of not less than and in conformance with City of Ls Quints Road Improvement Standards and
Specifications, Ordinance #461.
PARKWAY GRADING: Area between the property line and top of the proposed concrete curb shall'be graded to a slope of
1/4 inch to one foot (I).
R6 GRADE CHECKING: City of La Quints shall check grades upon receipt of plan and profile and/or grades as established by
a licensed engineer.
R7 CURB REMOVAL FOR DRIVEWAYS: A portion of the existing concrete curb and/or curb and gutter (_feet) shall be
removed. Curb and/or curb and gutter shall be saw cut prior to removal. Depressed curb, matching concrete gutter and
concrete driveway approach shall be constructed in conformance with City of La Quinta Standard #207.
R8 DRIVEWAYS: A.C. driveways shall be constructed as not to alter existing drainage pattern. Surfacing between the property
line and the existing road paving shall be 2 112 inches of A.C. paving placed on of clam aggregate base.
Driveway construction shall conform to attached drawing.
K71 SIGHT CLEARANCE: Sight clearance of 600 feet in all directions shall be assured and maintained at all times.
R10 SOIL STEREMER. The area to be surfaced shall be treated with soil steriliser. Rate of application shall commply with. the
manufacturer's specifications.
COORDINATE WORK: The proposed work shall be subordinated to any operation which the State of California or City of
La Quints may conduct in this area during the period of this permit. Work shall be coordinated with the State or City of La
Quints forces to preclude delay or interference with State of City of La Quints projects.
12 SURVEY MONUMENTS: Prior to excavation or beginning of construction, all 'survey monuments which exist on the
centerline of all streets or property lines when involved shall be completely tied out so they may readily and correctly be
replaced by a licensed civil engineer or surveyor at the expense of the permittee. A complete set of notes showing the ties to
these monuments shall be furnished to the City Engineer prior to the removal of any monuments. This office shall be notified
upon completion or replacement of all survey monuments for proper project clearance. '
R1 PAVEMENT CUTTING: Pavement will be mechanically saw cut to a straight to a straight edge prior to excavation. Method
of pavement cutting shall be approved through the office of the City Engineer. (Under no circumstances shall excavating
equipment be used to excavate prior to cutting of pavement.) Excavation material shall be placed in such a position as to best
facilitate the general flow traffic. Prior to final paving operations, any damage to pavement straight edges shall be corrected.
R14 LIMIT OF EXCAVATIONS: Excavations shall be limited to 1000 linear feet of open trench before backfill operations must
begin. All excavations shall be properly barricaded with lights overnight, ooweekends and holidays for the protection of the
traveling public. The Public Works Inspector shall determine the suitability of excavation barricading in each case. No
excavation shall remain open for a period exceeding five (5) days.. No excavation shall be made unless the construction
material is actually on the work site.
R1 BACKFILL MATERIAL: Backfill shall be free of brush, roots or other organic substance detrimental to its use for purposes
of producing an adequately consolidated backfill. Any material which the City of La Quints deems unsuitable (spongy or
saturated material) which is encountered during excavation shall not be used for backfill, but shall be supplemented or replaced
by an approved sand or gravel.
R16 BACKFILL SAND: Backfill shall be approved transit -mix sand or equivalent and shall be'placed in lifts of not greater than
three feet (3') and vibrated using vibrotamper or equivalent equipment. Alternate methods may be substituted, but in any case,
a relative compaction of 95 percent shall be attained with the structural section of the roadway.
R17 BACKFJLL PLACEMENT: Backfill shall be applied, in layers of not more than 50 percent of the total depth of the trench
before flooding or a maximum of five-foot (F) lifts where trenches are of excessive depths. Care is to be exercised that the
backfill material is not subjected to extreme swell by flooding operations. Backfill material shall be placed so that the resulting
compaction shall be not less than 90 percent or equivalent to the surrounding ground, whichever is the greater compaction.
Where ponding or flooding is used for a maximum settlement, adequate dikes will be constructed to retain the water. Where
jetting is used, the jets shall be of sufficient length to reach the bottom of each layer and the water supply shall be continuous.
RIO COMPACTION TESTS: If so required by the inspector, compaction tests shall be made at intervals of not more than 1000
feet and a minimum of one (1) test on each road: One (1) copy of each test shall be forwarded to the City Engineer for
approval and filed prior to making permanent repairs. Compaction tests shall be made as outlined in Section 6.3.01 of the
Standard Specifications, Division of Highways, State of California, dated January 1973.
COMPACTION TESTS: If so required by the inspector, compaction tests shall be made for each crossing or service line.
One (1) copy of each test shall be forwarded to the City Engineer for approval and filed prior to making permanent repairs.
Compaction tests shall be made as outlined in Section 6.3.01 of the Standard Specifications, Division of Highways, State of
California, dated January 1973.
TEMPORARY PAVEMENT REPAIRS: After completion of backfill and compaction operations, a temporary patch
consisting of 2 inches of SC-800 shall be placed on a prepared subgrade. The SC-800 temporary paving shall be placed after a
maximum of 3000 linear feet of trench has been excavated and backfill operations completed, but in no case shall the
placement of the temporary pavement exceed a five (5) day limit.
L F PERMANENT. PAVEMENT REPAIR: After backfill and compaction have been completed, a temporary patch consisting of
v two inches (2') of SC-800 shall be placed immediately. A permanent patch of inches A.C. surfacing placed on a
inch class base shall be placed no later than days after completion of temporary road repair.
2' FOG SEAL: A fog seal coat consisting of an application of asphaltic emulsion shall be applied over all patch areas as
determined by the City Engineer.
2 STREET RESTRIPING: Where street striping is still visible on streets to be excavated, such striping shall be replaced upon
completion of permanent repairs.
R24 TREE RELOCATION OR REMOVAL: Tree relocation within the City of La Quinta road right of way shall be
accomplished by a licensed, bonded and insured tree service, and bandied safely without interference or hazard to the traveling
public. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to maintain the tree in a vigorous growing condition at its new location.
Trees to be removed shall be in sections which can be handled safely without interference or hazard to highway traffic. The
entire width of the tree stump shall be removed and disposed of so that no debris remains in view of the highway. The stump
bole shall be backfilled and thoroughly compacted as specified in the following paragraph. Where is becomes necessary to
restrict traffic, the work shall be restricted to a maximum of 500 feet at any one time. Adequate signs, flagmen and or
barricades shall be provided to protect the traveling public at all times.
Large holes resulting from tree removal shall be backfilled and compacted to not less than 90 percent or equivalent to the
surrounding ground, whichever is the greater compaction as determined by the impact or field method. Compaction tests shall
comply with Section 6.3.01 of the Standard Specificationsi Division of Highways, State of California, dated January 1973.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS --PERMIT NO. 3556
--- CHRISTINE M. HARRIS---
In addition to the standard permit conditions, the following shall apply:
Pursuant to Section 14.16.320 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (Ordinance 10 § 1 (part), 1982), all
work shall be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the Standard Specifications For
Public Works Construction (SSPWC) and as directed by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. CHRISTINE M. HARRIS, hereinafter referred to as "Permittee", shall be responsible for providing
continuous dust and erosion control pursuant to the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
Streets shall be kept clean. They shall be completely cleaned at the end of each working day and
more frequently if required.
4. Pursuant to Section 6.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (Ordinance 18 § 1, 1982), throughout
the work site, the Permittee shall comply with City regulated work hours. Operation and maintenance
of equipment within one-half mile of human occupancy shall be performed only during the following
time periods:
October 1 st to April 30: Monday -Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
May 1 st to September 30: Monday=Friday 6:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m.
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Work shall be prohibited on legal holidays and Sundays.
Work performed within 500 feet of a major and/or signalized intersection is restricted between the
hours of 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Traffic control shall be set up after 9 a.m. and removed before 3 p.m. The
Permittee shall contact the Riverside Country Traffic Signal Maintenance Department at (909) 275=
6894 if signal operation at the intersection is to be altered in any way.
6. Pursuant to Section 14. l 6.1 l0 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (Ordinance 10 § 1 (part), 1982),
Permittee shall assume responsibility for repair of any pavement damage to any public or private
street and for any damage to other City streets or facilities as a result of work performed under this
permit.
7. Pursuant to Section 14.16.250 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (Ordinance 10 § 1 (part), 1982),
advance warning signs and traffic control shall be installed and maintained in accordance with Cal
Trans Standards or the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH Manual). A traffic control
plan, if required, shall be prepared in accordance with the WATCH Manual and submitted to the City
for review and approval one (1) week prior to starting any construction. It shall be the Permittee's
responsibility to appropriately detour and barricade all construction sites.
Special Conditions - Permit No. 3556 Pagel of 3
SPECIAL CONDITIONS --PERMIT NO. 3556
--- CHRISTINE M. HARRIS---
8. Pursuant to Section 14.16.290 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (Ordinance 10 § 1 (part), 1982),
street closures shall not be permitted. A minimum of one travel lane of paved surface shall be
maintained with flagmen at all times.
9. Prior to excavating, if required, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at 1-800-422-
4133. It.shall be the Permittee's responsibility to notify the Public Works Department of anticipated
excavation which impact City facilities, including but not limited to traffic signal conduits and loops,
irrigation lines, electrical conduits, and storm drain facilities.
10. Should additional work, materials, or modifications of the work be required in order to meet City
standards, safety requirements, signage requirements, or to fit actual field conditions, the work shall
be performed by the Permittee as directed by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at no cost
to the City of La Quinta.
I L Pursuant to Section 14.16.370 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (Ordinance 10 § 1 (part), 1982),
backfill compaction within street rights -of -way shall conform with Section 306-1.3 of the latest
edition of the Standard Specifications For Public Works Construction (SSPWC), and as required by
the Public Works Department. Backfill shall be completed in lifts, not to exceed 1', compacted to
90% minimum relative compaction. Native material may be used, provided the material is suitable for
use as backfill after construction operations. Controlled Density Fill (C.F.) may be used as an
alternative.
12. All excavations within City of La Quinta right-of-way shall be backfilled, and temporarily paved if
within the existing travel way, at the end of every workday as directed by and to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer for the protection of the public. Lengths of open trench shall not greatly exceed
that which can not be backfilled in the same day. Excavated trenches shall not be allowed open
overnight, however, Permittee may leave a length of excavated trench, not to exceed twenty (20) feet
in length, open overnight at a point where construction will begin the next day, provided that this
length of trench is completely covered by steel plating.
13. All landscaping, irrigation, decorative rock, decorative concrete, lighting, etc., shall be replaced to
its original condition.
14. Access and egress to all local properties shall be maintained at all times.
15. Pursuant to Section 14.16.375 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (Ordinance 10 § 1 (part), 1982),
permanent pavement replacement shall be completed no later than seven (7) days after the completion
of the work. Permanent pavement shall be replaced as follows:
a) Sawcut and remove existing a.c. surfaces a distance of one foot (1') beyond all trench walls,
including any sloughing or cave in of adjacent soils. Undermined a.c. surfaces shall be removed.
All a.c. edges shall be straight, clean and vertical.
b) Provide an existing section (four -and -one-half inches [4'/2"] minimum) of crushed aggregate
or miscellaneous base material, compacted to 95% minimum relative compaction.
Special Conditions - Permit No. 3556 Page 2 of 3
SPECIAL CONDITIONS --PERMIT NO. 3556
--- CHRISTINE M. HARRIS---
c) Provide an existing section plus one inch (1") [four inches (4") minimum] of asphalt concrete
in two (2) or more lifts; the first lift(s) comprised of a base course a.c. material, of a City
approved mix design, meeting the requirements of Greenbook class B-AR-4000; the final 0.10'
lift comprised of a wearing course a.c. material, of a City approved mix design, meeting the
requirements of Greenbook class C2-AR-4000. All pavement edges shall be flush with adjacent
a.c. surfaces. Each lift of a.c. material shall be compacted to 95% minimum relative
compaction.
d) For trenches greater than two feet (2') in width, the Permittee shall perform a grind and a.c.
overlay of 0.10' depth for three feet (3') in addition to the pavement replacement specified
above.
16. Permittee shall notify the City of La Quinta Public Works Department a minimum of 48 hours
prior to commencement of any construction at (760) 777-7075.
17. Permittee shall stabilize any soil that was disturbed (shoulder areas, etc.) as a result of work
performed under this permit with an approved dust control treatment.
18. Pursuant to Chapter 12.56 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (Ordinance 10 § 1 (part), 1982) the City
has designated certain city streets as Truck Routes. The weight limit for restricted streets (i.e., streets
not part of the Truck Route network) is three (3) tons; trucks exceeding the weight limit may use a
restricted street if making a delivery or pickup on the subject street, or if this permit specifically grants
permission to use the street to deliver street construction materials and/or equipment.
19. This permit allows only for the Rough Grading of 77-480 Loma Vista, Lot 43 of Tract 25237.
20. The City of La Quinta reserves the right to revoke, suspend or void this permit at'any time.
Special Conditions - Permit No. 3556
Page 3 of 3
, Earth Systems
Southwest
Consulting Engineers and Geologists
"ll
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHRIS AND DON HARRIS
76-623 BEGONIA LANE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92211
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
HARRIS RESIDENCE
LOT 43, TRACT 25237
THE ENCLAVE
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
f i
Earth Systems Consultants
ti Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive
0
' Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
(760)345-1588
(800)924-7015
FAX (760) 345-7315
June 23, 1999 File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
' Chris and Don Harris
76-623 Begonia Lane
Palm Desert, California
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
' Project: Proposed Harris Residence
Lot 43, Tract 25237
The Enclave
La Quinta, California
Our pleasure is to present this Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the proposed Harris
Residence to be located on lot 43 within the Enclave Mountain Estates in the City of La Quinta,
California.
1
1
1
This report presents our findings and recommendations for general site development and
foundation design, incorporating the tentative information supplied to our office. This report
should stand as a whole, and no part of the report should be excerpted or used to exclusion of any
other part.
This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our agreement, dated June 3,
1999. Other services that may be required, such as plan review and grading observation are
additional services and will be billed according to the Fee Schedule in effect at the time services
are provided.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact our office if
there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
Southwest
Shelton L. Stringer
GE 2266
SER/tg
Distribution: 4/Chris and Don Harris
2/Daniel, Thornbury, kU
1NTA File
1/BD File
OQ�OFESS/pv9
L
`0 Na 2266
F-,qx 8 0-00 �
_ Pl C�0�CHN
\�F CALIF
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1
1'1
INTRODUCTION ._________.______._____.________.
Project '--.---.---'----'---'—'--------'--''
Page
1.2
Site Description ------.---.---.—.--.--.-----..-----.--.
1.3
Section 2
Purpose and Scope mfWork ...........................................................................
K�����/����K����D��I�
~~~�~""~^"^� ...........................................................
3
2.1
22 '
Field �_.`,�nloratimo --.----.----.----.---------------
Laboratory Testing"-----------'—'----''-----''-------'—
3
3
'
Section 3
DISCUSSION--.--------------.—.--------.----.--.
�
N�
~~
3'1
3�
'
.
3.4
Soil Conditions
Groundwater—.----_-.-----_----------------.----.--.-
�e�i`p
^^°°^°s^� -'--,='---~---------.--_---..--.----------.—.—.
cm�,p�
���u�az�a
'-�'- ------------------------------..
3.4 l ��o������
. ------.-----.-----.--------..--..
53'2
5
6
6
�
|
34L� � 3�aoor�o
' °°°^^="^� '-----'--------'—'------------'
3.4.3 Site Acceleration and UBC Seismic Cocfficieoto---.-------
7
8
Section 4
���
^~^^^`~~""~'S^ —'----'------'-----'--'----------.
10
Section 5
RECOMMENDATIONS ---'-----'r----'------'-----'
I
|
|
SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING
5l ���Development-Grading
.u�----------.--.--.--------.--..
52 Excavations and Util�»�rcoo�co
''v ------.-----_----------
5� ��n`���a����'����u�����»,ca
' '-r -'v '-r '--'--''------------------..
ll
12
12
54
55-
'~'----'---'----'-------------'----'—'--'—'—.
5.6
5'7
� �.��
Foundations ---''--'-'-'-----------'---~-------------'
Slabs -on -Grade
Retaining ,,a^""-------------'--''---'------------'^—''...—
Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity moConcrete ...................................................
Seismic Design ��f����
*_____.__.___________._______—..
13
14
15
16
18
Section 6
6.1
LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES ..................................
Uniformity ofConditions and Limitations ....................................................
10
10
0�
��
'
������imou}��rv�o�m --'''----'''----------'''---'--''—'—'''--'--'-'
19
REFERENCES______.._______.__.._____...._._.._........._._.._........—.--
20
~~
������D��k Figure
Vicinity Map and Boring Location Map ........................................................
Table I Fault Parameters
1-2
N�
Log ofBorings
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
r r
' 'June 23, 1999 -1- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Project Description
This Geotechnical Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed Harris Residence to be
located on Lot 43 of Tract 25237 of The Enclave Mountain Estates.
The proposed residence will be a one-story structure. We understand that the proposed structure
will be of wood frame construction and will be supported by conventional shallow continuous or
pad footings. Site development will include site grading, building pad preparation, underground
' utility installation, future pool and spa construction, and concrete driveway and sidewalk
placement.
We used structural building column loads of up to 30 kips and a maximum wall loading of 3 kips
per linear foot as a basis for the foundation recommendations. All loading is assumed to be dead
plus actual live load. If actual loading is to exceed these assumed values, it may be necessary to
reevaluate the given recommendations.
1.2 Site Description
The proposed residence is to be constructed on a previously mass -graded lot on Vista Rosa Street
in the Enclave Mountain Estates. The site location is shown on Figure 1.
The project site presently consists of a vacant lot that is generally level except where it slopes
towards the golf course lake to the rear of the lot and slopes towards the frontage road, Vista
Rosa Street. The upper soils consist of fill with some construction debris. Existing residential
structures border the lot.
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose for our services was to evaluate the site soil conditions and to provide professional
opinions and recommendations regarding the proposed development of the site. The scope of
' work included the following:
• A general reconnaissance of the site.
• Shallow subsurface exploration by drilling 4 exploratory borings to depths ranging from
12.5 to 26.5 feet.
• Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings.
• Review of selected published technical literature pertaining to the site and previous
geotechnical reports prepared for other residential lots in The Enclave.
• Evaluation of field and laboratory data.
t• 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.
Y EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
1
11
1
n
fl
1
I.
' June 23, 1999
-2-
File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
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
Not Contained In This Report: Although available through Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest, the current scope of our services does not include:
• A corrosive study to determine cathodic protection of concrete or buried pipes.-
0 An environmental assessment.
• Investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the
soil, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
11
; June 23, 1999
Section 2
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
2.1 Field Exploration
-3-
File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
Four exploratory borings were drilled to maximum depths ranging from 12.5 to 26.5 feet below
the existing ground surface to observe the soil profile and to obtain samples for laboratory
testing. The borings were drilled on June 9, 1999 using 6-inch outside diameter hollow -stem
augers, and powered by a CME 45 truck -mounted drilling rig. The approximate locations of the
test borings were established by pacing and sighting from existing topographic features. The
approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2.
Samples were obtained within the test borings with a Modified California (MC) ring sampler
(ASTM D 3550 with shoe similar to ASTM D 1586). The MC sampler has a 3-inch outside
diameter and a 2.37-inch inside diameter. The samples were obtained by driving the sampler
with a 140-pound downhole hammer dropping 30 inches in 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 for the
depths noted.
The final logs of the borings represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and the
results of laboratory testing performed on the samples obtained during the subsurface
investigation. The final logs are included in Appendix A of this report. The stratification lines
represent the approximate boundaries between soil types although the transitions, however, may
be gradational.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Samples were reviewed along with field logs to select those that would be analyzed further.
Those selected for laboratory testing were considered representative of soils that would be
exposed and used during grading, and those deemed to be within the influence of the proposed
structure. Test results are presented in graphic and tabular form in Appendix B of this report.
The tests were conducted in general accordance with the procedures of the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other standardized methods as referenced below.
Our laboratory testing program consisted of the following tests:
• In -situ Moisture Content and Unit Dry Weight for the ring samples (ASTM D 2937).
• Maximum density tests were performed to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of
typical soils encountered (ASTM D 1557-91).
• Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D422) to classify and evaluate soil composition. The
gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by hydrometer and sieve analysis
procedures.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
1 r
June 23, 1999 -4- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
• Consolidation (Collapse Potential) (ASTM D2435) to evaluate the compressibility and
hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential of the soil.
• Chemical Analyses (Soluble Sulfates & Chlorides, pH, and Electrical Resistivity) to
evaluate the corrosivity of the soil on concrete and steel.
k::Vti
m _
:rV,
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
June 23, 1999 -5- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
Section 3
DISCUSSION
3.1 Soil Conditions
The field exploration indicates that site soils consist primarily of an upper layer of fill soils,
about 5 to 7 feet thick, consisting of sandy clayey silt (ML/CL), underlain with similar soils or
clayey sand (SC) to a depth of about 17 feet. The fill has some construction debris and trash
' within it to a depth of about 7 feet.
The boring logs provided in Appendix A include detailed descriptions of the soils encountered.
Soils should be readily cut by normal grading equipment.
Clay and silt contents of the soils have low to moderate plasticity, suggesting the soils to be in
the low expansion category in accordance with Table 18A-I-B of the Uniform Building Code.
' In and climatic regions, granular soils may have a potential to collapse upon wetting. Collapse
(hydroconsolidation) may occur from the lubrication of soluble cements (carbonates) in the soil
matrix causing the soil to densify from its loose configuration during deposition. Consolidation
' tests indicate 0.3% collapse upon inundation and is considered a slight site risk.
3.2 Groundwater
Free groundwater was not encountered in the borings during exploration. The depth to
groundwater in the area is believed to be in excess of 100 feet. Groundwater levels may fluctuate
with precipitation, irrigation, drainage, and site grading. The absence of groundwater levels
detected may not represent an accurate or permanent condition. Perched groundwater may
develop over clay layers if the area is over irrigated.
3.3 Geologic Setting
Regional Geology: The site lies within in the Coachella Valley, a part of the Colorado Desert
geomorphic province. A significant feature within the Colorado Desert geomorphic province is
the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is a large northwest -trending structural depression that
extends from San Gorgonio Pass, approximately 180 miles to the Gulf of California. Much of
this depression in the area of the Salton Sea is below sea level.
' The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton Trough. The Coachella Valley
contains a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits that are Miocene to recent in age. Mountains
' surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the northeast,
foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa
Mountains on the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and
' Mesoz6id granitic rocks. The San Andreas Fault zone within the Coachella Valley consists of
the Garnet Hill fault, the Banning fault, and the Mission Creek Fault that traverse along the
northeast margin of the valley.
I
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
1
June 23, 1999
-6- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
Local Geology: The project site is located within the La Quinta Cove area 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, lacustrine, and alluvial origin.
3.4 Geologic Hazards
Geologic hazards that may affect the region include seismic hazards (surface fault rupture,
ground shaking, soil liquefaction, and other secondary earthquake -related hazards), slope
instability, flooding, ground subsidence, and erosion. A discussion follows on the specific
hazards to this site.
3.4.1 Seismic Hazards
' Seismic Sources: Our research of regional faulting indicates that 32 known active faults or
seismic zones lie within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the project site as shown on Table 1 in
Appendix A. The Maximum Magnitude Earthquake (M.) listed was taken from published
geologic information available for each fault (CDMG, 1996). The M.. corresponds to the
maximum earthquake believed to be tectonically possible.
The primary seismic hazard to the project site is strong groundshaking from earthquakes along
the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. A further discussion of site acceleration from
groundshaking follows in Section 3.4.3.
' Surface Fault Rupture: The project site does not lie within a currently delineated State of
California, Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. (Hart, 1994). Well -delineated fault lines
cross through this region as shown on California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) maps
(Jennings, 1994). Therefore, active fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site. While
fault rupture would most likely occur along previously established fault traces, future fault
rupture could occur at other locations.
Historic Seismicity: Five historic seismic events (5.9 M or greater) have significantly affected the
Coachella Valley this century. They are as follows:
• Desert Hot Springs Earthquake - On December 4, 1948, a magnitude 6.5 ML (6.OMW) earthquake occurred east
of Desert Hot Springs (Proctor 1968). This event was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area.
• Palm Springs Earthquake - A magnitude 5.9 ML (6.2MW) earthquake occurred on July 8, 1986 in the Painted
Hills causing minor surface creep of the Banning segment of the San Andreas Fault (USGS 1987). This event
was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area and caused structural damage, as well as injuries
• Desert Hot Springs Earthquake - On April 22, 1992, a magnitude 6.1 ML (6.1MW) earthquake occurred in the
mountains 9 miles east of Desert Hot Springs (OSMS 1992). Structural damage and minor injuries occurred in
the Palm Springs area as a result of this earthquake.
• Landers & Big Bear Earthquakes - Early on June 28, 1992, a magnitude 7.5 Ms (7.3M,,) 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 (6.4M,) earthquake occurred near Big Bear Lake. No significant structural damage from
' these earthquakes was reported in the Palm Springs area.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
7
J
1
I
June 23, 1999
'SIA
File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
Seismic Risk: While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, various agencies have
published extensive statistical risk analyses. In 1996, the California Division of Mines and
Geology (CDMG) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed the latest
generation of probabilistic seismic hazard maps for use in the 1997 UBC. We have used these
maps in our evaluation of the seismic risk at the site. The Working Group of California
Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 1995) estimated a 22% conditional probability that a
significant earthquake would occur between 1994 to 2024 along the Coachella segment of the
San Andreas Fault.
The primary seismic risk to the project site is the San Andreas Fault. Geologists believe that the
San Andreas Fault has characteristic earthquakes that rupture each fault segment. The estimated
characteristic earthquake is magnitude 7.4 for the Southern (Coachella) Segment of the fault.
This segment has the longest elapsed time since rupture than any other portion of the San
Andreas Fault. The last rupture occurred about 1690 AD, based on dating of trench surveys 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 along the San Bernardino Mountain Segment to the north indicates that both it and the
Southern (Coachella) Segment may have both ruptured together in 1450 and 1690 AD (WGCEP,
1995).
3.4.2 Secondary Hazards
Secondary seismic hazards related to ground shaking include soil liquefaction, ground
deformation, areal subsidence, tsunamis, and seiches. The site is far inland so the hazard from
tsunamis is non-existent. At the present time, no water storage reservoirs are located in the
immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, hazards from seiches are considered negligible at this
time.
Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sudden shock (usually earthquake
shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. In general, for the effects of liquefaction to be
manifested at the surface, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface and
the soils within the saturated zone must also be susceptible to liquefaction. The potential for
liquefaction to occur at this site is considered negligible because the depth of groundwater
beneath the site exceeds 50 feet. No free groundwater was encountered in our exploratory
borings. In addition, the project does not lie within in the Riverside County liquefaction study
zone.
Ground Deformation and Subsidence: Non -tectonic ground deformation consists of cracking of
the ground with little to no displacement. This type of deformation is not caused by fault
rupture. Rather it is generally associated with differential shaking of two or more geologic units
' with differing engineering characteristics. Liquefaction may also cause ground deformation. As
the site is flat with consistent geologic material, and has a low potential for liquefaction, the
potential for ground deformation is also considered to be low.
I
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
'1
' June 23, 1999 -8- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
The potential for seismically induced ground subsidence is considered to be relatively low at the
site. Dry sands tend to settle and densify when subjected to earthquake shaking. The amount of
settlement is a function of relative density, groundshaking (cyclic shear strain), and earthquake
duration (number of strain cycles). Fill areas may be susceptible to seismically induced
settlement.
' Slope Instability: The site area 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 r
100- ear flood lain. The
y
project site may be in an area where sheet flooding and erosion could occur. If significant
changes are proposed for the site, appropriate project design, construction, and maintenance can
minimize the site sheet flooding potential.
3.4.3 Site Acceleration and UBC Seismic Coefficients
Site Acceleration: To assess the potential intensity of ground motion, we have estimated the
horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA). Included in Table 1 are deterministic estimates .of
site acceleration from possible earthquakes at nearby faults. Ground motions are dependent
primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the seismogenic (rupture) zone.
Accelerations also are dependent upon attenuation by rock and soil deposits, direction of rupture
and type of fault. For these reasons, ground motions may vary considerably in the same general
' area. This variability can be expressed statistically by a standard deviation about a mean
relationship.
' The PGA is an inconsistent scaling factor to compare to the UBC Z factor and is generally a poor
indicator of potential structural damage during an earthquake. Important factors influencing the
' structural performance are the duration and frequency of strong ground motion, local subsurface
conditions, soil -structure interaction, and structural details. Because of these factors, an effective
peak acceleration (EPA) is used in structural design. Research by Naiem & Anderson (1993) of
Iaccelerograph records indicates the EPA is about 0.75 PGA (f 0.25 PGA).
1
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
' June 23 1999 -9- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
The following table provides the probabilistic estimate of the PGA and EPA taken from the 1996
CDMG/USGS seismic hazard maps.
Estimate of PGA and EPA from 1996 CDMG/USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Mans
Risk
Equivalent Return
Period (years)
PGA (g) (1)
Approximate
EPA (g) (2)
10% exceedance in 50 years
475
0.46
0.43
Notes:
1. Based on soft rock site, Site Class SB
2. Spectral acceleration (S) at period of 0.3 seconds divided by 2.5 factor for 5% damping as
defined by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 1996).
UBC Seismic Coefficients: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic coefficients are based on
an Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) that has an earthquake ground motion with a 10% probability
of occurrence in 50 years. The UBC seismic force provisions should be regarded as a minimum
' design in that it allows for inelastic yielding of structures. The UBC design criteria permit
structural damage and possible loss of use after an earthquake. The PGA and EPA estimates
given above are provided for information on the seismic risk inherent in the UBC design.
The following table lists the relevant seismic and site coefficients given in Chapter 16 of the
1994 and 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The 1997 UBC seismic provisions are more
stringent for areas less than 10 km (6.2 miles) from major seismic sources.
I
F1
UBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter 16 Seismic Provisions
UBC
Soil
Seismic
Distance
Near Source
Seismic Coefficients
Code
Profile
Source
to Critical
Factors
Edition
Type
Type
Source
Na Nv
Ca Cv
1994
S,
---
---
---
---
Z = 0.4
Z =0.4
S factor =1.5
Ref. Table
16-J
---
---
---
---
16-I
16-1
1997
Sp
A
12 km
1.00
1.12
0.44Na
0.64Nv
(stiff soil)
= 0.44
= 0.72
Ref. Table
16-J
16-U
---
16-S
16-T
16-Q
16-R
-0
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
June 23, 1999 -10- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
1
�I
Section 4
CONCLUSIONS
The following is a summary of our conclusions and professional opinions based on the data
obtained from a review of selected technical literature and the site evaluation.
• The primary geologic hazard relative to site development is severe ground shaking from
earthquakes originating on nearby faults. In our opinion, a major seismic event originating
on the local segment of the San Andreas fault zone would be the most likely cause of
significant earthquake activity at the site within the estimated design life of the proposed
development.
• The project site is in seismic Zone 4 as defined in the Uniform Building Code. A qualified
professional who is aware of the site seismic setting should design any permanent structure
constructed on the site.
• Ground subsidence from seismic events or hydroconsolidation is a potential hazard in the
Coachella Valley area. Adherence to the following grading and structural recommendations
should reduce the potential settlement problems from seismic forces, heavy rainfall or
irrigation, flooding, and the weight of the intended structures.
• The soils are susceptible to wind and water erosion. Preventative measures to minimize
' seasonal flooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans. Dust control
should also be implemented during construction.
I• Other geologic hazards including ground rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced flooding,
and landslides are considered low or negligible on this site.
ri
• The upper soils were found to consist of slightly expansive clay fill soils that has some
amounts of deleterious debris within it. In our opinion, the soils within the building area will
require over excavation of the fill and recompaction to improve bearing capacity and limit
settlement from static loading.
• We recommend that Earth Systems Consultants Southwest (ESCSW) be retained to provide
Geotechnical Engineering services during project design, site development, excavation,
grading, and foundation construction phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with
the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the
event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of
construction.
• Plans and specifications should be provided to ESCSW prior to grading. Plans should
include the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation details. Preferably, structural
loads should be shown on the foundation plans.
' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
' June 23, 1999 -11- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
Section 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING
5.1 Site Development - Grading
A representative of ESCSW should observe site grading and the bottom of all excavations prior
' to placing fill. Local variations in soil conditions may warrant increasing the depth of
recompaction and/or over -excavation.
' Clearing and Grubbing: Prior to site grading any existing vegetation, trees, large roots,
pavements, foundations, uncompacted fill, construction debris, trash, and any abandoned
underground utilities should be removed from the proposed building areas. The surface should
' be stripped of organic growth along with other debris and removed from the construction area.
Any areas disturbed during demolition and clearing should be properly backfilled and compacted
as described below.
' Building Pad 'reparation: Bec
ause cause of the relatively non -uniform and under -compacted nature of
the majority of the upper fill soils, we recommend recompaction of soils in the building area.
The existing surface soils within the building pad areas should be over -excavated to at least 60
inches below existing grade. The over -excavation should extend for 5 feet beyond the outer edge
' of exterior footings. The bottom of the sub -excavation should be scarified, moisture conditioned,
and recompacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) for a depth of 12 inches.
The sub -excavation should be filled with engineered fill as described below. Probings extending
at least 3 feet deep should be conducted at least every 100 square feet. of the sub -excavation, to
evaluate the extent, if any, of the deleterious debris in any remaining fill soil. Should deleterious
debris be encountered, the over -excavation should be extended to remove the unsuitable fill soils.
Subgrade Preparation: In areas to receive pavements or hardsca a th p , e ground surface should be
scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM
' D1557) for a depth of 12 inches below finished subgrades. Compaction should be verified by
testing.
' Engineered Fill Soils: The native clayey sandy silt soil is suitable for use as engineered fill and
utility trench backfill outside the building area and in the lower subexcavation. The native soil
should be clean of deleterious debris and placed in maximum 8-inch lifts (loose) and compacted
to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) near its optimum moisture content.
Compaction should be verified by testing. All rocks larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension
' should be removed from fill or backfill material.
The upper 30 inches of the building pad should consist of import fill. The imported fill soils
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,
' import soil will not prequalified by ESCSW. The imported fill should be placed in lifts no
I
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
June 23, 1999 -12- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction
(ASTM D1557) near optimum moisture content.
' Shrinkage: The shrinkage factor g g for earthwork is expected to range from 15 to 20 percent for the
upper excavated or scarified site soils. This estimate is based on compactive effort to achieve an
average relative compaction of about 92% and may vary with contractor methods.
Subsidence is estimated to be less than 0.1 feet. Losses from site clearing and removal of
existing site improvements may affect earthwork quantity calculations and should be considered.
Site Drainage: Positive drainage should be maintained away from the structures (5% for 5 feet
' minimum) to prevent ponding and subsequent saturation of the foundation soils. Gutters and
downspouts should be considered as a means to convey water away from foundations if adequate
drainage is not provided. Drainage should be maintained for paved areas. Water should not
pond on or near paved areas.
5.2 Excavations and Utility Trenches
All excavations should be made in accordance with CalOSHA requirements. From our site
exploration and knowledge of the general area, we believe there is a potential for caving of site
excavations (utilities, footings, etc.). Where deep excavations over 4 feet deep are planned,
lateral bracing or appropriate cut slopes of 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) should be provided.
Depending upon the actual soil conditions encountered these cut slopes may need to be laid back
at 1.5:1.
No surcharge loads from stockpiled soils or construction materials should be allowed within a
horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope, equal to the depth of the
excavation.
Utility Trenches: Backfill of utilities within road or public right-of-ways should be placed in
conformance with the requirements of the governing agency (water district, road department,
etc.) Utility trench backfill within private property should be placed in conformance with the
provisions of this report. In general, service lines extending inside of property may be backfilled
■ with native soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction.
Backfill operations should be observed and tested by ESCSW to monitor compliance with these
recommendations.
5.3 Slope Stability of Graded Slopes
All unprotected permanent graded slopes should not be steeper ?�' P than 3:1 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. -
' Slope stability calculations were not performed because of the expected minimal slope height
(less than 5 feet). If slopes heights exceed 5 feet, engineering calculations should be performed
' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
June 23, 1999 -13- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
to evaluate the stability of 2 to 1, horizontal to vertical, slopes. Fill slopes should be overfilled
and trimmed back to competent material.
01 STRUCTURES
In our professional opinion, the structure foundation can be supported on shallow foundations
bearing on a zone of properly prepared and compacted soils placed as recommended in Section
5.1. The recommendations that follow are based on "very low" expansion category soils.
However, other sites within the development have yielded expansion index results that have been
classified as "medium" expansive. Therefore, we recommend foundations be.designed using the
medium expansion category or be re -sampled at the completion of grading'to verify the design
' expansion category.
' 5.4 Foundations
Footing design widths, depths, and reinforcing are the responsibility of the Structural Engineer.
Footings should be design for structural considerations and the geotechnical conditions described
in this report. A minimum footing depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade should be
maintained.
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:
' 1800 psf for dead plus design live loads.
• Isolated pad foundations, 2 x 2 foot minimum in plan and 18 inches below grade:
2400 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 foot of footing depth may be used. The maximum allowable bearing pressure should
limited to 3000 psf. The allowable bearing values indicated have been determined based upon
' the anticipated maximum loads indicated in Section 1.1 of this report. If the indicated loading is
exceeded then the geotechnical engineer must reevaluate the allowable bearing values and the
grading requirements.
Minimum reinforcement for continuous wall footings should be two, No. 4 steel reinforcing
bars, split between the top and the bottom of the footing. This reinforcing is not intended to
' supersede any structural requirements provided by the structural engineer.
Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer during excavation and
prior .to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Local variations in conditions may require
deepening of footings.
1
' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
June 23, 1999 -14- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
' Expected Settlement: Estimated total static settlement, based on footings founded on firm soils as
recommended, should be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement between exterior and interior
bearing members should be less than %Z-inch.
Frictional and Lateral Coefficients: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on the base of
foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation stem walls. Lateral
capacity is based partially on the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations
and grade beams is properly compacted.
' An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used for dead load forces. An allowable
equivalent fluid pressure of 200 pcf may be included for resistance to lateral loading. These
values include a factor of safety of 1.5. Passive resistance and frictional resistance may be
combined in determining the total lateral resistance. However, the friction factor should be
' reduced to 0.20 of dead load forces. A one-third (1/3) increase in the passive pressure may be
used when calculating resistance to wind or seismic loads.
5.5 Slabs -on -Grade
Subgrade: Concrete slabs -on -grade and flatwork should be supported by compacted soil placed
' in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report.
Vapor Barrier: In areas of moisture sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor barrier should
' be installed in order to minimize moisture transmission from the subgrade soil to the slab. We
recommend that an impermeable membrane (6-mil visqueen) underlie the floor slabs. The
membrane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to help protect it during construction and to
aide in concrete curing. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete.
Low -slump concrete should be used to help minimize shrinkage.
' Slab thickness and reinforcement: Slab thickness and reinforcement of slab -on -grade are
contingent upon the structural engineer's or architect's recommendations 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.
t Concrete slabs and flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. We suggest minimum
reinforcement for concrete slabs consist of a minimum of No. 3 rebars at 18-inch centers, both
horizontal directions, placed at slab mid -height to resist swell forces and cracking. Concrete
floor slabs may either be monolithically placed with the foundations or doweled after footing
placement. The thickness and reinforcing given are not intended to supersede any structural
requirements provided by the structural engineer. The project architect or geotechnical engineer
should continually observe all reinforcing steel in slabs during placement of concrete to check for
proper location within the slab.
' 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
I
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
' June 23, 1999
11
I
1
-15-
File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
the slabs should be tooled at the time of the pour or saw cut (1/4 of slab depth) within 8 hours of
concrete placement. Construction (cold) joints should either be thickened butt joints with one-
half inch dowels at 24-inches on center or a thickened keyed joint to resist vertical deflection at
the joint. All construction joints in exterior flatwork should be sealed to prevent moisture or
foreign material intrusion. Precautions should be taken to prevent curling of slabs in this and
desert region.
5.6 Retaining Walls
The following table presents lateral earth pressures for use in retaining wall design. The values
are given as equivalent fluid pressures without surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressure.
Lateral Pressures and Sliding Resistance (1)
Granular Backfill
Passive Pressure
300 pcf
Active Pressure (cantilever walls)
45 pcf
able to rotate 0.1% of structure height
At -Rest Pressure (restrained walls)
65 pcf
Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure (2)
acting at mid height of structure,
25H psf
where H is height of backfill in feet
Base Lateral Sliding Resistance
Dead load X Coefficient of Friction:
0.45
1. These values are ultimate values. A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used in stability analysis except
for dynamic earth pressure where a factor of safety of 1.2 is acceptable.
2. Dynamic pressures are based on the Mononobe-Okabe 1929 method, additive to active earth pressure.
Walls retaining less than 6 feet of soil need not consider this increased pressure.
Upward sloping backfill or surcharge loads from nearby footings can create larger lateral
pressures. Should any walls be considered for retaining sloped backfill or placed next to
foundations, our office should be contacted for recommended design parameters. Surcharge
loads should be considered if loads are applied within a zone from 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 two 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 per the Architect's specifications. Water
should not be allowed to pond near the top of the wall. To accomplish this, the final backfill
grade should be such that all water is diverted away from the retaining wall.
I
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
' June 23, 1999 -16- File No. 0722 1 -01
' 99-06-796
Backfill Compaction: Compaction on the retained side of the wall within a horizontal distance
equal to one wall height should be performed by hand -operated or other lightweight compaction
' equipment. This is intended to reduce potential "locked -in" lateral pressures caused by
compaction with heavy grading equipment.
' 5.7 Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete
Selected chemical analyses for corrosivity were conducted on samples at the project site. The
rnative soils were found to have low sulfate ion concentration (0.04%) and high chloride ion
concentrations (0.07%). 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.
' A minimum concrete cover of three (3) inches should be provided around steel reinforcing or
embedded components exposed to native soil or landscape water (to 18 inches above grade).
Additionally, the concrete should be thoroughly vibrated during placement.
Laboratory testing of the soil suggests that the site soils may present a very severe potential for
metal loss from electrochemical corrosion processes. Corrosion protection of steel [pipes] can be
' achieved by using epoxy corrosion inhibitors, asphalt coatings, cathodic protection, or
encapsulating with densely consolidated concrete. A qualified corrosion engineer should be
consulted regarding mitigation of the corrosive effects of site soils on metals.
' 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria
This site is subject to strong ground shaking due to potential fault movements along the San
Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. Engineered design and earthquake -resistant construction are the
' common solutions to increase safety and development of seismic areas. The minimum seismic
design should comply with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4
using the seismic coefficients given in Section 3.4.3 of this report. The 1997 UBC seismic
provisions are more stringent for sites lying close to major faults.
The UBC seismic coefficients are based on scientific knowledge, engineering judgment, and
' compromise. Factors that play an important role in dynamic structural performance are: (1)
effective peak acceleration (EPA), (2) duration and predominant frequency of strong ground
motion, (3) the period of the structure, (4) soil -structure interaction, (5) total resistance capacity
' of the system, (6) redundancies, (7) inelastic load -deformation behavior, and (8) the modification
of damping and effective period as structures behave inelastically. Factors 5 to 8 are accounted
by the structural ductility factor (R) used in deriving a reduced value for design base shear. If
' further information on seismic design is needed, a site -specific probabilistic seismic analysis
should be conducted.
rThe intent of the UBC lateral force requirements is to provide a structural design that will resist
collapse to provide reasonable life safety from a major earthquake but may experience some
' structural and nonstructural damage. A fundamental tenet of seismic design is that inelastic
yielding is allowed to adapt to the seismic demand on the structure. In other words, damage is
' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
June 23, 1999 -17- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
allowed. The UBC lateral force requirements should be considered as a minimum design criteria.
The owner and the designer should evaluate the level of risk and performance that is acceptable.
Performance based criteria could be set in the design. The design engineer has the responsibility
to interpret and adapt the principles of seismic behavior and design to each structure using
experience and sound judgment. The design engineer should exercise special care so that all
components of the design are all fully met with attention to providing a continuous load path.
An adequate quality assurance and control program is urged during project construction to verify
that the design plans and good construction practices are followed. This.is especially important
for sites lying close to the major seismic sources.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
11
0
June 23, 1999
Section 6
LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations
File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
' Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field
exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, our
' findings and recommendations are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary
significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. Variations in soil or
groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and
extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or
groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our
recommendations.
Findings of this report are valid as of the issued date of the report. However, changes in
conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they are from natural processes
or works of man on this or adjoining properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate
standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly;
findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control.
' Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one
year.
tIn the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the building are planned, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless
' the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing.
This report is issued with the understanding that the owner, or his representative, has the
' responsibility that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the
attention of the architect and engineers for the project and are incorporated into the plans and
specifications for the project. The owner, or his representative, also has the responsibility to take
' the necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors carry out such
recommendations in the field. It is further understood that the owner or his representative is
responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies.
' As the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project, ESCSW has striven to provide our
services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality
' at this time. No warranty or guarantee is express or implied. This report was prepared for the
exclusive use of the Client and their authorized agents
' ESCSW should be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and
specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly
' interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If ESCSW is not accorded the
privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations.
I
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
' June 23, 1999 -19- File No. 07221-01
' 99-06-796
Although available through Earth Systems Consultants Southwest, the current scope of our
services does not include an environmental assessment; or investigation for the presence or
absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air
on, below, or adjacent to the subject property. Prior to purchase or development of this site, we
suggest that an environmental assessment be conducted which addresses environmental
' concerns.
6.2 Additional Services
' This -re ort 'is based. on the assumption that an adequate program of client consultation,
' construction monitoring, and testing will be performed during the final design and construction
phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining ESCSW as the
geotechnical consultant from beginning to end of the project will provide continuity of services.
' The geotechnical engineering firm providing tests and observations shall assume the
responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
' Construction monitoring and testing would be additional services provided by our firm. The
costs of these services are not included in our present fee arrangements, but can be obtained from
our office. The recommended review, tests, and observations include, but are not necessarily
' limited to the following:
• Consultation during the final design stages of the project.
' Review of the buildin • g plans to observe that recommendations of our report have been
properly implemented into the design.
• Observation and testing during site preparation, grading and placement of engineered fill
' as required by UBC Sections 1701 and 3317 or local grading ordinances.
• Consultation as required during construction
' -000-
' . Appendices as cited are attached and complete this report
I
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
' June 23 1999 -20- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
REFERENCES
Blake, B.F., 1998a, FRISKSP v. 3.01b, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of
Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources,
User's Manual, 191 p.
' Blake B.F. 1998b Preliminary Fault -Data for E FAULT and FRISKSP 71 p.
' Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1993, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak
Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report; U.S.
' Geological Survey Open -File Report 93-509, 15 p.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1994, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak
' Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report, Part 2,;
U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 94-127.
' California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology: Guidelines for
Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117,
WWW Version.
Campbell, K.W., 1990, Empirical Prediction of Near -Source Soil and Soft -Rock Ground Motion for
the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site, San Luis Obispo County, California; Consultant Report
Prepared by Dames & Moore for the Texas Low -Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Authority, Dated September 1990, 110 p.
Envicom, Riverside County, 1976, Seismic Safety Element.
Ellsworth, W.L., 1990, 'Earthquake History, 1769-1989" in: The San Andreas Fault System,
California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p.
Hart, E.W. 1994 rev., Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42, 34 p.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition.
Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000.
Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1994, Prediction of Ground Motion in North America, in
Proceedings of ATC-35 Seminar on New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion
Estimation and Implications for Engineering Design Practice, Applied Technology
Council, 1994.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
1
11
June 23, 1999 -21- File No. 07221-01
99-06-796
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D.,
Leinkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwarz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open -
File Report 96-08, 59 p.
Pyke, R., Seed, H.B., and Chan, C. K. (1975). Settlement of Sands Under Multidirectional
Shaking, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 101, No. 4, April, 1975.
Riverside County (1984), Seismic Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan, Amended
Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California - Santa Ana Sheet; California Division of Mines
and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes.
Seed, H.B., and Silver, M.L. (1972). Settlement of Dry Sands During Earthquakes, ASCE,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 98, No. 4, April, 1972.
Sieh, K., Stuiver, M., and Brillinger, D., 1989, A More Precise Chronology of Earthquakes
Produced by the San Andreas Fault in Southern California: Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 94, No. B1, January 10, 1989, pp. 603-623.
Seih, Kerry, 1985, "Earthquake Potentials Along The San Andreas Fault", Minutes of The
National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, March 29-30, 1985, USGS Open
File Report 85-507.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 1996, Recommended Lateral Force
Requirements and Commentary.
Tokimatsu, K, and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due To Earthquake
Shaking, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, August, 1987.
Van de Kamp, P.C., 1973, "Holocene Continental Sedimentation in the Salton Basin, California:
A Reconnaissance", Geological Society of America, Vol 84, March 1973.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern
California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 379-439.
Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1515, 283 p.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
APPENDIX A
Location Map
Boring Location Map
Table 1 Fault Parameters
Logs of Borings
Is
Reference: La Quinta 7.5 min. USGS Quadrangle (photorevised 1980)
Figure 1 - Site Location
Project Name: Lot 43, The Enclave
Project No.: 07221-01
N Scale: 1" = 2,000' Nil Earth Systems Consultants
0 2,000 4,000 IMSF Southwest
LEGEND
Approximate Boring Location
NTS
T�,roc•��
B-3
Figure 2- Boring Locations
Project Name: Lot 43, The Enclave
Project No.: 07221-01
Earth systems Consultants
�R Southwest
Lot 43, The Enclave Project No: 07221-01
Table 1
Fault Parameters
2 nnfm w.tiw Cefimnfne of RA... 0-1, r:mnnA Ar 1-flnn ior_Al
Distance I UBC I I Maximum IGeologlci Average I Date of I Largest I Est. mean
Fault Name or (mi) & Fault Fault Magnitude Slip Return Last Historic Site
Seismic Zone Direction Type Length Mmax Rate (SR Period Rupture Event PGA
from Site km Mw m rs ear >5.5M year
Reference Notes: 1 2 1 4 3 3 3 5 6
San Andreas Fault System
- Banning
7.6 NE
A
98
7.4
10
220
c. 1690
6.2 1986
0.38
- Coachella Valley
7.7 NE
A
95
7.4
25
220
c. 1690
6.5 1948
0.38
- San Bernardino Mtn
18 NNW
A
107
7.3
24
433
0.20
- Whole S. Calif. Zone
7.7 NE
.345
7.9
---
---
1857
7.8 1857
0.45
San Jacinto Fault System
- Hot Spgs-Buck Ridge
15 SSW
C
70
6.5
2
354
6.3 1937
0.14
- Anza Segment
18 SSW
A
90
7.2
12
250
1918 .
6.8 1918
0.19
- Coyote Creek
20 SW
B
40
6.8
4
175
1968
6.5 1968
0.13
- San Jacinto Valley
35 W
B
42
6.9
12
83
6.8 1899
0.08
- Borrego Mtn
35 SSE
B
29
6.6
4
175
6.5 1942
! 0.07
- Elmore Ranch
50 SE
B
29
6.6
1
225
1987
5.9 1987
0.05
- Superstition Mtn.
53 SSE
B
23
6.6
5
500
c. 1440
0.04
- Superstition Hills
54 SE
B
22
6.6
4
250
1987
6.5 1987
0.04
- San Bernardino Seg.
57 WN
B
35
6.7
12
100
6.0 1923
0.04
- Whole Zone
18 SW
245
7.5
---
---
' 0.22
Mojave Faults
!
Blue Cut
15 NNE
B
30
6.8
1
760
0.17
Burnt Mtn
18 NNW
B
20
6.4
0.6
5,000
1992
7.3 1992
! 0.11
Eureka Peak
18 N
B
19
6.4
0.6
5,000
1992
6.1 1992
0.11
Morongo
28 NW
C
23
6.5
0.6
1,170
5.5 1947
0.08
Pinto Mountain
30 NNW
B
73
7.0
2.5
500
0.10
Landers
33 NNW
B
83
7.3
0.6
5,000
1992
7.3 1992
0.11
S. Emerson -Copper Mtn.
33 NNE
B
54
6.9
0.6
5,000
0.09
Bullion Mtn -Mesquite Lake
34 NE
B
88 .
7.0
0.6
5,000
0.09
N. Johnson Valley.
42 NNW
8
36
6.7
0.6
5,000
0.06, 1
N. Frontal Fault Zone (E)
44 NNW
8
27
6.7
0.5
1,730
0.06
Calico - Hidalgo
48 N
B
95
7.1
0.6
5,000
0.07
Lockhart -Old Wmn Spgs
49 NNW
B
149
7.3
0.6
5,000
0.07
N. Frontal Fault Zone (W)
52 NW
B
50
7.0
1
1,310
I
0.07
Helendale-S. Lockhart
56 NW
B
97
7.1
0.6
5,000
0.06
I Ludlow
57 NNE
B
23
7.0
0.6
5,000
I
0.05
Elsinore Fault System
1
I - Earthquake Valley
39 SSW
B
20
6.5
2
351
I
0.06
- Julian Segment
41 SW
A
75
7.1
5
340
0.08
- Temecula Segment
45 WSVY
B
42
6.8
5
240
0.06
- Coyote Segment
50 S
B
38
6.8
4
625
0.05
- Glen Ivy Segment
60 W
B
38
6.8
5
340
6.0 1910
0.04
Whole Zone
41 SW
250
7.5
---
---
0,10
Notes:
1. Jennings (1994) and CDMG (1996)
2. CDMG (1996), where Type A faults, Mmax > 7 and slip rate >5 mm/yr; Type C, Mmax<6.5, SR< 2mm/yr.
3. CDMG (1996) and WGCEP (1995)
4. CDMG (1996) based on Wells & Coppersmith (1994)
5. modified from Ellsworth Catalog (1990) in USGS Professional Paper 1515, Mw = moment magnitude,
6. The estimates of the mean Site PGA are based on the attenuation relationship of:
Weighted average of Campbell & Bozorgnia; Boore, Joyner & Fumal; and Sadigh (1994)
(mean plus sigma values are about 1.6 times higher)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
Earth Systems Consultants
�.i Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201
1>6— /7AA% 7"C I GOO CA v i-I<n, —
Boring No: B-1
Drilling Date: June 9, 1999
Project Name: Harris Residence,
Lot 43, The Enclave
Drilling Method: 8-inch Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07221-01
Drill Type: CME 45
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Karl Hewes
Sample
^
Type
Penetration
N
E b\
Description of Units Page 1 of 1
L
Resistance
E
c
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
U
o
(Blows/6")
a
A .,
o
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
O
A
0
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
aft
-5
- 10
- 15
- 20
- 25
- 30
. 35
- 40
SC
CLAYEY SAND: (FILL); Dark brown; dense; moist;
fine grained, low plasticity, with mica and clay
6,14,22
108.8
12.7
lumps, trace gravel
6,18,27
113.6
15.2
- Some wood debris and aluminum soda can in sample
SC
CLAYEY SAND: Dark gray; dense; moist; very fine
grained; low plasticity; with mica and clay lumps,
i
trace gravel, some roots at 13 feet.
14,20,25
115.7
14.1
I
I
I
I
CL
SILTY CLAY: Olive brown; stiff; moist; with fine
grained sand; medium to high plasticity; with some
j
6,9,12
91.2
12.4
roots.
i
SM
SILTY SAND: Gray brown; medium dense, moist to
wet; fine grained, with frequent clay layers
6,8,12
89.4
22.3
I
i
SP
SAND: Gray brown; medium dense, moist; fine
grained, with silt and clay layers, some roots.
I
8,11,15
97.3
2.8
• I
�
Total Depth: 26.5 feet
i
No groundwater or bedrock encountered.
I
-
i
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
i
l
1
0
Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-7315
Boring No: B-2
Drilling Date: June 9, 1999
Project Name: Harris Residence,
Lot 43, The Enclave
Drilling Method: 8-inch Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07221-01
Drill Type: CME 45
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Karl Hewes
^
Sample
Type
Penetration
Description of Units Page 1 of 1
v
s
-
`a
Resistance
o
E
v)
U
� a
A
y
h aEi
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
B.
,� v
o
(Blows/6")
>,
.,
o
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
ra
m'
i
A
U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
-------------
0
SC
CLAYEY SAND: (FILL); Gray brown to dark brown;
1
dense; moist; fine grained, low plasticity, with mica
7,t5,22
113.3
11.7
and clay lumps, trace gravel, with miscellanous
1
I
I
construction debris (concrete and asphalt).
•
I
5
7,16,22
108.8
15.6
i
I
1
•
I i
I
SC
CLAYEY SAND: Dark m
gray; medium dense; moist;
6,15,16
101.1
13.8
very fine grained.
1
10
1
6,16,21
CL
93.8
26.3
SILTY CLAY: Olive brown; very stiff, wet; with fine
sand; to high
I
'
-rained medium plasticity; with some
roots.
1
15
Total Depth: 13.5 feet
No groundwater or bedrock encountered.
1
1
L 20
I
1
`
I
25
I
1
!
I
1
30
1
1
35
1
�
'
I
i
1
40
0Earth S,
Southwest
s Consultants
79-81 lB Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Boring No: B-3
Drilling Date: June 9, 1999
Project Name: Harris Residence,
Lot 43, The Enclave
Drilling Method: 8-inch Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07221-01
Drill Type: CME 45
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Karl Hewes
^
Sample
Type
Penetration
a�
Description of Units Page 1 of 1
L
Resistance
o
E
U
V
0
c
v
8 "
0
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
P
a
v
>
A
,�
o e
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
A
co(Blows/6")
A
U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
-5
-10
- 15
- 20
- 25
- 30
aim
- 40
SP
SAND: (FILL); Gray brown; medium dense; dampt;
11,13,14
107.1
2.0
fine grained, trace gravel.
SC
•
•
CLAYEY SAND: (FILL); Brown; dense; moist fine
8114.23
113.0
14.4
grained, low plasticity, with mica.
10,19,26
113.5
12.5
�
CL
SANDY CLAY: (FILL); Brown; medium dense;
I
moist; with fine grained sand, asphalt at 7 feet.
I
•
SC
12,16,20
105.8
16.8
i
CLAYEY SAND: Dark gray; medium dense; moist;
I •
•
fine grained; low plasticity.
I
J
8,14,15
97.4
12.1
I '
CL
SILTY CLAY: Olive brown; very stiff; wet; with fine
grained sand; medium plasticity; with some roots.
l ;
5,8,11
92.7
17.6
1
i
1
I
Total Depth: 13.5 feet
� (
I
�
No groundwater or bedrock encountered.
i
�
I
lI
I
1
i�
i
I
l
J
I
l
i
I
I
'I
1
I
AEarth Systems Consultants
Southw(3st 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-7315
Boring No: B-4
Drilling Date: June 9, 1999
Project Name: Harris Residence,
Lot 43, The Enclave
Drilling Method: 8-inch Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07221-01
Drill Type: CME 45
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Karl Hewes
^
Sample
Type
Penetration
„
Pa e 1 of 1
Description of Units0 g
s
Resistance
En
A a
2.
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
a
v
o
(Blows/6")
�,
o
2
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
be
A
A
U
and the transition may gradational. Blow Count Dry Density .
i
- 20
- 25
- 30
- 35
- 40
Sc
CLAYEY SAND: (FILL); Dark brown; medium
dense; fine grained, non to low plasticity, with mica
and clay, trace gravel.
SC
CLAYEY SAND: Brown to dark gray; dense; moist;
10,15,25
115.3
11.2
very fine grained, trace gravel.
I
I
10,19,30
118.1
12.9
i
I
113,17,25
92.8
27.1
l
/ !
/
CL
SII,T'Y CLAY: Olive brown; very stiff; wet; with fine
grained sand; medium plasticity; with some roots.
I
Total Depth: 12.5 feet
i
j
-
No groundwater or bedrock encountered.
i
I
t
t
i
i
i
I
II
,I
II
I
i
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
07221-01
Jun 16, 1999
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422
Job Name: Lot 43, The Enclave
Sample ID: B-1 @ 0 to 5 feet
3escription: Clayey Sand (SC)
100
90
80
70
60
.y
50
c
U
a 40
30
20
10
0
Sieve Percent
Size Passing
1-1/2"
100
1"
100
3/4"
100
1/2"
100
3/8"
100
#4
100
#8
98
#16
96
#30
93
#50
81
#100
65
#200
43
% Gravel:
0
% Sand:
56
% Silt:
33
% Clay (3 micron):
11
(Clay content by short hydrometer method)
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size ( mm)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
07221-01
Jun 16, 1999
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422
Job Name: Lot 43, The Enclave
Sample ID: B-3 @ 5 feet
3escription: Sandy Clay (CL)
100
90
80
70
60
.y
50
C
d
I.V.
w 40
30
20
10
0
Sieve Percent
Size Passing
1-1/2"
100
1"
100
3/4"
100
1/2"
100
3/8"
100
#4
96
#8
95
#16
93
#30
92
#50
89
#100
84
#200
69
% Gravel: 4
% Sand: 27
% Silt: 50
% Clay (2 micron): 19
(Clay content by short hydrometer method)
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size ( mm)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
07221-01
MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURFAsTM D 1557-91(Modified)
Job Name: Lot 43, The Enclave Procedure Used: B
Sample ID: B-1 @ 0-5 feet Prep. Method: Moist
Location: Native Rammer Type: Mechanical
Description: Light Olive Brown Clayey Sand (SC)
Sieve Size % Retained
.Maximum Density: 125 pcf 3/4" 1.1
Optimum Moisture: 10 % 3/8" 1.1
#4 2.2
140
135
130
125
110
105
100 +
__ 0
5 10 15
Moisture Content, percent
20 25
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
07221-01 Jun. 16, 1999
PLASTICITY INDEX ASTM D-2418
Job Name: Lot 43, The Enclave
Sample ID: B-2 @ 2 feet
Soil Description: Clayey Sand (SC)
DATA SUMMARY
TEST RESULTS
Number of Blows: 25
33 18 LIQUID LIMIT 27
Water Content, % 26.8
26.1 28.2 PLASTIC LIMIT 17
Plastic Limit: 17.5
17.5 PLASTICITY INDEX 10
70
60
50
a�
40
.r
•r
30
a" 20
10
0
Plasticity Chart
CH
CL
AM
ML
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
07221-01
Jun. 16, 1999
CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333
Lot 43, The Enclave
B 1 @ 15 feet
Silty Clay with Silty Sand (CL/SM)
Ring Sample
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
x
c -4
ao
�a
-5
s
U
-6
w
V
L.
c% -7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
Initial Dry Density:
97.9 pcf
Initial Moisture, %:
12.4%
Specific Gravity:
2.67 (assum
Initial Void Ratio:
0.702
Hydrocollapse: 0.3% @ 2.0 ksf .
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
--�—Before Saturation —Hydrocollapse
■ After Saturation —*—Rebound
- 0.1 1.0
Vertical Effective Stress, ksf
10.0
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
SOIL & PLANT LABORATORY
SOIL ANALYSIS
and CONSULTANTS, Inc`:.
79-607 Country Clubt'brive
for:
Earth Systems Consultants Southwest
Suite; 7
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
report date:
6-21-99
760-772-7995 ;;r
+r•
inv./lab#:
201
c
z.
meq/L ppm mg/Kg
Ohms -cm
ppm
------------
No. is Description.y Sat.
---------------
pH Res NO3N
PO4P K Ca +
Mg Na Cl SO4
�. _.
07221-01 lot 43 Enclave
B#1 @ 0-5'
8.5 205
780 413
J
• �fw
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
1
� �,
d .
,. .. �r-......�,+r,.. ytl'L.t^{`...,.ti..r%In�7.:}�ti.��r��„1�'�'+:•+\:-��sb"i�?w��}-'f'ir;,r�<\'.•it'�•�=".C'�r4a-pr���',1"',a �.t?.•' �. �" ,rY:. �.y . r•r..;,�, * � - . .... .. r L ..�+-.r
r
4 XP 0�w
F•
DEMAND /- CHECK REQUEST
y OF
Return check to requestor X Mail check
Name / Title of person requesting check
M4 MA P--r I KI e Z. 61 �,TA J1r �hj,& I
Department individual is associated with: MAY 0 7 Z002
LI �
a Cl i Y OF L 4 QUINTA
6 FI,Wt1Im nco-r
1
w
Check payable to:
00
�7/�; �`�� Amount: $ �o
/lf "
(Name) //,��,, 22 2 (Vendor No.)
t!/�wJ //JL //%�� C /� Account Number:
(Address)
Project Number:�/%T fG//w/l 35 5��
Check description and invoice number'
"Our
Signature:
(Depart�rnent Head) -
(Date)
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
(Finance Department•Use Only)
BY:—P(k
BY:
ACCOUNT NO.
DESCRIPTION
I