The URL can be used to link to this page

TR 31910 Capistrano (Code Update)1. P.O. BOX 1504 APPLICATION ONLY Building78-495 CALLE TAMPICO Address 7 % 44 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Owner s /— / 4f //_` /'.. BUILDING: TYPE CONST. / OCC. GRP. Mailing Address'? $,-,j f /�, /// / U/ is= A.P. Number y Q/ 0 Q Q �, Q o S d f CZi TLegal Description- el. �( it '' vr Flo'( a 77z 1P.?• C�C or Project Description �� f �rl f o-^ v Address c� _21ys.,o" C A pe-DA L I-tv0 CityZi Tel. �;1��so CoJ7c UPDA T6- State Lic. City Sq. Ft. No. No. Dw. & Classif. �7 � 3 / d Lic. # S S Size Stories Units Arch., Engr., New Add ❑ Alter ❑ Repair ❑ Demolition ❑ Designer Address Tel. City Zip State �/�✓/w/; rA ( Q l Lic. # Y�1i LICENSED CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is.in full force and effect. SIGNATURE DATE OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION Estimated Valuation I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: (Sec. 7031.5, Business and Professions Code: Any city or county which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its issuance also PERMIT AMOUNT requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law, Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis Plan Chk. Dep. for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500). Plan Chk. Bal. 1:11, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work, and the structure is not intended or offered for sale. (Sec. 7044, Business and Profes- Const. cions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided Mech. that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or im- provement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of Electrical proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). 0 I, as owner of theroe Plumbing the project. (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does S.M.I. not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who contracts for such projects with a contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law.) Grading 0 1 am exempt under Sec. B. & P.C. for this reason Driveway Enc. Date owner Infrastructure WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I have a certificate of consent to self-insure, or a certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance, or a certified copy thereof. (Sec. 3800, Labor Code.) Policy No. Company ❑ Copy is filed with the city. O Certified copy is hereby furnished. CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM TOTAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE . (This section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars (5100) valuation REMARKS or less). I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to Workers' Compensation Laws of California. Date Owner NOTICE TO APPLICANT. If, after making this Certificate of Exemption you should become subject to the Workers' Compensation Provisions of the Labor Code, you must forthwith comply with such provisions or this permit shall be deemed revoked. ZONE: BY: Minimum Setback Distances: CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY Front Setback from Center Line I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work Rear Setback from Rear Prop.Line for which this permit is issued. (Sec. 3097, Civil Code.) Lenders Name Side Street Setback from Center Line Lender's Address This is a building permit when properly filled out, signed and validated, and is subject to Side Setback from Property Line expiration if work thereunder is suspended for 180 days. I certify that I have read this application and state that the above information is correct. FINAL DATE INSPECTOR I agree to comply with all city and county ordinances and state laws relating to building construction, and hereby authorize representatives of this city to enter the above-mentioned property for inspection purposes. Issued by: Date Permit Signature of applicant Date Mailing Address Validated by: City, State, Zip Validation: WHITE = BUILDING DEPARTMENT YELLOW = APPLICANT PINK = FINANCE u P.O. BOX 1504 BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT 78-495 CALLS TAMPICO 0(760) 777-7012 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7011 To: Greg Butler, Building & Safety Manager To CDD: February 23, 2006 From: Doug Evans, Director -CDD Due Date:. March 03, 2006 Status: 1 st° Review Building Plans Approval (This is an approval to issue a Building Permit) The Community Development Department has reviewed the Building Plans for the following project: Description: Address or General Location°: Applicant Contact: Capistrano SFDX5 Code Update 57-161 Monroe St. OS John Pedalino (760)578-6915 The Community Development Department finds that: 0 ...these ' Building Plans do not require Community Development Department approval. ❑ • ...these Building Plans are approved by the Community Development Department. ....these Building Plans require corrections. Please forward a copy of the attached corrections to the applicant. When the corrections are made please return them to the Community Development Department for review. ° Doug Evans, Director -CDD Date - �;itil N4.7 -R ';A 4 V�: i. A �'_�j TIMBER PRODUCTS INSPECTION, INC. dba GENERAL TESTING AND INSPECTION AGENCY 105 SE 124' AVENUE VANCOUVER, WA 96684 Ij We are an inspection agency recognized by the International Conferenc of Building officials. Council of American Building Officials NER — QA275J L".4;A Z' 90110 VA S WATI I I'Ll r; iV. K 71L 11 �21 THERMAL, CA 92274 is under our Audited Quality Control Program and has been since: AINE 1990 We audit the production Quarterly under the Uniform Building Code Z' 90110 VA S WATI I I'Ll r; iV. K 71L 11 �21 Sladden Engineering 6782 Stanton Ave., Suite A, Buena Park, CA 90621. (714) 523-0952 Fax (714) 523-1369 39-725*Gararid Ln., Suite G, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772-3893 Fax (760) 772-3895 March 29, 2005 Desert Elite 78-401 Highway 111, Suite G La Quinta, California 92253 Attention: - Mr.johnPedalino Subject: Geotechnical Update Project: Tentative Tract No -.--31910 Monroe Street North of Avenue 58 La Quinta, California Project No. 544-3504 05-01-035 Ref: Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Sladden Engineering dated December 10,' 2003, Project No. 544-3504, Report No. 03-12-799. As requested, we have reviewed the above referenced Geotechnical Investigation report as it relates to the design and construction of the proposed residential development. The project site is located on the west side of Monroe Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 56 in the City of La Quinta, California. The referenced Geotechnical Investigation report includes recommendations for the design and construction of residential building foundations. Based upon our review of the referenced report and our recent site observations, it is our opinion that the recommendations included in the above referenced report remain applicable for the proposed residential development. Footings should extend at least 12 inches beneath lowest adjacent grade. Isolated square or rectangular footings at least 2 feet square may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 1500 pounds per square foot. Continuous footings at least 12 inches wide may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 1800 pounds per—square foot. Allowable increases of -200 psf for each additional 1 foot of width and 250 psf forf�a--g�,%�ad-7-di-ti-bo-n-a-: h- e a 5=�*- -of depth may be nn iTa7ol e utilized if desired. The maximum allowable bearing pressur 12\bi I A I � A ulfd) be V5 �,, 10 Qfl / ff F xelt bearing pressures are for dead and frequently applie live 4o1d?"JW6irRa,3Ae-: "' ' I/ to - 111Y DEPT. resist wind, seismic or other transient loading. AP P�� R-OVS P I �qD March 29, 2005 -2- Project No. 544-3504 05-01-035 The recommendations made in the preceding paragraph are based on the assumption that all footings will be supported by properly compacted soils. Prior to the -lacement of the reinforcing p 0 steel and concrete, we recommend that the footing excavations be inspected in order to verify, that they extend into the firm compacted soils and'are free of loose and disturbed materials. Settlements may result from the anticipated foundation loads. These estimated ultimate settlements are calculated to be a maximum of 1 ' inch when using the recommended bearing values. As a practical matter, differential settlements between footings can be assumed as one- half of the total settlement. These elastic settlements are expected to occur during construction. Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by a combination of friction acting at the base of the slabs or foundations and passive earth pressure along the sides of the foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.42 between soil and concrete may be used for dead load forces only. A passive earth pressure of 275 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, maybe used along the sides. of footings which are'poured against properly compacted native or approved import soils.. Retaining walls may be required to accomplish the proposed construction. Cantilever retaining walls 'May be designed using "active" pressures. Active pressures may be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of M pcf for native backfill soils with level free -draining backfill conditions. For walls that are restrained, "at rest" pressures should be utilized in design. At rest pressures may be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 55 pcf. Walls should be provided with adequate drainage. It is our opinion that the remedial grading recommended in the referenced Geotechnical Investigation report adequately address foundation support concerns. The remedial grading recommended at this time should include overexcavation of the surface soils within the proposed building areas. Any existing vegetation,- slabs, foundations, abandoned underground utilities or irrigation lines should be removed from the proposed building areas and the resulti * ng excavations should be properly backfilled. In order to provide for firm and uniform foundation support, we recommend overexcavation and recompaction throughout the building areas. The building areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet -below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. The exposed surface should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. The previously removed soils and fill material may then be placed in thin lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Sladden Engineering March 29, 2005 -3- No. 544-3504 05-01-035 It should be noted that the site is located within a seismically active area of Southern California and it is likely that the proposed structures will experience strong ground shaking as a result of an earthquake event along one of the faults in the region during the expected life of the development. As a minimum, structures should be designed based upon Seismic Zone 4 design criteria included in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The potential for liquefaction or other geologic/seismic hazards occurring at the site is considered to be negligible. We appreciate the opportunity to provide service . to you on this project, if you have any questions regarding this letter or the referenced reports please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, SLADDEN ENGINEERING ?geFEESS/ Brett L. Anderso' G) Principal Engineer UJ Nc). C 45389 7- 2 W E-xP. 9/30/06 M M SER/pc C/Vll- OFCALIFO Copies: 4/Desert Elite Sladden Engineering March 29, 2005 -4- Project No. 544-3504 05-01-035 4 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE INFORMATION The International Conference of Building Officials 1997 Uniform Building Code contains substantial revisions and additions' to the earthquake engineering section in Chapter 16. Concepts contained in the updated code that willbe relevant.to construction.of the prop osed structures are summarized below. Ground shaking is expected to be the primary h�zarcl most likely to affect the site,. based upon proximity to significant faults capable of generating large earthquakes. Major fault zones considered to be most likely to create strong ground shaking at the site are listed below. iault Zone Approximate Distance From Site Fault Type (1997 UBC) San Andreas 11.6 km A San Jacinto 29.4 km A Based on our field observations and understanding of local geologic conditions, the soil profile type judged applicable to this site is. SD, generally described as stiff or dense soil. The site is located within UBC Seismic Zone. 4. The following table presents additional coefficients and factors relevant to seismic mitigation for new construction upon adoption of the 1997 code. Near -Source Near -Source Seismic Seismic Seismic Acceleration Velocity Coefficient Coefficient Source Factor, N. Factor, N� Ca C� San Andreas '1.0 1.2 0.44 Na 0.64 N,, San J acinto 1.0 1.0 0.44 Na 0.64 N'� GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TENTATIVE TRACT 31910. 1 MONROE STREET NORTH OF AVENUE 58 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA -Prepared By- Sladden Engineenng �9-725 Garand Lane, Suite G Palm Desert, California 92211 (760) 772-3893 Sladden Engineering 6782 Stanton Ave., Suite A, Buena Park, CA 90621 (714) 523-0952 Fax (714) 523-1369 39-725*Garand Ln., Suite G, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772-3893 Fax (760) 772-3895 December 10, 2003 John Megay & Associates 78-661 Avenue 42, Suite B Bermuda Dunes, California 92201 Attention: Mr. John Megay Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Project: Tentative Tract No. 32910 Monroe Street north of Avenue 58 La Quinta, California Project No.. 544-3504 03-12-799 Presented herewith is the report of the Geotechnical Investigation performed on the subject site located on thewest side of Monroe Street approximately midway between Avenue. 58 and Avenue 56 in the City of La Quinta, California. The investigation was performed in order to provide recommendations for site preparation and to assist in foundation design for the proposed residential development and the related site improvements. This report presents the results of our field investigation and. laboratory testing along with conclusions and recommendations for foundation design and site preparation.. This report completes our original scope of services as outlined in our proposal dated October 29, 2003. We appreciate the opportunity to -provide service to you on this project. If you'have any questions regarding this report, please contact the undersigned Respectfully submitted, SLADDEN ENGINE Brett L. Anderson Principal Engineer SER/pc Copies: 6/John Megay & Associates GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TENTATIVE TRACT 31910 MONROE STREET NORTH OF AVENUE 58 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA December 10, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................ ;*"**"*'**'* ... -- .... *'***'********"*'**'*'*'**""', ................ :**********'** — 1 9COPEOF WORK: .................................................................................................................... I RROJECTDESCRIPTION ................................ ........................................... ......... 7 ....... 1 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ............................. I .................................................................... 2 SUBSURFACE. CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 2 LIQUEFACTION............................................................................... ** ... *'*"**"**' . ** ..................... 3 cbNCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 3 FoundationDesign ............................................................................................................... . 4 . Settlements.................................... 7 ...................... .................... 5 LateralDesign ......................................................................... ...... ........... 5 RetainingWalls ................................................................................................................... 5 ExpansiveSoils .................................................. ....................................................................... 5 ConcreteSlabs -on -Grade ..................................................................................................... 5 SolubleSulfates ..................................................................................................................... 5 Tentative Pavement Design .................................... .............................................................. 6 Shrinkage and Subsidence .................................... ........ 6 GeneralSite Grading .................. * .......................................................................................... 6 1. Site Clearing .................................................................... 6 2. Preparation of Building and Foundation Areas ...................................................... 6 3. Placement of Compacted Fill .................................................................................... 7 4. Preparation of Slab and Pavement Areas ............................................................... 7 5. Testing and Inspection .............................................................................................. 7 GENERAL.................................................................................................................................. - 8 REFERENCES................................... ; ........................................................................................ 8 APPENDIX A - Site Plan and Boring Logs Field Exploration APPENDIX B - Laboratory Testing - Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C - - 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria December 10, 2003 Project No. 544-3504 03-12-799 INTRODUCTION This yeport presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation, performed in order to provide recommendations for site preparation and to assist in the design and construction of the foundations for the proposed residential buildings. The subject site is located on the west side of ' Monroe Street... approximately midway between Avenue 58 and Avenue 56 inthe City of La Quinta, California. We expect that the proposed single-family residences will be of relatively lightweight wood -frame construction. The associated site improvements will include paved roadways, concrete driveways, walkways and patios, underground utilities, and landscape areas. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our investigation was to determine certain engineering characteristics of the near surface soils on the site in order to develop recommendations for foundation design and site preparation. Our investigation included field exploration, laboratory testing, literature - review, engineering analysis and the preparation of this report. Evaluation of hazardous materials or other -environmental 'concerns was not within the scope of services provided. Our investigation was performed in accordance with contemporary geotechnical engineering principles and practice. We' make -no other warranty, either express or implied. PROJECT -DESCRIPTION The subject site is located on the west side of Monroe Street approximately midway between Avenue. 58 and Avenue 56 in the City of La Quinta, California. It is our understanding that the proposed project will consist of a 132 lot residential subdivision. A tentative tract map'prepared by Warner Engineering was used for our investigation. It is our understanding that theyroposed residential buildings will be of relatively lightweight wood -frame construction and will. be supported by conve , ritional shallow spread footings and.concrete slabs on grade. The associated site improvements will'include paved roadways, concrete driveways, walkways and patios, landscape areas and various underground utilities. The niajority of the subject site is presently vacant and the ground surface is covered with scattered brush, short grass, weeds and debris. The property is presently being used for agricultural production with row crops. There is an existing farm house, sheds and farm equipment within the northeastern portion of the site. Monroe Street forms the eastern portion of the site. The. Palms Golf Club development forms the western and northern property boundaries and farm land exists along the southern property boundary. There is an existing. residence within the northeastern portion of the site that'is not a part of the project. Monroe Street Js paved adjacent to the site and underground and overhead utilities exist along the roadways and serve the nearby residences. There are underground irrigation lines along the perimeter of the property and possibly transecting the site. Based upon our previous experience with lightweight wood -frame structures, we expect that isolated column loads will be less than 20 kips and wall loading will be less than 2.0 kips per linear foot. Grading is expected to include minor cuts and fills to match the nearby elevations and to construct slightly elevated building pads to accommodate site drainage. This does not include removal and recompaction of the bearing soils within the building areas. If the anticipated foundation loading or site grading varies substantially from that assumed the recommendations included in this report should be reevaluated. Sladden Engineering December 10, 2003 -2- Project No. 544-3504 03-12-799 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY The project site is located within the central Coachella Valley that is part of the broader Salton Trough geomorphic province. The Salton Trough is a northwest trending depression that extends from the Gulf of California to the Banning Pass. Structurally the Salton Trough is dominated by several northwest trending faults, most notable of which is the San Andreas system. A relatively thick sequence of sedimentary rocks have been deposited in the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Trough from Miocene to present times. These sediments are predominately terrestrial in nature with some lacustrian and minor marine deposits. The mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley are composed primarily of Precambrian metamorphic and Mesozoic granitic rock. The Coachella Valley is situated in one of the more seismically active areas of California. The San Andreas fault zone is considered capable of generating a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 8.0 and due to its proximity to the project site (approximately 11.6 kilometers) should be considered the design fault for the project. Seismic activity along the nearby faults continues to affect the area and the Coachella Valley is considered one of the more seismically active regions in California. A computer program and pertinent geologic literature were utilized to compile data related to earthquake fault zones in the region and previous seismic activity that may have affected the site. E.Q. Fault Version 3.00 (Blake). provides a- compilation of data related to earthquake faults in the region. The program searches available databases and provides both distances to causitive faults and the corresponding accelerations thatmay be experienced on the site due to earthquake activity along these faults. The attenuation relationship utilized for this project was based upon Joyner & Boore (1987) attenuation curves. The information generated was utilized in our liquefaction evaluation - The site is not located in any Earthquake Fault zones as designated by the State but is mapped in the County's Liquefaction and Ground Shaking Hazard Zone V. Several significant seismic events have occurred within the Coachella Valley during the past 50 years. The events include Desert Hot Springs - 1948 (6.5 Magnitude), Palm Springs - 1986 (5.9 Magnitude), Desert Hot Springs - 1992 (6.1 Magnitude), Landers - 1992 (7.5 Magnitude) and Big Bear - 1992 (6.6 Magnitude). SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The soils underlying the site consist primarily of silty sands, sandy silts, clayey silts and silty clays. As is typical for the area, the silty sand, sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay layers are inconsistently interbedded and vary in thickness and stratigraphy. Silty sands were the most prominent soils within our exploratory borings but numerous prominent sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay layers were also observed within each of our borings. The native silty sands, sandy silts clayey silts and silty clays encountered near the existing ground surface appeared somewhat loose andlor soft. Sampler penetration resistance (as measured by field blowcounts) indicates that in-place density. generally increases with depth but several loose- or soft layers were observed. Relatively undisturbed samples indicated dry density varying from 82 to 117 pounds per cubic foot. The site soils were found to be moist near the surface but some of the deeper silt and clay layers were nearly saturated. Measured moisture content varied from 2 to 39 percent. Laboratory testing indicates that the surface soils within the upper 5 feet consist primarily of silty sands and sandy silts. Expansion testing indicates an expansion index of 32 for a mixture of the near surface silty sands and sandy silts that are classified as "low" expansion category soils in accordance with Table 18 -I -B of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Sladden Engineering December 10, 2003 .3- Project No. 544-3504 03-12-799 Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 30 feet below the existing ground surface within the area of our bormigs. The presence of shallow groundwater should not impact site grading but may deeper excavations such as underground utility installation. LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction occurs with sudden loss of soil s * trength due to rapid increases in pore pressures within cohesionless soils as a result of repeated cyclic loading during seismic events. Several conditions must be present for liquefaction to occur including; the presence of relatively shallow groundwater, generally loose soils conditions, the susceptibility of soils to 'liquefaction based upon grain -size characteristics and the generation of significant and repeated seismically induced ground accelerations. Liquefaction affects primarily loose, uniform grained cohesionless sands with low relative densities. In the case of this project site, several of the factors required for liquefaction to occu-r are.present. As previously indicated, groundwater was encountered at a depth of. approximately 30 feet below the existing ground surface on the site. Several relatively uniform grained sand and silty sand layers were encountered within our borings. The site is located near several active fault systems. Due to the ' presence of groundwater, the potential for liquefaction affecting the site was evaluated. Several silty sand layers encountered near and below the present groundwater surface appear susceptible to liquefaction based- upon grain -size characteristics. Liquefaction potential within these silty sand layers was evaluated using methods presented by H.B. Seed in 1985 and subsequently modified and presented within Special -Publication 117. The calculated safety factors are included in - Appendix A. Our analyses suggest that isolated silty sand layers encountered below the present groundwater table may be susceptible' to liquefaction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our field investigation and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the proposed future development of the subject site is feasible from a soil mechanic's standpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are considered in building foundation design and site preparation. Due to the somewhat loose and com pressible condition of the near surface soils and the potential for liquefaction, remedial grading is recommended for the building areas. We recommend that remedial grading within the proposed building areas include the overexcavation and recompaction of the primary foundation bearing soils. Specific recommendations for site preparation are presented in the Site Grading section of this report. Based upon the somewhat loose conditions of several isolated silty sand layers, our analyses indicate that the potential for liquefaction impacting the site during a major seismic event on the nearby San Andreas fault system is minimal. The potential seismically induced settlements were estimated using methods presented by Tokimatsu and. Seed and suggested within Special Publication 117. The seismic settlement estimates are presented on the liquefaction potential data sheets included within Appendix C. Our analyses indicate total liquefaction related settlements of up to 2 'inches when considering present groundwater levels and up to 4 inches when considering historic groundwater depths. The potential differential seismic settlements should be less than 1/2 of the total settlements. The remedial grading recommended for building areas will result in the construction of a uniform compacted soil mat beneath all structures that should further limit potential differential. settlements. Sladden Engineering December 10, 2003 -4- Project No. 544-3504 03-12-799 'Phe site is located in one of the more seismically active areas in California. Design professionals 3hould be aware of the site setting and the potential for earthquake activity during the anticipated life of the structures should be acknowledged. The accelerations that may be experienced on the site (as previously discussed) should be considered in design. T.he seismic provisions included in the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 should be considered the minimum design criteria. Pertinent 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria is summarized in Appendix C. Caving did occur within our boring and the potential for caving should be expected within deeper excavations. All excavations sho uld be constructed in accordance with the normal CalOSHA excavation criteria. On the basis of our observations of the materials encountered, we anticipate that the near surface sandy silts and silty sands will be classified by CalOSHA as Type B or C. Soil -conditions should be verified in the field by a "Competent person" employed by the Contractor. The near surface soils encountered during our investigation were found to be moderately expansive. Laboratory testing indicated an Expansion Index of 32 for the near surface sandy silts and 0 for the near surface silty sands that correspond with the "low" and "very low" expansion categories, respectively in accordance with UBC Table 18 -I -B. The following recommendations present more detailed design criteria that have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory investigation. The recommendations are based upon non - expansive soils criteria. Foundation Design: The results of our investigation indicate that either conventional shallow continuous footings or isolated pad footings that are supported upon properly compacted soils may be expected to provide adequate support for the proposed structure foundations. , Building pad grading should be performed'as described in the Site Grading Section of this report to provide for uniform and firm bearing conditions for the structure foundations. Footings should extend at least 12 inches beneath lowest adjacent grade. Isolated square or rectangular footings should be at least 2 feet square and ' continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide. Continuous footings may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot (psf) and isolated.pad footings may be'designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 1800 psf. Allowable increases may be realized with increased footing size. Allowable increases of 200 psf for each additional 1 foot of width and 250 psf for each additional 6 inche's of. depth. The maximum allowable bearing pressure should be 2500 psf. The allowable bearing pressures are applicable to dead and frequently applied Eve loads. The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by 1/3 to resist wind and seismic loading. Care should be taken to see that bearing or subgrade soils are not allowed to become saturated from the ponding of rainwater or irrigation, . Drainage from the building area should be rapid and complete. The recommendations provided in the preceding paragraphs are based on the assumption. that all footings will be supported upon properly compacted engineered fill soils. All grading should be performed under the testing and inspection. of the Soils Engineer or his representative. Prior to the *placement of concrete, we recommend that the footing excavations be inspected in order to verify that they extend into compacted soil and are free. of loose and disturbed materials. Sladden Engineering December 10, 2003 -5- Project No. 544-3504 03-12-799 Settlements: Settlements resulting from the anticipated foundation loads should be minimal provided that the recommendations included in this report are considered in foundation design and construction. The estimated ultimate settlements are calculated to be approximately one inch when using the recommended bearing values. As a practical matter, differential settlements between footings can be assumed as one-half of the total settlement. The potential liquefaction related settlements should also be considered in foundation design. Lateral Design: Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by a combination of friction acting at the base of the slabs or foundations and passive earth pressure along the sides of the foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.42 between soil and concrete may be used with consideration to dead load forces only. A passive earth pressure of 275 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, may be used for the sides of footings that are poured against properly compacted native or approved non -expansive import soils. Passive earth pressure should be ignored within the upper 1 foot except where confined (such as beneath a floor. slab). Retaining Walls: Retaining walls may be necessary to accomplish the proposed construction. Lateral pressures for use in retaining wall design can be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 35 pcf for level free -draining native backfill conditions. For walls that are to be restrained at the top, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to 55 pcf for level free - draining native backfill conditions. Backdrains should be provided for the full height of the walls. Expansive Soils: Due to the presence of"very low" and "low" expansion category soils near the surface, the expansion potential of the foundation bearing soils should be considered in foundation or floor slab design. Because the recommended remedial grading will result in substantial removal and mixing of the surface soils, the potentially expansive silts will be mixed with non -expansive silty sands resulting in an overall reduction in expansion potential. Expansion potential should be reevaluated subsequent to rough grading and foundation and floor slab design should be based upon post -grading test results. Concrete Slabs -on -Grade: All surfaces to receive concrete slab -s -on -grade should be underlain by a minimum compacted non -expansive fill thickness of 24 inches, placed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. Where slabs are to receive. moisture sensitive floor coverings or where dampness of the floor slab is not desired, we recommend the use of an appropriate vapor barrier or an adequate capillary break. Vapor barriers should be protected by sand in order to reduce the possibility of puncture and to aid in obtaining uniform concrete curing. Reinforcement of slabs -on -grade in order to resist expansive soil pressures may not be necessary. However, reinforcement will have a beneficial effect in containing cracking due to concrete shrinkage. Temperature and shrinkage related cracking should be anticipated in all concrete slabs -on -grade. Slab reinforcement and the spacing of control joints should be' determined by the Structural Engineer. Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate concentrations of the near surface soils were determined to be. 527 and 2143 parts per million (ppm) which is considered potentially corrosive with respect to 'concrete. The use of Type V cement and specialized sulfate resistant concrete mix designs may be necessary. Soluble sulfate content of the near surface soils should be reevaluated after rough grading. Madden- Engineering December 10, 2003 .6- Project No. 544-3504 03-12-799 Tentative Pavement Design: All paving should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of 12 inches (excluding aggregate base). This may be performed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. R -Value testing was not conducted during our investigation but based upon the silty nature of the surface soils, an R -Value of approximately 50 appears appropriate for preliminary onsite pavement design. The following preliminary pavement section is based upon a design R -Value of 50. On-site roadways subjected to auto and light truck traffic (Traffic Index = 5.0) Use 3.0inches of asphalt on 4.5 inches of Class 2 base material Aggregate base should conform to the requirements for Class 2 aggregate base in Section 26 of CalTrans Standard Specifications, January 1992. Asphaltic concrete should conform to Section 39 of the CalTrans Standard Specifications. The recommended pavement sections should be provided with uniformly compacted subgrade and precise control of. thickness and elevations during placement. Pavement design sections are tentative and should be confirmed at.the completion of site grading when the subgrade soils are in-place. This should include sampling and testing of the actual subgrade soils and an analysis based upon the specific traffic information Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and. replaced as controlled compacted fill should be anticipated. We estimate that this shrinkage should vary from 15 to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted should be between 0.1 and 0.3 tenths.of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained. These values for shrinkage and s ' ubsidence are exclusive of losses that will occur due to the stripping of the organic material from the site. General Site Grading: All grading should be performed in accordance'with the grading ordinance of the City of La Quinta, California. The following recommendations have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory testing and are intended to provide -a uniform compacted mat of soil beneath the building slabs and foundations. 1. Site Clearing: Proper site clearing will be very important. Any existing vegetation,. slabs, foundations, abandoned underground utilities or irrigation lines should be removed from the proposed building areas.and the resulting excavations should be properly backfilled. Soils that are disturbed during site clearing should be removed and replaced as controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soils Engineer. Preparation of Building and Foundation Areas: In order to provide adequate and uniform bearing conditions, we recommend overexcavation throughout the proposed building areas. The building areas should.be overexcavated to a: depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. The exposed soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. ' ' The excavated material may then be replaced as engineered fill material as recommended below. The inte nt is to have all building foundations supported by at least 4 feet of uniformly compacted soils to help span potential liquefaction related differential settlements. Sladden Engineering December 10, 2003 -7- Project No. 544-3504 03-12-799 3. Placement of Compacted Fill: Within the building pad areas, fill materials should be spread in thin lifts, and compacted at near optimum moisture content to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Imported fill material shall have an Expansion Index not exceeding 20. Because the deeper soils may be wet when excavated, some drying or stabilization should be expected. The wet soils removed during excavation should be dried back to near optimum moisture content or mixed with dry soils prior to placement as engineered fill material. The bottom of the excavations should be stable and unyielding prior to fill placement. The contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 48 hours in advance of importing soils in order to provide sufficient time for the evaluation of proposed import materials. The contractor shall be responsible for delivering material to the site that complies with the project specifications. Approval by the Soils Engineer will be based upon material delivered to the site and not . the preliminary evaluation of import sources. Our observations of the materials encountered during our investigation indicate. that compaction within the native soils will be most readily obtained by means of heavy rubber tired equipment and/or sheepsfoot compactors. A uniform and near optimum moisture content should be maintained during fill placement and compaction. - 4. Preparation of Slab and.Paving Areas: All surfaces to receive asphalt concrete paving or exterior concrete . slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness o ' f 12 inches. This may be accomplished by a combination of overexcavation', scarification and recompaction. of the surface, and replacement of the excavat6d material as controlled compacted fill. 'Compaction of the slab and pavement areas should -be to a minimum of 90 percent relative com' . paction. 5. Testing and Inspection: During grading tests and obs ' erv*ations should be performed by the Soils Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the grading is being 1 performed,in accordance with the project specifications. Field density testing shall be performed in accordance with applicable ASTM test standards. The minim ' um acceptable degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D1557-91 test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied until retesting. indicates satisfactory compaction. Sladden Engineering December 10, 2003 -8- Project No. 544-3504 03-12-799 GENERAL The findings and -recommendations presented in this report are -based upon an interpolation of the soil conditions between boring locations and extrapolation of these conditions throughout the proposed building area. Should conditions encountered during grading appear different than those indicated in this report, this office should be notified. This report is considered to be applicable for use by John Megay & Associates for the specific site and project -described herein. The use of this report by other parties or for o,ther projects is not authorized. The recommendations of this report are contingent upon monitoring of the grading operations by a representative of Sladden Engineering. AE recommendations are considered to'be tentative pending our review of the grading operations and additional testing; if indicated. If others are employed to perform any soil testing, this office should be notified prior to such testing in order ,to coordinate any required site visits by our representative and to assure indemnification of Sladden Engineering. We recommend. that a pre -job conference be held on the site prior to the' initiation of site grading. The purpose of this meeting will be to assure a con�plete understanding of'the recommendations presented in this report as they apply to the actual grading performed. Sladden Engineering., December 10, 2003 .9- Project No. 544-3504 03-12-799 REFERENCES'. ASCE Journal of Gebtechnical Engineering Division, April 1974. Boore, Joyner and Fumal (1994) Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Accelerations from Nortb American Earthquakes, U. S. Geological Survey, Open File Reports 947127 and 93-509. Finn, W.'E. Liam, (1996) Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential for Different Eartbquake Magnitudes and Site Conditions, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Committee. Joyner and Boore, (1988) Measurements, Characterization and Prediction ofStrong Ground Motion, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Special Publication No. 20. Lee & Albaisa (1974) "Earthquake Induced Settlements in Saturated Sands". Seed and Idriss (1982) Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Eartbquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph. Seed, Tokimatsu, Harder and Chung, (1985), Influence ofSPTProcedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evalua tions, ASCE Journal of GeotechInical Engineering, Volume 111, No. 12, December. Rogers, Thomas H., Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Map Sheet. Rive r si d e C o unty', 19 8 4, Seismic Safe ty Elem en t of th e Riverside Co un ty Gen era] Plan Sladden Engineering APPENDIX A Site Plan Boring Logs APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION For our field investigation, 8 exploratory borings were excavated on October 28, 2003, using a truck mounted hollow stem auger rig (Mobile B-61),in the approximate locations indicated'on the site plan included in this appendix. Continuous log of the materials encountered. were prepared on the site by a representative of Sladden Engineering. Boring logs are included in this appendix. Representative undisturbed samples were obtained within our boring by driving a thin-walled steel penetration sampler (California split spoon sampler) or'a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler with a 140 pound hammer dropping approximately 30 inches (ASTM D1586).. The number of blows required to drive the samplers 18 inches was recorded (generally in 6 inch increments). Blowcounts are indicated on the boring log. The California samplers are 3.0 inches in diameter, carrying brass sample rings'having inner diameters of 2.5 inches. The standard penetration samplers are 2.0 inches in diameter with an inner diameter of 1.5 inches. Undisturbed sample's were removed from the sampler and placed in moisture sealed containers in order to preserve the natural soil moisture content. Bulk samples were obtained from the excavation spoils and samples were then transported to our laboratory for further observations and testing- North Approximate Boring Locations Proposed 40 -acre Residential Development Tentative Tract 31910 Monroe Street La Quinta, California Dat BorinEg o. I Job No.: 544 -'504 Zi DESCRIPTION 2 M REMARKS 0. E . Z W = g E Z 0 Silty Sand: Brown, Sm very silty, fine grained 5 3/3/5 Silty Clay:'Briown with thin C.L 86 32 --- 84% passing #200 M interbedded very silty sand layers 10 1/2/4 Clayey Silt: Brown ML 27 --- 83% passing #200 3/4/7 Sandy Silt: Brown with ML 13 --- 62% passing #200 silty clay layer 2" thick 20 - 5/8/11 Sand: Brown, fine grained SO --- 7% passing #200 25 4/6/6 Silty Sand: Brown, Sm --- 18 --- 28% passing #200 fine grained Groundwater @ 30' 30 - 7/7/12 Sand: Brown, SP/Sm --- 19 --- 15% passing #200 slightly si Ity, fine grained 35 - 6/13/15 --- 16 --- ll%passing#200 40 - 20 15% passing #200 45 - 2/3/5 Clayey Silt: Brown ML --- 35 --- 86% passing #200 50 Clayey Silt: Brown, ML 2/4/7 slightly sandy I --- 24 1 --- 186% passing #200 Recovered Sample Total Depth 51.5' No Bedrock Note: The stratification lines 55 Standard Penetration JU represent the approximate Sample boundaries between the soil types; the transitions may be gradual. Proposed 40 -acre Residential Development Tentative Tract.31910 Monroe Street La Quinta, California' Datc--: 1 -28-03 Borine No. 2 Job No.: 3-4 �-'j 5 04 DESCRIPTION > REMARKS U cf) 0 Silty Sand: Brown, Sm very silty-, fine grained with thin interbedded silt layers 3/3/4 Silty Clay: Brown CL 83 38 --- 9 1 % passing #200 10 2/2/3 Clayey Silt: Brown, ML --- 3.4 80% passing #200 slightly sandy .15 6/6/7 Silty Sand: Brown, Sm --- --- 28% pass ing #200 fine grained 20 6/8/9 Sand: Brown, SP/Sm --- 4 passing #200 :t slightly silty, fine grained Sand: Brown, fine grained SP 3 --- 6% passing #200 25 - 6/6/9 Groundwater@ 30' 30 2/2/4 Clayey Silt: Brown ML --- 32 --- 16% passing #200 35 - 9/11/16 Sand: Brown, SP/Sm --- 17 --- 14% passing #200 slightly silty, fine grained 40 4/7/12 Silty Sand: Brown, Sm --- 22 --- 20% passing 4200 fine grained 45 2/2/3 Clayey Silt: Brown, ML --- 27 --- 8 1 % passing 4200 slightly sandy 50 Clayey Silt: Brown with thin ML 1 11*6/9/17 interbedded silty sand layers --- 27 --- 67% passing #200 Recovered Sample Total Depth = 51.5' No Note: The stratification lines Bedrock 55 Standard Penetration represent the approximate Sample boundaries between the soil types; the transitions may be gradual. 3/7/12 Clayey Silt: Brown, sandy NIL 105 6 68% passing #200 20 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 9/12/19 fine grained 10 --- 26%passing #200 M Recovered Sample Total Depth = 21.5' No Bedrock - 25 No Groundwater 30 35 40 45 50 Note: The s.tratification lines 55 represent the approximate boundaries between the soil types; the transitions may be gradual. -Proposed 40 -acre Residential Development Tentative Tract 31910 Monroe Street La Quinta, California Dat -28-03 orine No. 4 Job No.: 544-3504 DESCRIPTION REMARKS C*0 U 0 Clayey Silt: Brown with thin ML interbedded silty sand layers 4/8/10 95 14 --- 58% passing #200 10 4/8/15 Silty Sand: Brown, Sm 117' 4 --- 20% passing #200 :9/11/12 fine grained 15 Sand: Brown, SP/Sm 101 2 --- 9% passing 9200 slightly �Jlty_ fine grained 20 - 5/8/11 98 5 13% passing #200 M Recovered Satriple Total Depth = 21.5' No Bedrock 25 No Groundwater 30 35 40 45 50 Note: The stratification lines 55 represent the approximate boundaries between the soil ty es; the transitions may be graduap Proposed 40 -acre Residential Development Tentative Tract 31910 Monroe Street La Quinta, California �'ZS-0- Dat !: I Borin2 No. 5 Job No.: 544;15-04 T DESCRIPTION Lw 4 M REMARKS U 0 Sandy Silt: Brown with ML silty clay layer 2" thick 3/6/16 93 27 --- 69% passing 4200 10 6/5/5 Silty Sand: Brown, Sm 23 --- 4.8% passing, #200 very silty, fine grained with thin ititerbedded silt layers 15 - 3/7/12 Sandy Silt: Brown., ML --- 22 --- 55%'passing #200 very sandy 20 9/12/19 Silty Sand: Brown, SM, 17 --- 3 1 % passing #200 - very silty- fine grained 25 Sand: Brown,' fine grained SP --- 10 14% passing #200 ]1:6/8/8 with scattered silty clay layers Groundwater @ 30' 10 10/10/9 Silty Sand: Brown, Sm --- 27 --- 48% passing #200 fine grained with abundant interbedded silt layefs 35 8/6/15 --- 36% passing #200 40 15/20/22 Sand: Brown, SP/Sm --- 19" --- 12% passing 9200 slightly silty, fine grained 45 - 5/11/.12 Silty Clay: Brown with CL 30 --- 7 1 % passing #200 thin interbedded sand layers 50 9/8/14 --- 31 --- 82% passing #200 Total Depth 51.5' Recovered Sample Note: The stratification lines No Bedrock 55 Standai-d Penetration represent the approximate T Sample boundari�s between the soil ry' es; the transitions may be graduar 20 7/20/29 101 4 %71 10%passing#200 M Recovered Sample Total Depth = 21.5' No Bedrock - 25 No Groundwater 30 35 40 45 50 Note: The stratification lines 55 represent the approximate boundaries between the soi.1 ty es; the transitions may be gradua . Proposed 40 -acre Residential Development Tentative Tract'31910 Monroe Street La Quinta, California Dat orinE! No. 7. 'Job No.: �4 �-3 5 0�4 r DESCRIPTION REMARKS. 94 E Sandy Silt: Brown, ML very sandy Silty Sand: Brown, SM very silty, fine grained 5 5/7/11 Sandy Silt: Brown, ML 94 2 1 --- 56% passing #200 M very sandy 10 13/19/25 Sand: Brown, SP/SM 107 5 12% passing #200 slightly silty, fine grained 7/16/23 Sand: Brown, fine grained SP 101. 3 --- 6% passing #200 20 Silt y Sand: Brown, SM, - fine grained 105 10 -7 19% pass'ing #200 010/18/27 Recovered Sample Total Depth = 21.5' No Bedrock �5 No Groundwater 30 35 40 45 50 Note: The stratification lines 55 represent the approximate boundaries between the soil ty es; ;itions may be graduar Proposed 40 -acre Residential Development Tentative Tract 31910 Monroe Street La Quinta, California Date: 1 -29-03 Borine No. 8 Job No.: �4 -3 5 0�4 +j Lw DESCRIPTION REMARKS E P-0 E >' 0 Silty Sand: Brown, Sm very silty, fine grained 5 - 5/6/7 Silty Clay: Brown with thin CL 83 36 88% passing #200 interbedded very silty sand layers 10 7/7/7 Silty Clay: Brown CL 8'2 39 ?% passing #200 Sandy Silt: Brown, ML 105 2'2 --- ?% passing #200 15 15/16/27 very sandy 26 14/39/43 Sand: Brown, fine grained SP 96 4 --- ?% passing #200 Recovered Sample Total Depth = 21.5' No Bedrock 25 No Groundwater 30 35 40 45 50 Note: The stratification lines 55 represent the approximate boundaries between the soil ty es; the transitions may be graduar _j APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING lepresentative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samplesvere obtained in the field and returned b our laboratory for additional observations and testing. Laboratory testing was generally performed in two phases. The first phase consisted of testing in order to determine the compaction of he existing natural soil and the general engineering classifications of the soils underlying the site. '['his testing was performed in order to estimate the engineering characteristics of the soil and to as a basis for selecting samples for the second phase of testing. The second phase consisted of uil mechanics testing. This testing including consolidation,, shear strength and exp a*nsion te* sting vras performed in order to provide a means of developing specific design recommendations based on the mechanical properties of the soil. CLASSIFICATION AND COMPACTION TESTING I tJnit Weight and Moisture Content Determinations: Each undisturbed sample was weighed and neasured in order to determine its unit weight. A small portion of each sample was then subjected to testing in order to determine its moisture content. This was used in order to determine the dry density of the soil in its natural condition. The results of this testing are shown on the Boring Logs. 14aximum Density -Optimum Moisture Determinations: Representative soil types were selected for maximum density determinations. This testing was performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557-91, Test Method A. The results of this testing are presented* graphically in this appendix. The maximum densities are compared to the field densities of the soil in order to determine the existing relative compaction to the soil. This is shown on the Boring Log, and is useful in estimating the strength and compressibility of the soil. Classification Testing: Soil samples were selected for classification testing. This testing consists of mechanical grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits determinations. These provide information for d.eveloping classifications for the soil in accordance with the Unified Classification System. This classification system categorizes the soil into groups having similar engineering characteristics. The Tesults of this testing are very useful in detecting variations in the soils and in select . ing samples for further testing. SOIL MECHANIC'S TESTING Direct Shear Testing: One bulk sample was selected for 'Direct Shear Testing. This testing measures the shear strength of the soil under various normal pressures and is used in developing parameters -for foundation design and lateral design. Testing was performed using recompacted test specimens, which were saturated prior to testing. Testi'ng was performed using a strain controlled test apparatus with normal pressures ranging from 800 to 2300 pounds per square foot. Expansion Testing:. One bulk sample was selected for Expansion testing. Expansion testing was performed. in accordance ' with the UBC Standard 18-2. This testing consists of remolding 4 -inch diameter by 1 -inch thick test specimens to a moisture content and dry. density corresponding to approximately 50 percent saturation. The samples are subjected to a surcharge of 144 pounds per square. foot and allowed to reach equilibrium. At that point the specimens are inundated with distilled water. The linear expansion is then measured until complete. Consolidation Testing: Four relatively undisturbed samples were selected for consolidation testing. For this testing one -inch thick test specimens are subjected to vertical loads varying from 575' psf to 11520 psf applied progressively. The consolidation at each load increment was recorded prior to placement of each subsequent load. The specimens wore saturated at the 575 psf or 720 psf load increment. 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 lic lof 10( 0 Max Density December 1, 2003 ASTMD-1557 A Rammer Type: Machine 5 10 15 20 25 Moisture Content, % Sladden Engineering Revised 12/03/02 Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture ASTM D698/D1557 'ProjectNumber: 544-3504 Project Name: Monroe Tract 31910 Lab ID Number: Sample Location: Bulk 1 @ 0-5' Description: Sandy Silt Maximum Density: 115 pcf Optimum Moisture 13.5% Sieve Size '% Retained 3/4" 3/8" #4 0.01 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 lic lof 10( 0 Max Density December 1, 2003 ASTMD-1557 A Rammer Type: Machine 5 10 15 20 25 Moisture Content, % Sladden Engineering Revised 12/03/02 Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 Ito 105 100 0 3/4" 3/8" #4 0.0 December 1. 2003 ASTMD-1557 A Rammier Type: Machine 5 10 15 20 25 30 * 35 40 45 Max Density Sladden Engineerifig Revised 12/03/02 ASTM D698/DI557, Project Number: 544-3504 Project Name: Monroe Tract 31910 Lab ID Number: Sample Location: Bulk 5 @ 0-5' Description: Sandy Silt Maximum Density: 117 pcf Optimum Moisture 11.5% Sieve Size % Retained 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 Ito 105 100 0 3/4" 3/8" #4 0.0 December 1. 2003 ASTMD-1557 A Rammier Type: Machine 5 10 15 20 25 30 * 35 40 45 Max Density Sladden Engineerifig Revised 12/03/02 One Dimensional Co nsolidation ASTM D2435 & D5333 Job Number: 544-3504 December 1, 2003 Job Name: Monroe Tract 31910 Initial Dry Density, pcf. 86.8 Sample ID: Boring 1 @ 5' Initial Moisture, %: 32 Soil Description: Silty Sand Initial Void Ratio: 0.921 Specific Gravity: 2.67. % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram 0 Before -Saturation A After Saturation 9 Rebound Hydro Consolidation =0002000000002 I—WE w 6.0 7.0 Consolidation Sladden Engineering Revised 11/20/02 One Dimensional Consolidation ASTM D2435 & D5333 Job Number: 544-3504 Job Name: Monroe Tract 3 1910 Sample ID: Boring 3 @ 10' Soil Description: Sandy Silt I .0 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 December 1, 2003 Initial Dry Density, pcf. .95.1 Initial Moisture, %: 31 -Initial Void Ratio: 0.752 Specific Gravity: 2.67 Hydrocollapse: 1.0%@0.720ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram 0 Before Saturation A After Saturation 9 Rebound -.-a—Hydro Consolidation. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 I 7.0 Consolidation Sladden Engineering Revised 11/20/02 One Dimensional Consolidation ASTM D2435 & D5333 Job Number: 544-3504 Job Name: Monroe Tract 31910 Sample ID: Boring 6 @ 10' Soil Description: Silty Sand 11 December 1, 2003 Initial Dry Density, pcf* 110.7 Initial Moisture, %: 5 Initial Void Ratio: 0.506 Specific Gravity: 2.67 % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram 0 Before Saturation A After Saturation e Rebound --W-14ydro Consolidation I 0 -I. -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0' 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Consolidation Sladden Engineering Revised 11/20/02 Gradation ASTM C1 17 & C136 Project Number: -544-3504 December 1, 2003 Project Name: Monroe Tract 31910 Sample ID: Bulk 1 @ 0-5 Sieve Sieve Percent Size, in Size, mm Passing lit 25.4 .100.0 C 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 3/8". 9.53 100.0. #4 4.75 100.0 #8 2.36 100.0 #16 1.18 00.0 #30 0.60 100.0 #50 0.30 98.0 #100 0.15 84.0 #200' 0.074 57.0 Gradation Sladden Engineering Revised 11/20/02 Gradation* ASTM CI 17 & C136 XT 11 CAA '11;nA December 1, 2003 L eCL UM 100 Project Name: Monroe Tract 31910 90 Sample ID: Boring 3 @ 15' 80 Sieve Sieve Percent Size, in Size, mm. Passing 25.4 100.0 .3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2 12.1 100.0 3/811 9.53 100.0 #4 4.75 100.0 #8 2.36 100.0 #16 1.18 100.0 430 0.60 100.0 450 0.30 .77.0 #1010 0.15 30.0 #200 0.074 8.0 30 2C I C 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 U.Ulu U.UV I Sieve Size, mm Gradation Sladden Engineering Revised 11/20/02 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 2C I C 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 U.Ulu U.UV I Sieve Size, mm Gradation Sladden Engineering Revised 11/20/02 Gradation ASTM CI 17 & C136 Project Number: 544-35.04 December 1, 2003 Project Name: Monroe Tract 31910 Sample ID: Bulk 5 @ 0-5' Sieve Sieve Percent Size, in Size, nim Passing 25.4 100.0 3/4" 19.1 100.'0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 3/8" 9.53 100.0 #4 4.75- 100.0 #8 2.36 100.0 #16 1.18 100.0 #30 0.60, 98.0 #50- 0.30 94.0 #100 0.15 74.0 #200 0.074 52.0 Gradation Sladden Engineering Revised 11/20/02 Gradation ASTMC117&CI36 Project Number: 544-3504 December 1, 2003 Project Name: Monroe Tract 3 1910 Sample ID: Borino, 6 nn 10' 100 90 80 70 HIM liiiiinomiiiiilm liiiilmmmiiiiilmm I Il —11will limommillilmm OEM Ill liiiiimmmiiiiiin H INN Ill lnillo�illlii INN 11 liiiilmmmiiiiilmm liiiimmmiiiii liiiiimmmiiiiil insm INN Ill off Gradation Sladden Engineering 0.010 0.001 Revised 11/20/02 Sieve Sieve Percent Size, in Size, nim Passing lit 25.4 100.0 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 3/8" 9.53 100.0 #4 4.75 100.0 #8 2.36 100.0 #16 1.18 100.0 #30 0.60 97.0 #50 0.30 83.0 #100 0.15 45.0 #200 0.074 23 , 0 100 90 80 70 HIM liiiiinomiiiiilm liiiilmmmiiiiilmm I Il —11will limommillilmm OEM Ill liiiiimmmiiiiiin H INN Ill lnillo�illlii INN 11 liiiilmmmiiiiilmm liiiimmmiiiii liiiiimmmiiiiil insm INN Ill off Gradation Sladden Engineering 0.010 0.001 Revised 11/20/02 Expansion Index ASTM D 4829/UBC 29-2 Job Number: 544-3504 Date: -1-2/l/03 Job Name: Monroe Tract 31910 Tech: Jake Lab ID - Sample ID: Bulk 1 @ 0-5.' Soil Description: Sandy Silt Wt of Soil + Ring: 555.0 Weight of Ring: 179.0 Wt of Wet Soil: 376.0 Percent Moisture: 12% Wet Density, pcf. 113.9 Dry Denstiy, pcf. 101.7, I% Saturation: 49. 4 Fxnan-don Rack # Date/Time 12/1/03 1:N P.M. Initial Reading 0.500 Final Reading, 0.532 Expansion Index (Final - Initial) x 100.0 , 32 El Sladden Engineering Revised 12/10/02 Nlov�21-03 11:03A.Sladden Er.gineerilr'g 714"523-1369 A A 91-V ANALHEIIAVIL TEST LABO"RATORY 3008 S. ORANGE AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707 PHONE (714) 549-7267 P. 07 SLADDEN ENGINEERING: 6782 STANTON AVE—SUITE A DAM: 11/07/03 EUENA PARK., CA. 90621 PO. No. Chain of CustQdl" Shipper No. ATTN: BRETT/QAVE L'ob. -No. A-4119 Specification: 'Maiefial: SOIL PROJECT: #544-3504 #1 BULK 1 @ 0-51 #2 BULK 5 @ 0-5' FORM 02 ANALYTICAL REPORT CORROSION SERIES SUMMARY OF DATA pH SOLUBLE SULFATES SOLUBLE CHLORIDES. MIN. R - ESISTIVITY per CA. 417 per CA. 422 per CA. 643 ppm ppm ohm -cm 7.2 527 292 600 max 6'.9 2,143 526 600 max APPENDIX C 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria December 10, 2003 -15- Project No. 544-3504 03-12-799 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN INFORMATION The International Conference of Building Officials 1997 Uniform Building Code contains substantial revisions and additions to the earthquake engi�ieering section in Chapter 16. Concepts contain�d in the code that will be relevant to construction of the proposed structures are summarized below. Ground shaking is expected to be the primary hazard most likely to, affect the site, based upon proximity to significant faults capable of generating large earthquakes. Major fault zones considered to be most likely to create strong,ground shaking at the site are listed below. Fault Zone Approximate Distance From Site Fault Type (1997 UBC) San Andreas 11.6 kin A San Jacinto 29.4 kin A Sladden E Based on our field observations and understanding of local geologic conditions', the soilprofile type judged applicable to this site IS SD, generally described as stiff or dense soil. The site is located within UBC Seismic Zone.4: The following table present's additional coefficients and factors relevant to seismic mitigation for new construction upon adoption of the 1997 code. Near -Source Near -Source Seismic Seismic' Seismic Acceleration Velocity Coefficient Coefficient Source Factor, Na Factor,, Nv Ca C11 San Andreas 1*0 1.2 0.44Na 0.64Ny San Jacinto 1.0 1.0 '0.44Na 0.64N� Liquefaction Analyoi* Job name: I Proposed Residential Development Job No.: 544-3504 ITentative Tract 31910 Monroe Street La Quinta, Calif6mia Water @ 5 a,a,= 0.366 Sand, Corrected silt Approx. Blowcounts CSRE F. S. Depth(ft.) Soil Dens. Sigma Ad Sigma(0)barl Tons/ft'12 C, N N, 1 r tauw/Sigma(0)effective d I CSRL ICSRUCSRE (Symbol) 10.0 15.0 105 ........... 105 050 11-5 -5-_--__ 738 951 0.369 6 0476 1.450 11 9.9 16.0 0.99 0.335 N/A* N/A* . 0.98 0.386 silt ...... --.. silt 20.0 105 0 1164 0.582 1.311 19 24.9 0.96 0.412 0.29 0.7 sand 25.0 '105 2625 1377 0.689 1.205 12 14.5 0.94 0.426 0.23 0.5 sand 30.0 105 3150 1590 0.795 1.122 19 21.3 0.92 0.434 0.30 -7 35.0 105 3675 1803 Q.902 1.053 28 29.5 0.89 0.432 1.00 2.3 sand 40.0 105 4200 2016 1.008 0.996 18 17.9 -0.85 0.421 0.26 0.6 sand 45.0 105 4725 2229 1.115 0.947 8 7.6 0.82 0.414 N/A* N/A* silt 50.0 105 5250 2442 1.221 0.905 11 10.0 0.77 0.394 N/A* N/A* silt N/A*=Silts & Clays are considered non -liquefiable �;�6-low counts "N"- converted based on correlation between California Sampler and Standard Penetration Sampler. @ 20'=> (5ft)x(l 2in/ft)xO.01,= 0.6in - - ------ ------- ---------- @ 25'=> (5ft)x(12in/ft)xO.02= 1.2in @ 30'=> (5ft)x(12in/ft)xO.015= 0.9in - ---------- . ...... @ 35'=> (5ft)x(12in/ft)xO.01= 0.6in @ 40'=> (5ft)x(12in/ft)xO..015= 0.9in Total Settlement= 4.2in Liquefaction Analysis Boring No.: 2 Job na me Proposed Residential Development Job No.: 544-3504 Tentative Tract 31910 Monroe Street La Quinta, California Wa ter @ 5 am -ax= 0.366 - Sand, Corrected . ......... silt Approx,' Blowcounts CSRE Depth(ft.) SoilDens. Sigma (0)_ Sigma(0)bar C N, rd Tons/ft'12 N tau,/Sigma(0)effective CSRL CSRUCSRE (Symbol) 1050 738 0.369 1.646 5 8.2 0.99 0.335 N/A* N/A* silt 15.0 105 1575 951- 0.476 1.450 13 18.9 0.98 0.386 0.31 0.� sand 105 2100 1164 0.582 1.311 17 22.3 0.96 0.412 0.27 sand 25.0 105 2625 1377 0.689 1.205 15 18.1 0.94 0.1§ ___0.7 105 3150 1590 0.795 1.122 6' 6.7 0.92 1 0.434 N/A* N/A* 5.0 105 3675 1803 0.902 1.053 27 28.4. .0.89 0.432 1.00 2.3 sand 40.0--__105�_ -4200 2016 1.008 0.996 19 18.9 0.85 0.421 0.30 0.7 sand 45.0 105 4725 2229 1.115 0.947 5 4.7 0.82 0.414 N/A* -------- N/A* -.- silt 105 ,5250 2442 1.221 0.905 26 23.5 0.77 0.394 N/A* N/A* silt ___50.0 N/A*=Silts & Clays are considered non -liquefiable ...... .. ..... . w counts "N" converted based on correlation between California Sampler and Standard Penetration Sampler. @ 15'=> (5ft)x(12in/ft)xO.015= 0.9in @ 20'=> (5ft)x(l 2in/ft)xO.01 5= Min @ 25'=> (5ft)x(12in/ft)xO.01= 0.6in @ 35'=> (5ft)x(l 2in/ft)xO.01 5= Min @ 40'=> (5ft)x(l 2in/ft)xO.01 5=1 0.9in I Total Settlement= 1 4. Fi_n7 Liquefaction Analysis . ....... . -Boring No-.: 15 Job name: I Proposed Residential Development Job No.: 544-3504 ITentative Tract 31910 Monroe Street La Quinta, California Water@ 5 amax= 0.366 Sand, Corrected s ilt Approx. Blowcounts C S RKE:::� F. S. or clay; Depth(ft.) Soil Dens. Sigma(0) Sigma(0)bari O)effe� Ton S/ftA 2 CN N NI. rd tau,/Sigma( ctive CSRL CSRL/CSRE .... . . . ..... (Symbol), 10.0 105 050 738 0.369 1.646 10 16.5 0.99 0.335 0.27 0.8 sand 15.0 105 1 �57 5 951 0.476 1.450 19 27.6 0.98 0.386 20.0 105 1 00 1164 0.582 1.311 31 40.6 0.96 0.412 1.00 2.4 sand 105 ...__2625 1377 0.689 1.205 16 19.3 0.94 0.426-- 027 b.6 sand 30.0 105 3150 1590 0.795 1.122 19 21.3 0.92 0.434 N/A* N/A* sand 35.0 .105 3675 1803 0.902 1.053 21 22.1 0.89 0.432 1.00 2.3 sand 40.0 105 4200, 2016 1.008 0.996 42 41.8 b.85 0.421 1.00 2.4 sand 45.0 105 4725 2229 1.115 0.947 23 21.8 0.82 -0.414 N/A* N/A* clay 50.0 105 5250 2442 0.905 22 19.9 0.77 0.394 N/A* N/A' y N/A*=Silts & Clays are considered non -liquefiable **Blow counts "N" converted based on correlation between California Sampler and Standard Penetration Sampler. @ 10'=> (5ft)x(12in/ft)xO.02= 1.2in @ 25'=> (5ft)x(12in/ft)xO.015= 0.9in Total Settlement=F 2 lin JOB NUMBER: 544-3504 E Q*F A U L T Version 3.00 DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS DATE: 11-12-2003, JOB NAME: Tentative Parcel Map 31910 CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.6329 SITE LONGITUDE: 116.2356 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi. ATTENUATION RELATION:. 5) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. SOIL (310) UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cd_2drp SCOND: 0 Basement'Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR - .COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT -DATA FILE USED: cbMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km).: 0.0 --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ JESTIMATEb MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE I ------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE .1 MAXIMUM I PEAK, JEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) JEARTHQUAKE1 SITE JINTENSITY I.MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g JMOD.MERC. SAN ANDREAS - Coachella 1 7.2( 11.6)1 7.1 1 0.313 1 IX. SAN ANDREAS - Southern 1 7-2( 11.6�1 7.4 1. 0.366 1 IX SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 18.3( 29.4)1 7.2 1 0.171 1 . VIII SAN JACINTO-COYOTE.CREEK 1 19.6( 31.6)1 6.8 1 0.131 1 VIII BURNT MTN. 1 23.1( 37.1)1 6.4 1 0.094 1 VII EUREKA PEAK 1 23.8( 38.3)1 6.4 1 0.092 1 VII SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 1 24;4( 39.3)1 7.3 1 .0.145 .1, VIII SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 30.0( 48.3)1, 6.6 1 0.085 1 VII PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 35.5( 57.2)1 7_0 1 0.093 1 VII BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 36.3( 58.4)1 6.4 .1 0.066 1. VI EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 36.'4( 58.5)1 .6.9. 1 0.086 1 VII EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 37.-0( 59..5)1 6.5 1 0.069 1 VI PISGAH*-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 1 37.3( 60.0)1 7.1 1 0.094 1 VII LANDERS 1 38.1( 61.3)1, 7.3 1 0'.103 1' VII SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 39.9( 64.2)1 6.9 1 0.080 1 -VII ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 41.1( 66.2)i 7.1 1 0.08,7 1 VII NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East). 1 43.1( 69.4)1 6.7 1 0.083 1 VII ELMORE RANCH 1 43.4( 69.9)1 6.6 1 0.064 1 VI ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 46.7( 75.2)1 6.8 1- 0.067 1 VI SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 47.7( 76.8)1 6.6 1 0.060 1 VI ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 48.1( 77.4)1 6.8 1 0.066 1 VI SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)l 48.5( 78.1)1 6.6 1 0.059 1 VI JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1 48.8( 78.6)1 6.7 1 0.062 1 VI CALICO - HIDALGO 1 50-..l( 80.7)1 7.1 1 0.075 1 VII LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSJ 54.9( 88.3)1 7.3 1 0.078 1 VII NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 55.1( 88.7)1 7.0 1 0.080 1 VII HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 62.7( 100.9)1 7.1 1 0.063 1 VI IMPERIAL 1 62.8( 101.1)1 -7.0 1 0.060 1 VI SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 63.4( 102.1)1 6.7 1 0.050, 1 VI ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 64.0-( 103.0)1 6.8 1 0.053 1 VI LAGUNA SALADA 1 65.9( 106.1)1 7.0 1 0.057 1 VI CLEGHORN 1 71.6( 115.2)1 6.5 1 0.041 1 V ROSE CANYON 1' 75.7( 121.8).1 6.9 1. 0.049 1 VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 76.2( 122.6)1 6.9 1 0.049 1 VI CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 77.9( 125.3)1 6.7 1 0.052 1 VI CUCAMONGA 1 78.8( 126.8)1 7.0 1 0.061, 1 VI WHITTIER 1 82.1( 132.1)1 6.8 1 0.044 1 VI SAN ANDRE ' AS - Mojave 1 87.9( 141.5)1 7.1 1 0.048 1 Vi SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 1 87.9( 141.5)1- 7.8 1 0.070 1 VI SAN JOSE 1 90.0( 144.9)! 6.5 1 0.062 1 Vi. ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE I ------------------------------- ABBREVIATED DISTANCE- I MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) JEARTHQUAKE1 SITE JINTENSITY MAG.(Mw) .1 ACCEL. g JMOD.MERC. CORONADO BANK 1 90.5( 145.6)1 7. 4 1 0.055 1 VI SIERRA MADRE 1 92. 9( 149.5) 1 7.0 1 0.054 1 VI GRAVEL.HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 94 . 2 ( 151.6) 1 6. 9 1 0.041 1 V ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 94 . 6( 152.2) 1 6.7 1 0.045 1 VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 97.2( 156.4) 1 6..9 1 0.040 1 V -END OF SEARCH- 45 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE SAN ANDREAS - Coachella FAULT.IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 7.2�MILES (11.6 km) AWAY% LARGEST MAXIMUM -EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.36,62 g