The URL can be used to link to this page

Citrus - Mandarina TR 24890-1 12-0042 (SFD) (Plans 1 & 2) 2010 Code UpdateBin #.., ,.. .... ... City of La Quinta. Building &r. Safety Division P.O. Box 1504, 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 - (760) 777-7012 Building Permit Application and Tracking Sheet ` Permit # Project Address: 5-t - 2 c ,q Owner's Name: G S Jb A. P. Number: Address: 30 .st CQ vim- C--- Legal Description: 9/�� City; ST, Zip: ` 7 /7gsDIS e. G C.Q QI ZZ3 Contractor: (44 Tele hone• _ •,�.3 �'�'�'"�2' � y^"v Project Description: Address: O' 7Sr �R7Ye Ac Z>r C-Z City, ST, Zip: CA%}J� t_ t�/� 92Z3 � Telephone' I - 00 7 O ei�o yM:•�Wb' tiYtin.:.mS ''::v. v:Y?' iN .!C•:•'+:Y�{ v<Y{:i. :y .: iy: v . r -7 c - 2. �J L d 0 State Lic. # : City Lie. #: Arch., Engr., Designer: S i 715e V>� • LO/l/ L5/ 0- g7 Z Grp s4�.0 Address: 3 2 O D /C(- E 5-- f tAn/ City, ST, Zip: Telephone: - 752- 2a j p `2c''a s,>�. ~ v • : a a •:. ;z :. State Lic_ O #• 1.S— ''�<x: >c ....�z:.s,,fi>s.;: `i 1 1Mr«°r%n"s Name of Contact Person: C� 7 Construction Type: Occupancy; . Project type (circle one): New Add'n Alter Repair Demo Sq: FL: # Stories: # Units: Telephone # of Contact Person: -% d 6 - Estimated Value of Project: APPLICANT: DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE # Submittal Req'd Reed TRAC CI NG PERMIT FEES Plan Sets t Plan Check submitted Item Amount Structural Cales. Reviewed, ready for corrections Plan Check Deposit 2-1 Truss Calcs. Called Contact Person Plan Check Balance Tide 24 Cales. Plans picked up Construction Flood plain plan Plans resubmitted Mechanical Grading plan 2' Review, ready for correctionsfissue Electrical Subcontactor List Called Contact Person Plumbing Grant Deed Plans picked up S.M.I. H.O:A. Approval Plans resubmitted Grading IN HOUSE:- ''' Review, ready for eorr'ectionstissue Developer Impact Fee Planning Approval Called Contact Person A.I.P.P. Pub. Wks. Appr Date of permit issue School Fees Total Permit Fees i YOUNG ENGINEERING SERVICES www.valuengr.com e `s' 71-780 San Jacinto Dr, Ste. E2, Rancho Mirage, Ca, 92270 ph. (7.60) 834-8860 fax (760) 834-8861 Letter of Transmittal To: City of La Quinta Today's Date: 3-2-12 78-495 Calle Tampico City Due Date : 3-7-12 La Quinta, CA 92253 Project Address: Mandarina Code Update Attn: Kay Plan Check #: 12-42 Submittal: ❑ 1St ❑ 4th ® 2nd ❑ 5th ❑ 3`d ❑ Other: We are forwarding: ® By Messenger ❑ By Mail (Fed Ex or UPS) ❑ Your Pickup Includes: # Of Descriptions: Includes: # Of Descriptions: Copies: Copies: ❑ Structural Plans ® 1 Revised Structural Plans ® 1 Struct. Calcs ® 1 Addendum Struct. Calcs / Responses - ❑ Truss Calculations ❑ Revised Truss Calcs ❑ Soils Report ® 1 Revised Soils Report, update letter, corrosion letter, compaction tests ® 1 Structural Comment List ❑ Approved Structural Plans ® 1 Redlined Structural Calcs ❑ Approved Truss Calcs ❑ Redlined Structural Plans ❑ Approved Structural Calcs ® 1 Redlined Truss Calcs ❑ Approved Soils Report ❑ 'Redlined Soils Reports ❑ Other: Comments: Structural content is approvable, pending truss letter from Engineer of Record. Structural Plan Review Time =.2.75 Hr. 11 U) L-M -i /2 /1 K This Material Sent for: 0 5 2012 ❑ Your Files ® Per Your Req ❑ Your Review ❑ Approval ❑ Checking ❑ At the request of: Other: ❑ By: John W. Thompson Rancho Mirage Office: ® # (760) 834-8860 Other: ❑ f T `r To: Greg Butler, Building & Safety Manager To CDD: 02 From: Les Johnson, Director -Planning Due Date: Permit #: Status: BuIlding Plans SAP rIOIVal (This is an approval to.issue a Building Permit) The Planning Department has, reviewed the Building Plans for the following project: Description: Address or General Locatio ?- a?Ief8gd Applicant Contact: -760 -Y&q OD The Planning Department finds that: 0 ...these Building Plans do not requite Planning Department approval. ...these Building Plans *are approved by the Planning Department. O ...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 Planning Department for review. A Les Johnson, -,Director -Planning "FE3 X 12012 city of to GsL"O Planning Depaftent Date Gouvisengmineerming consulting group, inc. Celebr tin our 5�0th year 10-2.010 _. March 26, 2012 Alex -Gonzales GHA Companies/BLFarm, Inc. 30-875 Date Palm Drive, Suite C Cathedral City, CA 92234 R6i�`andarina "- - --- - GECG Job # 62226 Phase 2 -- - _-0 4 and 5 _ _ Structural Observation Report —Dear-Mr.--Gonzales, - - - This>letter'advises that we have observed the structural'regUiFemi nts=that are visible during construction - at the time of our site visit. - - - - - - - Gouyis engineering believes that the as -built const:ru icfon.at t aF�e__time of our visit (except items noted on field -notes) is in general conformance with our structural plans and relevant correspondence issued by our office relating to the above referenced dwelling. We observed the building in its framed condition prior to installation of drywall and stucco. We observed the.visual and accessible structural requirements. (Exclusions are items such as: size of footings, reinforced steel in the foundations and roof sheathing.) This report is understood to be an expression of professional opinion by this engineer, which is based on his best knowledge, information and beliefs. As such, it consists of a report for only structural elements (as above outlined) and is neither a guarantee nor a warranty, expressed or implied for other trades or requirements of subject dwelling. ENGI ERING CONSULTING GROUP, INC. ffibt'� �QfEQISS/0 FasilljAmma i, P.E. �%, Director of Field Opefations � - .949.752,1612 Fax 949.752.5321 4400 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 f -No: 652030 DO. 12/314P 1 Palm Springs, CA Pleasanton, CA T.� k 33. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam r Earth Systems 1R Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 t (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 January 30, 2012 t File No.: 10404-04 Doc. No.: 12-01-740 . Citrus 18 Group, LLC 30-875 Date Palm Drive, Unit C ' Cathedral City, California 92234 Attention: Mr. Mario Gonzales Subject: Report of Field Density Testing Pad Recertification Project: Tract 24890' Mandarina, La Quinta Lot 20 Southwest Corner of Jefferson Street and Pomelo La Quinta, California Reference: Earth Systems Southwest, Report of Testing and Observations Performed During Grading of Tract 24890, File No. 10404-02, Doc. No. 07-01-839, Dated March 29, 2007 On January 26, 2012, a representative of our firm performed density tests at the above referenced project. Tests were performed at random locations in accordance with ASTM D 6938-10 Nuclear Density Test Procedure. Tests were performed as per authorization of Mr. Mario Gonzales. The approximate locations of the tests are presented on the attached drawing and the results are summarized on the attached test report. " . Test results indicate that a minimum of 90% relative compaction was obtained at the locations tested. The maximum density -optimum moisture was determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM D 1557-10. These test results are as follows: Soil Description USCS Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Brown, Silt with sand, fine to SM 113.0 pcf 13.5% medium grained DISCUSSION: 1. The project,is located within Tract 24890 on the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and' Pomelo in the city of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. 2. Lot 20 was originally graded in 2007. The above referenced report provides grading details. Density testing performed in 2007 indicates relative compaction of 90% or greater at the locations tested on Lot 20. v January 30, 2012 2 - File No.: 10404-04 'Doc. No.: 12-01-740 3. The contractor's work as described below was completed prior to our arrival on -site on the ' specified dates: ➢ January 26, 2012: Lot 20 was scheduled for testing.. Two compaction tests were performed to verify. compaction. ' LIMITATIONS The test results summarized in this report present the moisture and density only at the locations and depths tested on the specified dates. The summarized field and laboratory tests were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally, accepted at this time and location. No opinion is expressed as .to the uniformity of the 'Material or compaction. No guaranty or warranty of the contractor's work is made or implied. The test locations are approximate and were determined by pacing and sighting from prominent field features. In our work, we have relied on topographic and surveying information provided by others. With any manufactured product, there are statistical variations in its uniformity and in the accuracy of tests used to measure its quality- As compared with other manufactured products, field construction usually presents large statistical variations in its uniformity and in the accuracy of test results used to measure its quality. Thus, even with very, careful observation and testing, it cannot be said that all parts of the product comply with the job requirements, and the degree of certainty is greater with full-time observation and testing thanit is with testing only. Therefore, our opinion based on testing the work means that there is only a statistically -based probability that the densities obtained comply with the job requirements. This report is issued with the understanding that'it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that this report is submitted to the appropriate governing agencies. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Reviewed by, ko C 10084 < , GE 2930 Ct1►1t q of cau��' Phillip D. Clanton Kevin L..Paul Senior Technician Senior Engineer t i CE 70084 GE 2930 Compaction/pdc/klp/kmh Distribution: 4/Citrus 18 Group LLC 1 /BD File EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST REPORT.OF RELATIVE COMPACTIONS JOB NAME: Tract 24890 Lot 20 LOCATION: Cathedral,City, California FILE NO.: 10404-04 DOC. NO.: 12-01-740 Test No. Date Tested Description Elevation _ % Moisture In Place Dry Density In Place (pcf) % Relative Compaction Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Building Pad 1 01 /26/ 12 Per Plan FPG 2.1 105.7 94% 113.0 2 01/26/12- Per Plan FPG 2.2 109.8 97% 113.0' FPG = Finish Pad Grade January 30, 2012 Page 1 of 1 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST L&L-Zk CD Compaction Map Tract 24890 0. ' = Approximate Test Location Lot 20La Quints, California Earth Systems I Southwest 01/30/12 File No.: 10404-04 al Building Permit Number: Project Description: SFR Al. Exempt:13 ?3;`-► :r: : key ' »>::.• N �< (Materials may contain hazardous wastes and are not subject to recycling provisions) Construction Debris Management Plan Plan Submittal Datc 2/10/2012 " Job Site Addres 50550 Mandarina Owner's NamE BL Farms Go GHA Companies Number, Street, or,PO Bo 30875 Date Palm Dr, City, State, Postal cod Cathedral City, Ca 92234 Owner's Phone Numbe Owner's E-Mail Addres _ Project Manager's Nam Jeff Project Manager's Phone Number 969-1400 Project Manager's E-mail Addres i ieffenhacomoanies.com Builder ! Contracto GHA Enterprises Inc. Number, Street or PO Bo 30875 Date Palm Dr. City, state, Postal cod Cathedral City, Ca 92234 Project Square Foolag 3,100 City Approval By Date of City Approval �D L Materials To Be Discarded: Product Tons Trash 5.89 Not recyclable Product Tons Asphalt 0.00 Recyclable Masonry (broken) 0.00 Recyclable Brick/Block 0.00 Recyclable Plaster 0.62 Recyclable Cardboard 1.02 Recyclable Scrap Metal 0.00 Recyclable Commingled 0.00 Recyclable Tile (floor) 0.53 Recyclable Concrete 1 0.25 Recyclable Tile (roof) 0.00 Recyclable Drywall 0.18 Recyclable Wood 7.75 Recyclable Donated / Reuse' 0.00 Recyclable Landscape Debris 0.00 Recyclable 'Describe Items ' Totals: Recycle Trash Projected Diversion: 10.4 5.9 4 63.7% I understand It Is the property owner's responsibility to submit copies of weight tickets or receipts to the District Environmental Coordinator as these hauls occur. 1 hereby certify that completion, implementation and adherence of the Debris Management Plan (DMP) for the above named project shall guarantee that at least 50% of the jobsite waste is diverted from landfrlling. The remaining material will be recycled or reused. I will divert, for recycling or re -use, remaining materials generated from the first day o e project through the completion of the project In accordance with this plan. This DMP is issued in the name of the p0pelity owner's) and shall remain their property throughout the construction and/or demolition project. A contractor servi as gent of the. owner may obtain a DMP,for the owner. However, the DMP is still Issued In the name of the property own (s) an the owner retains legal responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of the DMP are adhered to. The property owner( and eral contractor shall be kept Informed of the diversion progress through bl-monthly reports. If self -hauling; all refuse aterl ram this project site must be taken to an approved recycler or transfer station. Owner ! Developer / Preheetmanager/ Superintendant Date yClbb Drive C.A.92203 60) 345r 1588 00)924-7015 60 A54315- FileNd-: -10464-06 Doc.: No.: 11=02-739 Citrus,. 19 Group, . LLC. 39e.�.875 Data Palm, Drive, Unit Cathedral City', Califamia*92234 Attention: Mr. Manio-Gohidles ;Subject: Geotec.h,hi.c.ailv E ngweering, Report Update - .Project,: TraO. Kav: 2489 -'20 Lots and P omelo t f J fferson Street. Southwest - .ome.r-o e La Quinta,,tafito.., mia References: I... Earth Systems: -, Southwest, Geotechnical Engineering Seri4wes; c, Tract Map 24.890.1a .Qziihta, California, File .No.:..10404-01, Doc, No... 0542-701, dated December IS, 2005, .2. Earth Systems; Southwest, Bearing. Values and Near Source Seismic. Coefficients for Tract Map 24890-1, La Quinta, California, File No.: 1040.4-01, Doc. No.: 06'-':I'1-827:,--d.ated'November 29,2006. 3. Earth Systems, Southwest, Report of Testing and Observd.tions Performed during Grading for Tract 24890 Mandaring, La Quinta, California,File No.: 1040+-02, Doc:. No.: 07-01-839, dated January 29, 2007. 4. Earth Systems. Southwest, Report of Testing Performed in the Plumbing Under Slabs and' DiNtway Approaches, Tract 24890 Mandarina, La Qz4in.tq, California;:404-02, Doc. No 08-;03-767, dated March 24, 20,08. . File No.: 1 5... Earth Systems !Southwest, Report of Screening Level Corrosion Testing, Tract, .24890 A4�z�rina, Southwest Comer of Jefferson Street and Pomelo, La 04in'td, California, File No.:. 10404-05, Doc. No.: 12-02-729, dated February 21:, 2012.. - .Asrequested, Earth Systems Southwest [Earth System�] has reviewed the; above referenced reports for purposes of providing updated recommendations in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code: The referenced 20 lots. (Tract Map 24800-1) :are located west of the, southwest 6uthwest comer of Jefferson Street and Pometo in. the City ;of La Q4inta, Riverside County, California. The lots are, regally described at Assessors.Paxcel Numbers, [APN4 77640041. 1, - 001'throug h 006, and 716-2. IMO 1 through, -0 14. The site is currently previously graded and unoccupied. land. Out� eoncl. ds, lons. and recommendations are provided bel . oW. Conclusions It: Is our opinion that the recommendations pt.ovided,ffi the. project soils report; andreferenced above remain applicable. to the proposed project, exceptas sqp 1� erced. d below. February.29, 2012 - 2 File No.: 11404-06 Doe. No.: 12-02-739 SuOple 'enfiffRe6nimendation's Seismic "De§kgn-CHteria This site.. is subject to strong :.ground shaking due to potential fault movements along the San, Andreas acid San. 11dults. Engineered design and earthquake -resistant construction increaseaft development .s :ety and allow de lopniefit of seismic areas. The minimum seismic design should S mik com. I" fth the: 2010. edition of, the California Building Code [CBC].and ASCt 7-05 using the P, y W, seismic coefficients given in the table. below. 2010 C-BC (ASCE 745) Seismic Parameters Reference: Seismic Category: D Table:'16115.6 Seismic Class: D Table; 16-1151. Miiifiiu,m:.'Coitsidered..E.vir.,thquakie. [MCE] Ground Motion Short 'Period Spectral Response Ss: 1.Sq g Figure.1'643.5 I second Spectral Response;Si:. 0,60 g Figure 16:13.5 Sfie.Cgeffi. Ii.ent, F,: 1..00 Table 1613.5.3(1) Site, Coefficient, F,: 1_50 Table. 16 1 5.3 (2) Design Earthquake gnGmhd. Motion Short Period Spectral Response,. SDSg I second Spectral Response., SDI 0.60-g The intent of 'the C BC- lateral force requirements is to provide a,six.xictural. 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 yield i49, i is allowed to -adapt to: the seismic demand on the structure. In other words,damage is all6we.d. The CBC. lateral force requirements' should be considered a minimum design. The owner and the designer may evaluate the level of risk and. performance that, is acceptable. .Performance; based. criteria could be. set in the design!, The; design engineer should exercise special'.care. so that. all conip'9hehts of the fW,1 are design met with attention, to.providing a e �y continuous adequate load path. Aril a.eq- te anquality assurance d. control. program am 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 ni ...aJpr seismic sources. Grading Observation. and, Testing Proper geotechnical observation and testing during construction is -imperative to allow the gpotechnical engineer- the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design process and to verify that. our geoteFc cal. 'recommendations have been property' interpreted and implemented during consthuction and is required, by -the. 2010, California Building Code. Observatioii.of 'fill placement by the Geotedliniedl Engineer ineer of Record. should be in -conformance with. Section 1704.7 of the -2010 California Building� ode. California Building Code requires ful - I -time observation, by the gpptechnicai consultant during site grading (fill placement). EARTWSYSTEMS SOUTHWEST February29, 2012 3 File No.:11404-06 Doc. No.: 12-02-739 Additionally; the California Building Codes requires the testing agency to be employed by the project owner ,or representative (i:e. architect) to avoid a conflict of interest if employed by the contractor. Therefore, we recommend that Earth Systems be retained during the construction of the proposed. improvements to provide testing and observe compliance .with the. design concepts and geotechnical recommendations, :and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions .'ormethods of constriction differ from those assumed while completing this investigation. Closing-. Except as modified in this report, it is our opinion that the referenced documents, including limitations, are applicable to the proposed development. We make no representation as to the accuracy of the dimensions, measurements, calculations, or any portion of the design, This report and our scope Of work are not intended to address any environmental issues or constraints related to the site or our observations. Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on our points: of field exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the. proposed project. Furthermore, our findings and recommendations am based on the assu ription 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. It is recommended that Earth Systems be retained during. 'the construction of the proposed improvements to observe compliance with the design concepts and geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface .conditions or methods of construction. differ ,from those assumed while completing this investigation. If we are not.accorded the privilege of performing this review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. The above services can be provided. in accordance with our. current Fee Schedule. The geotechnical engineering- firm providing tests and observations shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Our evaluation of subsurface conditions at. the site has considered subgrade soil and groundwater conditions present at the time of our study. The influence(s) of post -construction changes to .these conditions such as introduction or removal of watef into or from the subsurface will likely influence future performance of -the propose_ d project. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions due to the limitation of data from field studies. The availability and broadening of knowledge and professional standards applicable to engineering services are continually evolving, As such, our services are intended to provide the Client with. a source of professional advice, opinions and recommendations based on the information available as applicable to the project location, time of our services, and scope. If the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in this report; the conclusions and recommendations contained .in this report are not considered valid. unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by,Earth Systems. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUT WEST February 29, 2012 4 FileNp..: 11404-06 D.m NO.;- 112=02-739 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 oftime, whether they are .from al' -prri't i natural ocesses or works of man, on this or adjoining properties. In addition, changes* in applicable. standards occur, whether. they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Acc6r4ingjy; findings. Of this report .may be invalidated wholly or y partially ' b h outside our control. Therefore, changes this report is subject o review and should hot be relied -upon. after a period of I one year. This report is issued with, the. understanding that the owner or the owner's representative .has the responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the.. architect and. engineers for the project so that they are incorporated into. the 'plans and specifications foi.theproject. The Owner or. the owner's representative also-bas.theirespo risibility ,to take; the :necessary steps, to see that the general. contractor and all subcontractors. - follow such .recommendations..* It is -further understood that the owner or the ow-ner':s representative is responsible for submittal. of this report to the, appropriate governin'g 'agencies. ,Eatffi Systems has striven to provide, our services in ace rdance with generally accepted gebtechnical engineering. practices in this1ocality at this time. No, warranty or guarantee express Or implied is made. Should you have any questions concerning ,our report, please give us a call. and we will be pleased to assist you. 'Respectfully Submitted, EARTWSYSTEMS S( Kevin L. Paul Senior Engineer GE 2930, C9 700'84 Z2 SER/klp/mss/mr Distribution; 4/Citrus 18 Group .1 BD File ;EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST f , 0 Earth 1r Southw February 21, 2012 ms �CMEO0T FEB 2 2 2012 Citrus 18 Group, LLC I By 30-875 Date Palm Drive, Unit C Cathedral City, California 92234 Attention: Mr. Mario Gonzales Subject; Report of Screening Level Corrosion Testing Project: Tract 24890 — Mandarina Southwest Corner of Jefferson Street and Pomelo La Quinta, California_ 79-811 B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (760)345-1588 (800) 924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 File No.: 10404-05 Doc. No.: 12-02-729 References: Earth Systems Southwest, 2010, Foundation Plan Review and Geotechnical- Engineering Report Update with Supplemental Recommendations, Tract Map 24890 - 1, 20 Lots, Southwest Corner of Jefferson Street and Pomelo,_ La Quinta, . California, File No.: 10404-03, Doc. No.: 10-07-7.84, dated July 25, 2010. Earth Systems Southwest, 2007, Report of Testing and Observations Performed During Grading of Tract 24890, _File No. 10404=02, Doc. No. 07-01-839, dated March 29, 2007;. Earth Systems Southwest, 2005, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Tract Map 24890, La Quinta,'California, File No.: 10404-01, Doc. No:: 05-12-707, dated December 15, 2005; As requested, Earth Systems Southwest [Earth Systems] has performed screening level corrosion testing at the above referenced project. This testing included field sampling of the site soils by our representative on Lots 6/7, 12, 18, and 20. One bulk soil sample was obtained at a random location at each of the identified four lots. The bulk sample was obtained from depths of approximately 0-2 feet below the existing ground surface. I Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete Sulfate and other salts can attack the cement within concrete,causing weakening of the cement matrix and eventual deterioration by raveling. This weakening can be in the form of'a physical attack or chemical attack whereby there may be a chemical reaction between the sulfate and the cement used in the concrete. According to ACI 318 as referenced by the 2010 California Building Code [CBC], if sulfate concentrations in soil exceed 1.000 ppm there will be special requirements. For this project, the results of those samples tested suggest a negligible degree_ .of corrosivity per ACI 318 (94 to 455 ppm). Normal concrete mixes may be used.. Electrochemical oxidation is a process whereby metal objects in direct contact with soil. may be subject to chemical attack and corrosion. This typically pertains to buried metal, pipes, valves, culverts, etc. made of ferrous material, but can also. affect non-ferrous metals. February.21, 2012. 2 File No.: 10404-05 Doc. No.: 12-02-729 To avoid this type of corrosion or to slow the process, buried metal objects are generally protected with water-resistant barriers (i.e. corrosion inhibitors, asphalt coatings, encapsulation within densely consolidated concrete) or through the use of cathodic protection. Electrical resistivity testing suggests that the on -site soils may present a moderate to very severe corrosive potential for metal loss from electrochemical corrosion. processes. Chloride ions can cause corrosion of reinforcing steel. For this project, the results of those samples tested suggest a low chloride ion concentration (13 to 158 ppm). ACI 318 is referenced by the CBC, and provides commentary relative to the effects of chlorides present, in the soil; from both internal and external sources. A minimum concrete cover of cast -in -place concrete should be in accordance with Section 7.7 of the 2009 edition of ACI 318. Additionally, the concrete should be adequately vibrated during placement. All concrete placement should be in accordance with the recommendations from the latest volume of the ACI 318. Appropriate corrosion protection should be provided for metallic elements. The information provided above should be considered preliminary and of a screening level. These values can potentially change based on several- factors, such as importing soil from another job site and the quality of construction water used during grading and subsequent landscape irrigation. It is important to note that the chemical composition of the soil can change over time due to the addition of irrigation water and soil amendments, which routinely contain chemicals associated with corrosion. Therefore, the corrosion potential of the soil can increase over time due to normal on -site activities. Earth Systems does not practice corrosion engineering. We recommend that an engineer qualified in corrosion evaluation evaluate the corrosion potential of metal construction materials at the site to provide mitigation of corrosive effects, if further guidance is desired. Closing Except as modified in this report, it is our opinion that the referenced documents, including limitations, are applicable to the proposed development. We make no representation as to the accuracy of the dimensions, measurements, calculations, or any portion of the design. This report and our scope of work are not intended to address any environmental issues or constraints related to the site or our observations. 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. Our evaluation of subsurface conditions at the site has considered subgrade soil and groundwater conditions present at the time of our study. The. influence(s) of post -construction changes to these conditions such as introduction or removal of water into or from the subsurface will likely influence future performance of the proposed project. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST February 21, 2012 3 File No. : 10404-05 Doc. No:: 12-02-729 recommendations are generally made with .incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions due to the limitation of data from field studies. The availability and broadening of knowledge and professional standards applicable to engineering services are. continually evolving. As such; our services are intended to provide the Client with a source: of professional advice, opinions and recommendations based on the information available as applicable to the project location, time of our services, and scope. If the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in this report, the _conclusions and recommendationscontained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this. report are modified or approved in writing by Earth Systems. Findings of this report are valid as of the issued date of the report. However, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time, whether they are from natural processes or works of man, on this or adjoining properties. In addition, changes in applicable standards occur, whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control.. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after aperiod of one year. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or the owner's representative has the responsibility to bring.the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the- architect and engineers for the project so that -they are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. The owner or the owner's representative also has the responsibility to take the necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors follow such recommendations. It is further understood that the owner or the owner's representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. Earth Systems has striven to provide our services in accordance with generally .accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time.. No warranty or guarantee express or implied is made. - Should you have any questions concerning our report, please give us a call, and we will be pleased to assist you. Sincerely, EARTH SYSTEMS Kevin, L. Paul Senior Engineer GE 2930, 'CE 70084 SER/klp/mss/mr Attachments: Laboratory Test Results (2 pages) Distribution:. 4/0trus 18 Group, LLC 4/13D File _. _._._ .. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 10404-05 February. 21, 2012 SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES Job Name: Tract 24890-01 - 20 Lots, La Quinta Job No.: 10404-05 Sample ID: Lot 6/7 Lot 12 Lot 18 Sample Depth, feet: 0-2 0-2 0-2 DF RL Sulfate, mg/Kg (ppm): 94 455 328 20 10.00 Chloride, mg/Kg (ppm): 13 42 158 20 4.00 pH, (pH Units): 8.14 8.13 8.18 1 — Resistivity, (ohm -cm): 1,468 917 1,316 — - Conductivity, (µmhos -cm): 681 1,090 760 1 2.00 Note: Tests performed by Subcontract Laboratory: Truesdail Laboratories, Inc. DF: Dilution Factor 14201 Franklin Avenue RL: Reporting Limit Tustin_ California 92790-7008 Tel: (71.4) 730-6462 N.D.: Not Detectable General ui a nes for Soil Corrosivity Chemical Agent Amount in Soil Degree of Corrosivity Soluble 0 -1,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [ 0-.1%] Low Sulfates' 1,000 - 2,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [0.1-0.2%] Moderate 2,000 - 20,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [0.2-2.0%] Severe > 26,000 mg/Kg m >2.0% Very Severe Resistivity' 0- 900 ohm -cm Very Severely Corrosive 900 to 2,300 ohm -cm Severely Corrosive 2,300 to 5,000 ohm -cm Moderately Corrosive 5,000-10,000 ohm -cm Mildly Corrosive 10,000+ ohm -cm Progressively Less Corrosive I - Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil by Weight, ACI 318, Tables 4.2.1 - Exposure Categories and Classes and Table 4.3.1 - Requirements for Concrete By Exposure Class." 2 - Although no standard has been developed and accepted by corrosion engineering organizations, it is generally agreed that the classification shown above, or other similar classifications, reflect soil conrosivity. Source: Corrosionsource.com. The classification presented is excerpted from ASTM STP 1013 titled "Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion" (February, 4989) EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 10404=05 February 21, 2012 SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES Job Name: Tract 24890-01 --20 Lots, La Quinta Job No.; 10404-05 , - Sample ID: Lot 20 Sample Depth, feet: 0-2 DF RL Sulfate, mg/Kg (ppm): 176 20 10.00 Chloride, mg/Kg (ppm): 57 20 4.00 pH, (pH Units): 8.54 1 — Resistivity; (ohm -cm): 3,268 — — Conductivity, (µmhos -cm): 306 1 2.00 Note: Tests performed by Subcontract Laboratory: Truesdail Laboratories, Inc. DF: Dilution Factor 14201 Franklin Avenue RL: Reporting Limit Tustin. California 92780-7008 Tel: (714) 730-6462 N-D_: Not Detectable General uw a roes for Soil, Corrosivity Chemical Agent Amount in Soil Degree of Corrosivity Soluble 0 -1,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [ 0-.1%] Low Sulfates' 1,000 - 2,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [0.1-0.2%] Moderate 2,000 - 20,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [0.2-2.0%] Severe > 20,000 m (ppm)[) [>2.0% Very Severe Resistivity2 0- 900 ohm -cm Very Severely Corrosive ' 900 to 2,300 ohm -cm Severely Corrosive 2,300 to 5,000 ohm=cm Moderately Corrosive 5,000-10,000 ohm -cm Mildly Corrosive 10,000+ ohm -cm Progressively Less Corrosive 1 - Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil by Weight, ACI 318, Tables 4.2.1 - Exposure Categories and Classes and Table 4.3.1 - Requirements for Concrete By Exposure Class." 2 - Although no standard has been developed and accepted by corrosion engineering organizations, it is generally agreed that the classification shown above, or other similar classifications, reflect soil corrosivity. Source: Corrosionsource.com. The classification presented:is excerpted, from.ASTM STP 1013 titled "Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion" (February, 1989) EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST' PROUDLY SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: BANNING BEAUMONT CALIMESA CANYON LAKE COACHELLA DESERT HOT SPRINGS EASTVALE INDIAN WELLS INDIO LAKE ELSINORE LA QUINTA MENIFEE MORENO VALLEY PALM DESERT PERRIS RANCHO MIRAGE RUBIDOUx CSD SAN JACINTO TEMECULA• WILDOMAR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: BOB BUSTER DISTRICT 1 JOHN TAVAGLIONE DISTRICT 2 JEFF STONE DISTRICT 3 JOHN BENOIT DISTRICT 4 MARION ASHLEY DISTRICT 5 RiVjeRS1bE CO-� DIEPAIPTMM�N`T` , IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION 77-933 Las Montanas Rd., Ste. k01, Palm Desert, CA 92211-4131 • Phone (760) 863-8886 • Fax (760) 863-7072 www.rvcfire.org February 28, 2012 Innovative Fire Protection 8779 Cottonwood Ave #101 Santee, CA 92071 Re: Residential Fire Sprinkler Plan Review Citrus Mandarina Floor Plan #1 The above referenced sprinkler plans have been reviewed and are acceptable by the Riverside County Fire Department and are approved with the following conditions: 1) Approval of these plans does not include the piping of the underground system. 2) Permanently marked identification signs $ .hilt h;e attached to all control valves. 3) A sign shall be located adjacent to the alarm bell worded as follows: SPRINKLER FIRE ALARM WHEN BELL RINGS CALL'911 4) A warning sign, with minimum 1/4 inch letters, shall be affixed adjacent to the main shutoff valve and shall state the following: WARNING: The water system for this home supplies fire sprinklers that require certain flows and pressures to fight a fire. Devices that restrict the flow or decrease the pressure or automatically shut off the water to the fire sprinkler system, such as water softeners, filtration systems, and automatic shut-off valves, shall not be added to this system without a review of the fire sprinkler system by a fire protections specialist. DO NOT remove this sign. The following inspections/tests are required to be witnessed by the Fire Department Planning Division staff: (a) Overhead Rough and Hydro static test: All piping shall be visible and pumped at normal operating pressure. (b) Fire Riser Flush (c) Final inspection. The Fire Department job card, approved plans and. conditions letter must be at the job site or NO inspection will be performed. Applicant/installer shall be responsible to contact the Fire Department to schedule inspection(s) a minimum of 72 hours prior to the requested inspection date. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. Applicant/installer shall be responsible to contact the Fire Department to schedule inspection. Sincerely, By Jason Stubble Fire Safety.Specialist PROUDLY SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: BANNING BEAUMONT CALIMESA CANYON LAKE COACHELLA DESERT HOT SPRINGS EASTVALE INDIAN WELLS INDIO LAKE ELSINORE LA QUINTA MENIFEE MORENO VALLEY PALM DESERT PERRIS RANCHO MIRAGE RuSIDOUx CSD SAN JACINTO TEMECULA WILDOMAR. BOARD OF - SUPERVISORS: BOB BUSTER DISTRICT 1 JOHN TAVAGLIONE , DISTRICT 2 JEFF STONE DISTRICT 3 JOHN BENOIT DISTRICT 4 MARION ASHLEY DISTRICT 5 Rive .�� C '00i XTY -IRE iDEP lftTM ..'._: IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION 77-933 Las Montanas Rd., Ste. #201, Palm Desert, CA 92211-4131 • Phone (760) 863-8886 • Fax (760) 863-7072 www.rvcfire.org February 28, 2012 Innovative Fire Protection 8779 Cottonwood Ave #101 Santee, CA 92071 Re: Residential Fire Sprinkler Plan Review Citrus Mandarina Floor Plan #2 The above referenced sprinkler plans have been reviewed and are acceptable by the Riverside County Fire Department and are approved with the following conditions: 1) Approval of these plans does not include the piping of the underground system. 2) Permanently marked identification signs shall be attached to all control valves. 3) A sign shall be located adjacent to the alarm bell worded as follows: SPRINKLER FIRE ALARM - WHEN BELL RINGS CALL 911 4) A warning sign, with minimum''/4 inch letters, shall be affixed adjacent to the main shutoff valve and shall state the following: WARNING: The water system for this home supplies fire sprinklers that require certain. flows and pressures to fight a fire. Devices .that restrict the flow or decrease the pressure or automatically shut off the water to the fire sprinkler system, such as water softeners, filtration systems, and automatic shut-off valves, shall not be added to this system without a review of the fire sprinkler system by a.fire protections. specialist. DO NOT remove this sign. 1 The following inspections/tests are required to be witnessed by the Fire'Department Planning Division staff: (a) Overhead Rough and Hydro static test: All piping shall be visible and pumped at normal operating pressure. (b) Fire Riser Flush (c) Final inspection. The Fire Department job card, approved plans and conditions letter must be at the job site or NO inspection will be performed. Applicant/installer shall be responsible to contact the Fire Department to schedule inspection(s) a minimum of 72 hours prior to the requested inspection date. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. Applicant/installer, shall be responsible to contact the Fire Department to schedule inspection. Sincerely, By Jason Stubble Fire Safety Specialist 0 Earth Systems Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 January 30, 2012 File No.: 10404-04 Doc. No.: 12-01-740 Citrus 18 Group, LLC 30-875 Date Palm Drive, Unit C Cathedral City, California 92234 �� n Attention: Mr. Mario Gonzales D Subject: Report of Field Density Testing FE6 - 2012 Pad Recertification -Project: Tract 24890 — Mandarina, La Quinta Lot 20 Southwest Corner of Jefferson Street and Pomelo La Quinta, California , Reference: .Earth Systems Southwest, Report of Testing and Observations Performed During Grading of Tract 24890, File No. 10404-02, Doc. No. 07-01-839, Dated March 29, 2007 On January 26, 2012, a representative of our firm performed density tests at the above referenced project. Tests were performed at random locations in accordance with ASTM D 6938-10 Nuclear Density Test Procedure. Tests were performed as per authorization of Mr.-M_ario Gonzales. The approximate locations of the tests are presented on the attached drawing and the results are summarized on the attached test report. Test results indicate that a minimum of 90% relative compaction was obtained at the locations tested. .4 The maximum density -optimum moisture was determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM D-1557-10. These test results areas follows: , Soil Description USCS Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Brown, Silt with sand, fine to SM 113,0 pcf medium grained DISCUSSION: 1. The project is located within Tract 24890 on the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Pomelo in the city of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. 2. Lot 20 was originally graded in 2007. The above referenced report provides grading details. Density testing performed in 2007 indicates relative compaction of 90% or greater at the locations tested on Lot 20. ' January 30, 2012 - 2 - File No.: 10404-04 Doc. No.: 12-01-740 3. The contractor's work as described below was completed, prior to our arrival on -site on the specified dates. ➢ January 26, 2012: Lot 20 was scheduled for testing. Two compaction tests were performed to verify compaction. LIMITATIONS The test results summarized in this report present the moisture and density only at the locations and depths tested on the specified dates. The summarized field and laboratory tests were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. No opinion is expressed as to the uniformity of the material or compaction. No guaranty or warranty of the contractor's work is made or implied. The test locations are approximate and were determined by pacing and sighting from prominent field features. In our work, we have relied on topographic and surveying information provided by others. With any manufactured product, there are statistical variations in its uniformity and in the accuracy of tests used to measure its quality. As compared with other manufactured products, field construction usually presents large statistical variations in its uniformity and in the accuracy of test results used to measure its quality. Thus, even with very careful observation and testing, it cannot be said that all parts of the product comply with the job requirements, and the degree of certainty is greater with full-time observation and testing than it is with testing only. Therefore, our opinion based on testing the work means that there is only a statistically -based probability that the densities obtained comply with the job requirements. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that this report is 'submitted to ,the appropriate governing agencies. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted-, EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Reviewed by, A 7 ft c rQas� r Phillip D. Clanton Kevin L. Paul Senior Technician Senior Engineer CE 70084 GE 2930 Compacti on/pdc/klp/kmh Distribution: 4/Citrus 18 Group LLC 1 /BD File EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST .� REPORT OF RELATIVE COMPACTIONS JOB NAME: Tract 24890 Lot 20 LOCATION: Cathedral City, California FILE NO.: 10404-04' . DOC. NO.: 12-01-740 Test No. Date Tested Description Elevation % Moisture In Place . Dry Density In Place (pcf). % Relative Compaction _ Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Building Pad l . O1/26/12 Per Plan FPG 2.1 105.7 94% 113.0 2 • 01/26/12 Per Plan FPG 2.2 109.8 97% 113.0 FPG = Finish Pad Grade January 30, 2012 Page 1 of 1 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST V Compaction Map Tract 24890 0 = Approximate Test Location Lot 20 La Quinta, California Earth Systems I Southwest 01/30/12 File No.:.10404-04 11 .HATER o,$1R1�c Residential Connection Charge Estimate 4 Date: ," January 16,.20.1.2`" Customer Name: Mario Gonzalez/BL'Farms Phone No. :µ (760) 969-1400" y Parcel No. t 776 210=014 I Geo.#. r0&07:051;4' _3 Address: 5h. ii Mandarina,laQuinto � LID:( '694'09 Block No. Lot No. _ ., (Size of Lot: 0 S ft. ) q. Tract No. 24890=1 Type of Service: R-1: Duplex: ❑ Triplex: ❑ Apts: ❑ SWSC ; $- Y Acres: 0 I A r SWSC:1$0:00 t' h`/acre` WSBFC: •$ SCC: $ Treatment: $2,395/edu Collection: $1,836/edu Meter:' $ Meter SizeJ, 1 Inch 4 Meter surcharge: ;. ` $ Service Size: 3/4 inch Service: '$ - S Meter & Service: Backflow: $ Other:. # (see explanation below) Sewer Lateral: 1 f 4 • 'Total: $ _ Other: Abandon / Relocate "" -- • ? `�.. �,-.. . _ _. _ ' '_`"M.,c � Information Supplied By Customer CVWD System Data Domestic Water Demand* Service Connection** Max. Flow=,,'. A .5. + _. 90M Max. Flow*= 26+. �- gpm . Min. Pressure= 20 " psl Inlet Pressure= 96 psj I Fire Sprinkler Demand* Outlet Pressure= 7.2. psi ` Max. Flow~j 267.gpm7. ; _ Min. Pressure= , ' 65'sYps1 �? Meter Size = 3/4 inch v ) System Type: Service Size=� - . ; ' 1 'Inch Multi El Stand Alone ** For Calculation Purposes- Service Connection Includes: * CVWD USES WORST CASE CONDITION Service Connection Pipe=50', Meter Stop, Meter, Check Valve & Shut Off Valve Notes: `Tract No.,24890-1 Mandarina'Estates, currently this lot has a 3%4" meter. WSBFC;.SiWSC and the SCC fee were +paid•on MarcFi 22, 2i007 Invoice•No:•23673.- �.�..k3 �' �Y. j 44_t,�� t'1_',��.{��:.��y}S f, 'i ` �n 1 t• t � .'''1' `^ d I Technician: Sandia ObOS• �- Approved by: Date: I A R cvwd-950 *********This is just a QUOTE, all fees are subject to Chance********* 12111