Loading...
07-2336 (SFD) Geotechnical Engineering Report(W 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 February 25, 2003 ND La Quinta Partners, LLC 5 1 -100 Avenue 53 La Quinta, California 92253 Attention: Mr. Dan Williams Project: The Hideaway La Quinta, California Project No. 544-2199 03-02-106 Ref: Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Earth Systems Consultants dated September 22, 2000, File No. 07,117-10, Report No. 00-09-772. This memo has been prepared to provide formal confirmation that we have reviewed the above referenced Geotechnical Engineerirg Report prepared by Earth Systems Southwesi. Based upon our project review, our recent site reconnaissance and our recent experience on the project site, . we concur with the conclusions and recommendations provided within the above referenced report. As indicated within the referenced report, it is our opinion that the residences may be safely supported upon conventional shallow spread footings. The allowable bearing pressures and lateral values recommended within the referenced report remain applicable. The seismic setting of the site and the corresponding seismic design criteria should be considered in structural design. Based upon our expected involvement during the site grading and foundation construction operations, Sladden Engineering agrees to accept responsibility as the Soils Engineer of Record for the project. If you have any questions regarding this memo or the referenced report, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, SLADDEN ENG NEE G Brett L. Anderson a ��oPrincipal Engineer Letter/pc, NAV 2 Copies: 4/ND La Quinta Partners, LLC _ r Earth Systems Consultants y * Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Dri ve Bermuda Dunes, CA 922 0 l (760) 345-15 88 (800) 924-70 15 FAX (760) 345-73 15 September 22, 2000 File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Country Club of the Desert P.O. Box 980 La Quinta, California 92253 Attention: Ms. Aimee Grana Project: Country Club of the Desert, Phase I La Quinta, California Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Dear Ms. Grana: :Ve take pleasure to present this Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the proposed Phase I of the Country Club of the Desert to be located between 52nd and 54th Avenues, and Jefferson and Madison Streets in the City of La Quinta, California. This report presents our findings and recommendations for site grading and foundation design, incorporating the tentative information supplied to our office. This report should stand as a whole, and no part of the report should be excerpted or used to the exclusion of any other part. This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our agreement, dated August 22, 2000. Other services that may be required, such as plan review and grading observation are additional services and will be billed according to the Fee Schedule in effect at the time services are provided. Unless requested in writing, the client is responsible to distribute this report to the appropriatc governing agency or other members of the design team. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact ou office if there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations. Respectfully submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SouthwestoQFOFESsip., c� I G) /LC Shelton L. Stringer Q U) No. 2266rn m EXP- 6-30-04 GE 7266 slcF0TECH14�OP��e 9lF�F CAl1F��� SER/sls/dac Distribution: 6/Country Club of the Desert 1/VTA File 2/BD File COUNTRY' CLLR OF THE DESERT P.O. BOX 980 LA QUINT& CALIFORNIA 922253 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT, PHASE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA File No.: 01 117- 10 nn nn —,, I/ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1 INTRODUCTION1....................... .............. 1 Project Description1.2 ......................... ......................................................... ................. Site Description............................................................................ 1.; Purpose and Scope of Work ................... Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION .................... 2.1 Field Exploration............................................................................... 4 2.2 Laboratory Testing........................................................ Section 3 DISCUSSION ........3.1 .................................................................................... Soil Conditions ..................... ).2 .................................................................................. Groundwater ......................... 3 ......................... Geologic Setting ................ 3.4 Geologic Hazards.......................................................................... 6 3.4.1 Seismic Hazards ...................................................................... 3.4.2 Secondary Hazards ............... 3.4.3 Site Acceleration and UBC Seismic Coefficients ................._.. Section 4 CONCLUSIONS ..................... Section 5 RECOMMENDATIONS SITE ................................ .......................................... DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING 12 5.1 - .......................................................... Site Development - Grading ._........ ...12 5.2 --•-••--••--•............................................... .......... Excavations and Utility Trenches 12 5.3 ................. Slope Stability of Graded Slopes .......................... STRUCTURES .................................. 5.4 Foundations ........................... 5.5 Slabs -on -Grade ............................ -5.6 Retaining Walls................................................................... 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria .............. 5.9 Pavements.............................................•---............................................ Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES 6.1 ................. Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations 6.2 .............................................................20 Additional Services ........................................................... REFERENCES................................................................... ......................... APPENDIX A . .................. �� -- Site Location Map Boring Location Map Table 1 Fault Parameters 1997 Uniform Building Code Seismic Parameters 2000 International Building Code Seismic Parameters Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results September 22, 2000 _ 1 _ ile No.: 07117-10 '` 00-09-772 Section 1, INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description This Geotechnical Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed Pha.;e I of the Country Club of the Desert to be located between 52nd and 54th Avenues, and Jefferson and Madison Streets in the City of La Quinta, California. The project will ultimately consist of three, 18 -hole golf courses with about 766 residential units built on prepared pads. A clubhouse with parking facilities, pool, spa and driving range is proposed to be constructed at the northwestern portion of the project site. A maintenance facility will be constructed. at the southwest corner of 52nd Avenue to 54th Avenue with three proposed auto or golf cart under crossings. Based on preliminary mass grading plans prepared by Dye Designs of Denve-, Colorado, dated May 12, 2000, extensive mass -grading is proposed to construct the golf courses and "super" pads br the residential units. Fills as much as 20 feet are proposed at the ends of cul-de-sacs. Cuts as deep as 20 to 26 feet are proposed to construct several small lakes for the golf courses. Slopes as high as 30 to 32 feet with 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) slopes are proposed. Overall, in excess of 4,000,000 cubic yards of earthwork is anticipated. The proposed clubhouse and residences are assumed to be one-story structures. We anticipate that the proposed structures will be of wood -frame construction and will be supported by conventional shallow continuous or pad footings. Site development will include mass grading, "super" building pad preparation, underground utility installation, street and parking lot construction, and golf course development. We used maximum column loads of 50 kips and a maximum wall loading of 3 kips per linear foot as a basis for the foundation recommendations for residences and the clubhouse. All loading is assumed to be dead plus actual live load. If actual structural loading is to exceed these assumed values, we might need to reevaluate the given recommendations. 1.2 Site Description The entire project site consists of approximately 900 acres of land consisting of most of Section 9, and the southern half and the western 80 -acres of the northern half Section 10, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino baseline and meridian (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The site is irregular in shape, and generally bounded by Jefferson Street and the Coachella (All American) Canal to the west, Avenue 52 to the north, agricultural properties a -.-id Monroe Street to the east and Avenue 54 to the south. The site is a mixture of undeveloped desert land, agricultural land, and ranches- The topography of the site was moderately undulating to flat. Artificial ponds are located in several portions of the site. No other significant surface drainage features were observed. The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 22 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to 29 feet below MSL. The project site consists primarily of formerly agricultural and undeveloped land associated with D A DTU C V C'Tf -o .,.�.,n... .. .,..._. ... __ _ _. September 22, 2000 -0 _ File No.: 07117-10 V 00-09-772 brmer ranches on the property. The Fowler. Packing Ranch and the vinevards on the Majestic Property are the only two areas currently in use for agriculture as of the date of this report. Debris was observed in several portions of the project site. The debris appeared to consist primarily of green waste. Most of the debris appeared to be quite old, except for the material in he dry pond in the northeastern portion of the site, or the material actively being dumped by Arid Zone Farms Nursery in the western portion of the site. The vicinity around the site consists primarily of a mix of undeveloped, residential, and bgricultural properties, with the All American Coachella Canal bordering the site to the northwest. Residences were associated with some of the agricultural land. There are underground and overhead utilities near and within the development area. These utility lines include but are not limited to domestic water, electric, sewer, and irrigation lines. Evidence of an underground irrigation distribution system was observed in several portions of the site, including both onsite and regional distribution pipelines. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose for our services was to evaluate the site soil conditions and to provide professional opinions and recommendations regarding the proposed development of the site. The scope of work included the following: A general reconnaissance of the site. Z Shallow subsurface exploration by drilling 24 exploratory borings and four cone penetrometer (CPT) soundings to depths ranging from 31.5 to 50 feet. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings. %> Review of selected published technical literature pertaining to the site and previous geotechnical reports prepared for prior conceptual developments for the properties conducted by Buena Engineers in 1989 and 1990. ➢ Engineering analysis and evaluation of the acquired data from the exploration and testing programs. A summary of our 'findings and recommendations in this written report. This report contains the following: Discussions on subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. Discussions on regional and local geologic conditions. Discussions on geologic and seismic hazards. Graphic and tabulated results of laboratory tests and field studies. Recommendations regarding: • Site development and grading c iteria, • Excavation conditions and buried utility installations, • Structure foundation type and design, • Allowable foundation bearing capacity and expected total and differential settlements, • Concrete slabs -on -grade, ` • Lateral earth pressures and coefficients, • Mitigation of the potential corrosivity of site soils to concrete and steel reinforcement, September 22, 3000 File No.: 07117-10 00-09-77? • Seismic design parameters, • Pavement structural sections. Not Contained In This Report: Although available through Earth Systems Consultants Southwest, the current scope of our services does not include: A corrosive study to determine cathodic protection of concrete or buried pipes. An environmental assessment. Investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or to {ic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property. Separate Phase I and Phase II Environment Site Assessment reports have been prepared by Earth Systems Consultants Southwest in 1998, 1999, and 2000. i September. 22, 2000 Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Field Exploration File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Soil Borings: Twenty-four exploratory borings were drilled to depths of about 31.5 feet below the existing ground surface to observe the soil profile and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. The borings were drilled on August 18 and 23, using 8 -inch outside diameter hollow - stem augers, and powered by a Mobile B61 truck -mounted drilling rig. The boring locations are shown on the boring location map, Figure 2, in Appendix A. The locations shown are approximate, established by pacing and sighting from existing topographic features. Samples were obtained within the test borings using a Standard Penetration (SPT) sampler (ASTM D 1586) and a Modified California (MC) ring sampler (ASTM D 3550.with shoe similar to ASTM D 1586). The SPT sampler has a 2 -inch outside diameter and a 1.38 -inch inside diameter. The MC sampler has a 3 -inch outside diameter and a 2.37 -inch inside diameter. The samples were obtained by driving the sampler with a 140 -pound downhole hammer dropping 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. Recovered soil samples were sealed in containers and returned to the laboratory. Bulk samples were also obtained from auger cuttings, representing a mixture of soils encountered at the depths noted. The final logs of the borings represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and the results of laboratory testing performed on the samples obtained during the subsurface investigation. The final logs are included in Appendix A of this report. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types although the transitions, however, may be gradational: CPT Soundings: Subsurface exploration was supplemented on August 28, 2000, using Fugro, Inc. of Santa Fe Springs, California to advance four electric cone penetrometer (CPT) soundings to an approximate depth of 50 feet. The soundings were made at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Figure 2, in Appendix A. CPT soundings provide a nearly continuous profile of the soil stratigraphy with readings every 5 cm (2 inch) in depth. Direct sampling for visual and physical confirmation of soil properties is generally recommended with CPT exploration in large geographical regions. The author of this report has generally confirmed accuracy of CPT interpretations from extensive work at numerous Imperial and Coachella Valley sites_ The CPT exploration was conducted by hydraulically advancing an instrument 10 cm2 conical probe into the ground at a ground rate of 2 cm per second using a 23 -ton truck as a reaction mass. An electronic data acquisition system recorded a nearly continuous log of the resistance of the soil against the cone tip (Qc) and soil friction against the cone sleeve (Fs) as the probe was advanced. Empirical relationships (Robertson and Campanella, 1989) were applied to the data to give a nearly continuous profile of the soil stratigraphy. Interpretation of CPT data provides correlations for SPT blow count, phi (0) angle (soil friction angle), ultimate shear strength (Su) of clays, and soil type. September 22, 2000 -5- File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 [nterpretive logs of the CPT soundings are presented in Appendix A of this report. The stratification lines shown on the subsurface logs represent the approximate boundaries between the various strata. However, the transition from one stratum to another may be gradational. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Samples were reviewed along with field logs to select those that would be analyzed further. Those selected for laboratory testing include soils that would be exposed and used durin- g uring grading, and those deemed to be within the influence of the proposed structure. Test results are presented in graphic and tabular form in Appendix B of this report. The tests were conducted in general accordance with the procedures of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other standardized methods as referenced below. Our testing program consisted of the following: �> In-situ Moisture Content and Unit Dry Weight for the ring samples (ASTM D 2937). Maximum density tests were performed to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of typical soils encountered (ASTM D 1557-91). Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422) to classify and evaluate soil composition. The gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by hydrometer and sieve analysis procedures. Consolidation (Collapse Potential) (ASTM D 2435 and D5333) to evaluate the compressibility and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential of the soil. i' Liquid and Plastic Limits tests to evaluate the plasticity and expansiv.: nature of clayey soils. i Chemical Analyses (Soluble Sulfates & Chlorides, pH, and Electrical Resistivity) to evaluate the potential adverse effects of the soil on concrete and steel. G%pTLJ C\/CTChAC r^rnxicr�i September 22 2000 i Section 3 DISCUSSION 1.1 Soil Conditions File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 The field exploration indicates that site soils consist primarily of an upper layer of silty sand to sandy silt soils (Unified Soil Classification Symbols of SM and ML). These soils are loose to nedium dense. At depths greater than 5 feet, layers of clayey silt soils and some layers of sand Yere encountered. The boring and CPT logs provided in Appendix A include more detailed descriptions of the soils encountered. The upper soils are visually classified to be in the very low expansion category in accordance with Table 18A -I -B of the Uniform Building Code. Clayey silt soils are expected to be in the low expansion category. In and climatic regions, granular soils may have a potential to collapse upon wetting. Collapse (hydroconsolidation) may occur when the soluble cements (carbonates) in the soil matrix dissolve, causing the soil to densify from its loose configuration from deposition. Consolidation tests indicate 1 to 3% collapse upon inundation and is considered a slight to moderate site risk. The hydroconsolidation potential is commonly mitigated by recompact16n of a zone beneath building pads. The site lies within a recognized blow sand hazard area. Fine particulate matter (PMio) can create an air quality hazard if dust is blowing. Watering the surface, planting grass or landscaping, or hardscape normally mitigates this hazard. 3.2 Groundwater Free groundwater was not encountered in the borings or CPT soundings during exploration. The depth to groundwater in the area, is believed to be about 69 feet based on 1999 water well data obtained for the well near the former Colchest Ranch house from the Coachella Valley Water District. Groundwater levels may fluctuate with, irrigation, drainage, regional pumping from wells, and site grading. The development of perched groundwater is possible over clayey soil layers with heavy irrigation. 3.3 Geologic Setting Regional Geology: The site lies within the Coachella Valley, a part of the Colorado Desert geomorphic province. A significant feature within the Colorado Desert geomorphic province is the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is a large northwest -trending structural depression that extends from San Gorgonio Pass, approximately 180 miles to the Gulf of California. Much of this depression in the area of the Salton Sea is below sea level. The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton Trough. The Coachella Valley contains a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits that are Miocene to recent in age. Mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the northeast, foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the southwest.. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and FARTW CVCTC,,.IC r-nkici II T. AIT c,/ o fT-1/- September 22, 2000 - 7 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 1Iesozoic granitic rocks. The San Andreas Fault zone within the Coachella Valley consists of the Garnet Hill Fault, the Banning Fault, and the Mission Creek Fault that -raverse along the northeast margin of the valley. Local Geology: The project site is located within the lower portion of the Coachella. Valley. The upper sediments within the lower valley consist of fine to coarse-grained sand:. with interbedded clays and silts, of aeolian (wind-blown), and alluvial (water -laid) origin. 3.4 Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards that may affect the region include seismic hazards (surface fault rupture, ground shaking, soil liquefaction, and other secondary earthquake -related hazards), slope instability, flooding, ground subsidence, and erosion. A discussion follows on the specific hazards to this site. 3.4.1 Seismic Hazards Seismic Sources: Our research of regional faulting indicates that several actly-: faults or seismic zones lie within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the project site as shown on Table 1 in Appendix A. The primary seismic hazard to the site is strong groundshaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. The Maximum Magnitude Earthquake (M„,a,) listed is from published geologic information available for each fault (CDMG, 1996). The Mmax corresponds to the maximum earthquake believed to be tectonically possible. Surface Fault Rupture: The project site does not lie within a currently delineated State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1994). Well -delineated fault lines cross through this region as shown on California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) maps (Jennings, 1994). Therefore, active fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site. While fault rupture would most likely occur along previously established fault traces, future fault rupture could occur at other locations. Historic Seismicity: Six historic seismic events (5.9 M or greater) have significantly affected the Coachella Valley this century. They are as follows: Desert Hot Springs Earthquake - On December 4, 1948, a magnitude 6.5 ML (5.0Mw) earthquake occurred east of Desert Hot Springs. This event was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area. PQInh Springs Earthquake - A magnitude 5.9 ML (6.2Mw) earthquake occurred or, July 8, 1986 in the Painted Hills causing minor surface creep of the Banning segment of the San Andreas Fault. This event was stron;ly felt in the Palm Springs area and caused structural damage, as well as injuries. • Joshua Tree Earthquake - On April 22, 1992, a magnitude 6.1 ML (6.1Mw) earthquake occurred in the mountains 9 miles east of Desert Hot Springs. Structural damage and minor mnjuries occurred in the. Palm Springs area as a result of this earthquake. Landers d Big Bear Earthquakes - Early on June 28, 1992, a magnitude 7.5 Ms (7.3Mw) earthquake occurred near Landers, the largest seismic event in Southern California for 40 yezrs. Surface rupture occurred just south of the town of Yucca Valley and extended some 43 miles towF-rd Barstow. About three hours later, a magnitude 6.6 Ms (6.4M%,,) earthquake occurred near Bi-, Bear Lake. No significant structural damage from these earthquakes 'was reported in the Palm Springs area. EARTH SYSTF.MC (YINCI 11 Ta (jTC Crm ITLIVAICC-r September 22, 2000 - 8 - F_ le No.: 07117-10 y 00-09-772 Hector Mine Earthquake - On October 16, 1999, a magnitude 7.1Mw earthquake occurred on the Lavic Lake and Bullion Mountain Faults north of 29 Palms. This event while widely felt, no significant structural damage has been reported in the Coachella Valley. Seismic Risk: While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, various agencies have conducted statistical risk analyses. In 1996, the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed the latest generation of probabilistic seismic hazard maps for use in the 1997 UBC. We have used t iese maps in our valuation of the seismic risk at the site. The Working Group of California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 1995) estimated a 22% conditional probability that a magnitude 7 or greater earthquake may occur between 1994 to 2024 along the Coachella segment of the San Andreas Fault. The primary seismic risk at the site is a potential earthquake along the San Andreas Fault. Geologists believe that the San Andreas Fault has characteristic earthquakes that result from rupture of each fault segment. The estimated characteristic earthquake is magnitude 7.4 for the Southern Segment of the fault. This segment has the longest elapsed time since rupture than any other portion of the San Andreas Fault. The last rupture occurred about 160 AD, based on dating by the USGS near Indio (WGCEP, 1995). This segment has also ruptured on about 1020, 1300, and 1450 AD, with an average recurrence interval of about 220 years. The San Andreas Fault may rupture in multiple segments producing a higher magnitude eanni quake. Recent paleoseismic studies suggest that the San Bernardino Mountain Segment to .he north and the Coachella Segment may have both ruptured together in 1450 and 1690 AD (WGCEP, 1995). 3.4.2 Secondary Hazards Secondary seismic hazards related to ground shaking include soil liquefaction, ground deformation, areal subsidence, tsunamis, and seiches. The site is far inland so the hazard from tsunamis is non-existent. At the present time, no water storage reservoirs Ere located in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, hazards from seiches are considered negligible at this time. Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sudden shock (usually earthquake shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. In general, for the effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the surface, groundwater levels must be wit:zin 50 feet of the round surface and the soils within the saturated zone must also be susceptib:e to liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction to occur at this site is considered low because the depth of groundwater beneath the site exceeds 50 feet. No free groundwater was encountered in our exploratory borings or CPT Soundings. Only the extreme southeastern part of the Phase 1 area lies within the Riverside County liquefaction study zone. Ground Deformation and Subsidence: Non -tectonic ground deformation consists of cracking of the ground with little to no displacement. This type of deformation is general.y associated with differential shaking of two or more geologic units with differing engineering characteristics. Ground deformation may also be caused by liquefaction. As the site is relatively flat with consistent Qeologic material, and has a low potential for liquefaction, the po:ential for ground deformation is also considered to be low. FARTW CVCTcndc r-nnrcr it T.. RITC v/ l iriru September 22, 2000 - 9 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 the potential for seismically induced ground subsidence is considered to be moderate at the site. Dry sands tend to settle and densify when subjected to strong earthquake shaking. The amount of subsidence is dependent on relative density of the soil, groundshaking (cyclic shear strain), and earthquake duration (number of strain cycles). Uncompacted fill areas may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement. Slope Instability: The site is currently relatively flat. Mass -grading will reshape the topography so that slopes are as high as 20 to 30 feet with up to 2:1 (horizontal: vertic a-) inclination will exist. Therefore, potential hazards from slope instability, landslides, or debris flows are considered negligible to low. Flooding: The project site does not lie within a designated FEMA 100 -year flood plane. The project site may be in an area where sheet flooding and erosion (especially on slopes) could occur. Significant grade changes are proposed for the site. Appropriat~ project design, construction, and maintenance can minimize the site sheet flooding potential. 3.4.3 Site Acceleration and UBC Seismic Coefficients Site Acceleration: The potential intensity of ground motion may be estima=ed the horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA), measured in "g" forces. Included in Table I are deterministic estimates of site acceleration from possiblo, earthquakes at nearby faults. Ground motions are dependent primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the seismogenic (rupture) zone. Accelerations also are dependent upon attenuation by rock and soil deposits, direction of rupture, and type of fault. For these reasons, ground motions may vary considerably in the same general area. This variability can be expressed statistically by a standard deviati :)n about a mean relationship. The PGA is an inconsistent scaling factor to compare to the UBC Z factor and -s generally a poor indicator of potential structural damage during an earthquake. Important factors influencing the structural performance are the duration and frequency of strong ground motion, local subsurface conditions, soil -structure interaction, and structural details. Because of these fzctors, an effective peak acceleration (EPA) is used in structural design. The following table provides the probabilistic estimate of the PGA and EPA taken from the 1996 CDMG/USGS seismic hazard maps. EARTH evcTPn.1c r�nntct if TA \ITC C(V ITLJ%I/CCT September 22, 2000 - 10- Estimate 0- Estimate of PGA and EPA from 1996 CDMG/USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Mans File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Risk Equivalent Retum Period (years) PGA (g) 1 Approximate EPA (g) ' 10% exceedance in 50 years 475 0.49 1 0.45 Notes: I. Based on a soft rock site, SB/c and soil amplification factor of 1.0 for Soil Profile Type Sp. 2. Spectral acceleration (SA) at period of 0.3 seconds divided by 2.5 for 5% damping, as defined by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 1996). 1997 UBC Seismic Coefficients: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) seisrrriic design are based Dn a Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) that has an earthquake ground motion with a 10% probability of occurrence in 50 years. The PGA and EPA estimates given above are provided for information on the seismic risk inherent in the UBC design. The following lists the seismic and site coefficients given in Chapter 16 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). 1997 UBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter- 16 Seismic Provisions Seismic Zone: Seismic Zone Factor, Z: Soil Profile Type: Seismic Source Type: Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source Near Source Factor, Na: Near Source Factor, Nv: Seismic Coefficient, Ca: Seismic Coefficient, Cv: 4 0.4 So A 9.8 km = 6.1 miles 1.01 1.22 0.44 = 0.44Na 0.78 = 0.64Nv R efarenre Figure 16-2 Table 16-I Table 16-J Table 16-U (San Andreas Fault) Table 16-S Table 16-T Table 16-Q Table 16-R Seismic Zonin--: The Seismic Safety Element of the 1984 Riverside County General Plan establishes groundshaking hazard zones. The majority of the project area is mapped in Ground Shaking Zone IIB. Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance from causative faults and underlying soil types. The site does not lie within the Liquefaction Hazard area established by this Seismic Safety Element. These groundshaking hazard zones are used in deciding suitability of land use. 2000 CBC Seismic Coefficients: For comparative purposes, the newly released 2000 International Building Code (IBC) seismic and site coefficients are given in Appendix A. As of the issuance of this report, we are unaware when goveming jurisdictions may.adopt or modify the CBC provisions. EARTH SYSTFNI.S ('.ONQf if TANT¢ qni ITN\,VFCT ieptember 22, 2000 - 11 - F_le No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Section 4 CONCLUSIONS I he following is a summary of our conclusions and professional opinions Lased on the data obtained from a review of selected technical literature and the site evaluation. The primary geologic hazard relative to site development is severe grolnd shaking from earthquakes originating on nearby faults. In our opinion, a major seismic event originating on the local segment of the San Andreas Fault zone would roe the most likely cause of significant earthquake activity at the site within the estimated design life of the proposed development. The project site is in seismic Zone 4 as defined in the Uniform Building Code. A qualified professional who is aware of the site seismic setting should design any permanent structure constructed on the site. Ground subsidence from seismic events or hydroconsolidation is a potential hazard in the Coachella Valley area. Adherence to the following grading and structural recommendations should reduce potential settlement problems from seismic forces, heavy rainfall or irrigation, flooding, and the weight of the intended structures. > The soils are susceptible to wind and water erosion. Preventative measures to minimize seasonal flooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading. plans. Dust control should also be implemented during construction. > Other geologic hazards including ground rupture, liquefaction, se_smically induced flooding, and landslides are considered low or negligible on this site. > The upper soils were found to be relatively loose to medium dense silty sand to sandy silt overlying layers of clayey soils. In our opinion, the soils within builcing and structural areas will require over excavation and recompaction to improve bezring capacity and reduce settlement from static loading. Soils should be readily cut by normal grading equipment. Earth Systems Consultants Southwest (ESCSW) should provide geotechnical engineering services during project design, site development, excavation, gradin, and foundation constriction phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with tl e design concepts, specifications, and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to. the start of construction. Plans and specifications should be provided to ESCSW prior to grading. Plans should include the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation details. Pr--ferably, structural loads should be shown on the foundation plans. EARTH SYCTFMC MWI T II TA NTC Cllr rTUU•'GQT 11 September 22, 2000 Section k.ECOMMENDATIONS -12- SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING S.1 Site Development - Grading File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 k representative of ESCSW should observe site grading and the bottom of ex:avations prior to placing fill. Local variations in soil conditions may warrant increasing the depth of recompaction ind over -excavation. Clearing and Grubbing: Prior to site grading existing vegetation, trees, large roots, old structure, foundations, uncompacted fill, construction debris, trash, and abandoned underground utilities should be removed from the proposed building, structural, and pavement areas. The surface should be stripped of organic growth and removed from the construction area- Areas disturbed during demolition and clearing should be properly backfilled and compacted as. described below. Non-structural (golf course) areas may be used as disposal areas for resulting debris as designated clearly on grading plans and approved by project owner, engineers and governing jurisdictions. Building Pad Preparation: Because of the non-uniform and under -compacted nature of the site moils, we recommend recompaction of soils in the building and structural areas. The existing surface soilswithin the building pad and structural areas should be over -excavated to 30 inches below existing grade or a minimum of 24 inches below the footing level (wh:chever is lower). The over -excavation should extend for 5 feet beyond the outer edge of exterior footings. The bottom of the sub -excavation should be scarified; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 90 % relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) for an additional depth of 12 inches. Moisture penetration to near optimum moisture should extend at least 5 feet below existing grade and be verified by testing. These recommendations are intended to provide a minimum of 48 and 36 inches of moisture conditioned and compacted soil beneath the floor slabs and footings, respectively. Auxiliary Structure Subgrade Preparation: Auxiliary structures such as garden Dr retaining walls should have the subgrade prepared similar to the building pad preparation recommendation given above. Except the lateral extent of the overexcavation need only to extend 2 feet beyond the face of the footing. Settlement Monitors: In areas where fill depths are greater than 10 feet above existing grade, we recommend the placement of settlement monitors (one for each general area) to monitor the post - grading settlement of the fill and underlying soils. Compression of the deep seated clayey soil may occur after grading, but is expected to stabilize relatively soon thereafter. Monitoring allows the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the movement (if any) and its potential impact on construction. Sub --rade Preparation: In areas to receive non-structural fill, pavements, or hardscape, the ground surface should be scarified; moisture conditioned, and compacted to at :east 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) for a depth of 24 inches below subgrade. Compaction should be verified by testing. EARTH QVCTPnee t-nmci I IT A MTV cnr rrIrn 11� September 22, 2000 File No.: 07117-10 00-09-77? Engineered Fill Soils: The native sand, silty sand, and sandy silt soil is suitable for use as engineered fill and utility trench backfill. The native soil should be placed in maximum 8 -inch G fts (loose) and compacted to at least 90° o relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near its optimum moisture content. Compaction should be verified by testing. Clayey silt soils where encountered at depths generally below 8 -foot depth are _ess desirable soils and should not be placed within the upper 3 feet of finished subgrades for building pads or streets. Imported fill soils (if required) should be non -expansive, granular sails meeting the USCS classifications of SM, SP -SM, or SW -SM with a maximum rock sine of 3 inches and i to 35% passing the No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the import fill soils before hauling to the site. However, because of the potential variations within the borrow source, import soil will not prequalified by ESCSW. The imported fill should be placed in lifts ao greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near optimum moisture content. Shrinkag : The shrinkage factor for earthwork is expected to variably range from 5 to 20 percent for the majority of the excavated or scarified soils, but in the clayey soils and upper 4 feet of some areas it may range from 500/ . This estimate is based on compactive effort to achieve an average relative compaction of about 92% and may vary with contractor me -hods. Subsidence is estimated to range from 0.1 to 0.3 feet. Losses from site clearing and removal of existing site improvements may affect earthwork quantity calculations and should be consicLred. Site Drainage- Positive drainage should be maintained away from the structcres (5% for 5 feet minimum) to prevent ponding and subsequent saturation of the foundation Eoils. Gutters and downspouts should be considered as a means to convey water away from foundations if adequate drainage is not provided. Drainage should be maintained for paved areas. Water should not pond on or near paved areas. 5.2 Excavations and Utility Trenches Excavations should be made in accordance with CalOSHA requirements. Our site exploration and knowledge of the general area indicates there is a potential for caving of site excavations (utilities, footings, etc.). Excavations within sandy soil should be kept moist, but not saturated, to reduce the potential of caving or sloughing. Where deep excavations over 4 feet deep are planned, lateral bracing or appropriate cut slopes of 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) should be provided. No surcharge loads from stockpiled soils or construction materials should be allowed within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope, equal to the depth of the excavation. Utility Trenches: Backfill of utilities within road or public right-of-ways should be placed in conformance with the requirements of the governing agency (water district, public works department, etc.) Utility trench backfill within private property should be plac:d in conformance with the provisions of this report. In general, service lines extending inside c f property may be backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of 900/'0 relative cornpaction. Backfill operations should be observed and tested to monitor compliance with these recommendations. EARTH rV(ZTRnec rnnrcr n TA ArTC onr „-<<I"_IT September 22, 2000 - 14- F.le No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 5.3 Slope Stability of Graded Slopes Unprotected, permanent graded slopes should not be steeper than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) to reduce wind and rain erosion. Protected slopes with ground cover may be as steep as 2:1. However, maintenance with motorized equipment may not be possible at thiE inclination. Fill slopes should be overfilled and trimmed back to competent material. Where slopes heights exceed 20 feet, with 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) slopes, post -construction engineering calculations should be performed to evaluate the stability using shear strength values ottained from soils composing the slopes. Erosion control measures should be considered for slopes steeper than 3:1 until the final ground cover (i.e., grass turf) is established. STRUCTURES In our professional opinion, the structure foundation can be supported on shallow foundations bearing on a zone of properly prepared and compacted soils placed as recommended in Section 5.1. The recommendations that follow are based on very low expansion category soils with the upper 3 feet of subgrade. 5.4 Foundations Footing do -sign of widths, depths, and reinforcing are the responsibility of the Structural Engineer, considering the structural loading and the geotechnical parameters given in this report. A minimum footing depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade should be maintained. A representative of ESCSW should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Any loose soil or construction debris should be removed from footing excavations prior to placement of concrete. Conventional Spread Foundations: Allowable soil bearing pressures are given below for foundations bearing on recompacted soils as described in Section 5.1. _allowable bearing pressures are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be neglected). Continuous wall foundations, 12 -inch minimum width and 12 inches below grade: 1500 psf for dead plus design live loads Allowable increases of 300 psf per each foot of additional footing width and 300 psf for each additional 0.5 foot of footing depth may be used up to a maximum value 0:-3000 psf. Isolated pad foundations, 2 x 2 foot minimum in plan and 18 inches below grade: 2000 psf for dead plus design live loads Allowable increases of 200 psf per each foot of additional footing width a_zd 400 psf for each additional 0.5 foot of footing depth may be used up to a maximum value o"3000 psf. A one-third (1/3) increase in the bearing pressure may be used when calculating resistance to wind or seismic loads. The allowable bearing values indicated are based on the anticipated maximum loads stated in Section 1.1 of this report. If the anticipated loads exceed these values, the geotechnical engineer must reevaluate the allowable bearing values and the grading requirements. September 22, 2000 - 15 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-77? Minimum reinforcement for continuous wall footings should be two, No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, placed near the top and the bottom of the footing. This reinforcing is not intended to supersede my structural requirements provided by the structural engineer. Expected Settlement: Estimated total static settlement, based on footings founded on firm soils as recommended, should be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement between exterior and interior bearing members should be less than 1/2 -inch. Frictional and Lateral Coefficients: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on the base of foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation walls. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 of dead load may be used. An allowable passive equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf may also be used. These values include a factor of safety of 1.5. Passive resistance and frictional resistance may be used in combination if the friction coefficient is reduced to 0.23 of dead load forces. A one-third (1/3) increase in the passive pressure may be used when calculating resistance to wind or seismic loads. Lateral passive resistance is based on the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations is properly compacted. 5.5 Slabs -on -Grade SubQrade: Concrete slabs -on -grade and flatwork should be supported by compacted soil placed in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report. Vapor Barrier: In areas of moisture sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor barrier should be installed to reduce moisture transmission from the subgrade soil to the slab. For these areas an impermeable membrane (10 -mil moisture barrier) should underlie the floor slabs. The membrane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to help protect it during construction and to aide in concrete curing. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete. Low -slump concrete should be used to help reduce the potential for concrete shrinkage. The effectiveness of the moisture barrier is dependent upon its quality, method of overlapping, its protection during construction, and the successful sealing of the barrier around utility lines. Slab thickness and reinforcement: Slab thickness and reinforcement of slab -on -grade are contingm ent on the recomendations of the structural engineer or architect and the expansion index of the supporting soil. Based upon our findings, a modulus of subgrade reaction of approximately 200 pounds per cubic inch can be used in concrete slab design for the expected very low expansion subgrade. Concrete slabs and flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. We suggest that the concrete slabs be reinforced, as specified by the project structural engineer, to resist cracking. Concrete floor slabs may either be monolithically placed with the foundations or doweled after footing placement. The thickness and reinforcing given are not intended to supersede any structural requirements provided by the structural engineer. The project architect or geotechnical engineer should observe all reinforcing steel in slabs during placement of concrete to check for proper location within the slab. Control Joints: Control joints should be provided in all concrete slabs -on -grade at a maximum spacing of 36 times the slab thickness (12 feet maximum on -center, each way) as recommended by American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. All joints should form approximately square September 22, 2000 - 16 - File No.: 07117-140 00-09-772 patterns to reduce the potential for randomly oriented, contraction cracks. Contraction joints in the slabs should be tooled at the time of the pour or saw cut (1/4 of slab depths within 8 hours of concrete placement. Construction (cold) joints should consist of thickened bLtt joints with one- half inch dowels at 18 -inches on center or a thickened keyed -joint to resist vertical deflection at the joint. All construction joints in exterior flatwork should be sealed to reduce the potential of moisture or foreign material intrusion. These procedures will reduce the potential for randomly oriented cracks, but may not prevent them from occurring. Curing and Quality Control: The contractor should take precautions to reduce the potential of curling of slabs in this arid desert region using proper batching, placement, and curing methods. Curing is highly effected by temperature, wind, and humidity. Quality control procedures may b e used including trial batch mix designs, batch plant inspection, and on-site special inspection and testing. Typically, for this type of construction and using 2500 -psi concrete, many of these quality control procedures are not required. 5.6 Retaining Walls The following table presents lateral earth pressures for use in retaining wall design. The values are given as equivalent fluid pressures without surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressure. Lateral Pressures and Sliding Resistance t Granular Backfill Passive Pressure 375 pcf - level ground Active Pressure (cantilever walls) 35 pcf - level ground Able to rotate 0.1% of structure height At -Rest Pressure (restrained walls) 55 pcf - level ground Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure' Acting at mid height of structure, 25H paf Where H is height of backfill in feet Base Lateral Sliding Resistance Dead load x Coefficient of Friction: 0.50 Notes: 1. These values are ultimate values. A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used in sta-:)ility analysis except for dynamic earth pressure where a factor of safety of 1.2 is acceptable. 2. Dynamic pressures are based on the Mononobe-Okabe 1929 method, additive tc• active earth pressure. Walls retaining less than 6 feet of soil need not consider this increased pressure. Upward sloping backfill or surcharge loads from nearby footings can create larger lateral pressures. Should any walls be considered for retaining sloped backfill or placed next to foundations, our office should be contacted for recommended design parameters. Surcharge loads should be considered if they exist within a zone between the face of the wall and a plane projected 45 degrees upward from the base of the wall. The increase in lateral earth pressure should be taken as 35% of the surcharge load within this zone. Retaining walls subjected to traffic loads should include a uniform surcharge load equivalent to at least 2 feet of native soil. Drainage: A back -drain or an equivalent system of backfill drainage should be incorporated into the retaining wall design. Our firm can provide construction details when the specific application is determined. Backfill immediately behind the retaining structure should be a free -draining September ??, 2000 - 17 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 ,ranular material. Waterproofing should be according to the Architect's specifications. Water should not be allowed to pond near the top of the wall. ,To accomplish this, the final backfill grade should be such that all water is diverted away from the retaining wall. Backfill Compaction: Compaction on the retained side of the wall within a horizontal distance equal to one wall height should be performed by hand -operated or other lightweight compaction equipment. This is intended to reduce potential locked -in lateral pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading equipment. Footing Subgrade Preparation: The subgrade for footings should be prepared according to the auxiliary structure subgrade preparation given in Section 5.1. 5.7 Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete Selected chemical analyses for corrosivity were conducted on samples at th-- low chloride ion concentration. Sulfate ions can attack the cementitious material in concrete, pausing weakening of the cement matrix and eventual deterioration by raveling. Chloride ions can cause corrosion of reinforcing steel. The Uniform Building Code does not require any special provisions for concrete for these low concentrations as tested. However, excavated soils from mass -grading may have higher sulfate and chloride ion concentrations. Additional soil chemical testing should be conducted on the building pad soils after mass -grading. A minimum concrete cover of three (3) inches should be provided around Steel reinforcing or embedded components exposed to native soil or landscape water (to 18 in:hes above grade). Additionally, the concrete should be thoroughly vibrated during placement. Electrical resistivity testing of the soil suggests that the site soils may present a moderately severe potential for metal loss from electrochemical corrosion processes. Corrosior protection of steel can be achieved by using epoxy corrosion inhibitors, asphalt coatings, cathodic protection, or encapsulating with densely consolidated concrete. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted regarding mitigation of the corrosive effects of site soils on metals. 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria This site is subject to strong ground shaking due to potential fault movements along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. Engineered design and earthquake -resistant construction increase safety and allow development of seismic areas. The minimum seismic design should comply with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 using the seismic coefficients given in Section 3.4.3 of this report. The UBC seismic coefficients are based on scientific knowledge, engineering judgment, and compromise. Factors that play an important role in dynamic structural performance are: (l) Effective peak acceleration (EPA), (?) Duration and predominant frequency of strong ground motion, (3) Period of motion of the structure, (4) Soil -structure interaction, September 22, 2000 - 18 - F_le No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 (5) Total resistance capacity of the system, (6) Redundancies, (7) Inelastic load -deformation behavior, and (8) Modification of damping and effective period as structures behave inelastically. factors 5 to 8 are included in the structural ductility factor (R) that is used in deriving a reduced value for design base shear. If further information on seismic design is needed, a site-specific probabilistic seismic analysis should be conducted. The intent of the UBC lateral force requirements is to provide a structural design that will resist collapse to provide reasonable life safety from a major earthquake, but may experience some structural and nonstructural damage. A fundamental tenet of seismic design is that inelastic yielding is allowed to adapt to the seismic demand on the structure. In other words, damage is allowed. The UBC lateral force requirements should be considered a minimum design. The owner and the designer should evaluate the level of risk and performance teat is acceptable. Performance based criteria could be set in the design. The design engineer has the responsibility to interpret and adapt the principles of seismic behavior and design to each structure using experience and sound judgment. The design engineer should exercise special care so that all components of the design are all fully met with attention to providing a continuous load path. An adequate quality assurance and control program is urged during project construction to verify that the design plans and good construction practices are followed. This is especially important for sites lying close to the major seismic sources. 5.9 Pavements Since no traffic loading were provided by the design engineer or owner, we have assumed traffic loading for comparative evaluation. The design engineer or owner should decide the appropriate traffic conditions for the pavements. Maintenance of proper drainage is necessary to prolong the service life of the pavements. Water should not pond on or near paved arees. The following table provides our recommendations for pavement sections. September 22, 2000 - 19 - RECOMMENDED PAVEMENTS SECTIONS �-Value Subgrade Soils - 40 (assumed) File No.: 07117-10 00-09-77? Design Method — CALTRANS 1995 Traffic Index (Assumed) Pavement Use Flexible Pavements Rigid Pavements Asphaltic Aggregate Concrete Base Thickness Thickness (Inches) (Inches) Portlan3 Cement Concre,.e (Inches) Aggregate Base Thickness (Inches) 4.0 Auto Parking Areas 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Residential Streets 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.5 Collector Road 3.5 6.5 --- --- 7.5 1 Secondary Road 4.5 7.0 --- --- Notes: 1. Asphaltic concrete should be Caltrans, Type B, 1/2 -in. or 3/4-1n. maximum -medium grading and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the 75 -blow Marshall density (ASTM D 1559) or equivalent. 2. Aggregate base should be Caltrans Class 2 (3/4 in. maximum) and compacted to a minimum of 95% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture. 3. All pavements should be placed on 12 inches of moisture -conditioned subgrade, compacted to a minimum of 90% of ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture. 4. Portland cement concrete should have a minimum of 3250 psi compressive strength @ 28 days. 5. Equivalent Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) may be used instead of Caltrans specifications for asphaltic concrete and aggregate base_ September 22, 2000 -20- File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES U Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, our bndings 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 poin_s. The nature and extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our recommendations. Findings of this report are valid as of the issued date of the report. However, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they are fron- 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. Acco-dingly, findings of This report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner, or the owner's representative, has the responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project so that they are incorporated _nto the plans and specifications for the project. The owner, or the owner's representative, also has the responsibility to take the necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors follow such recommendations. It is further understood that the owner or the owner's representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. As the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project, Earth Systems Consultants Southwest (ESCSW) has striven to provide our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time. No warranty or guarantee is express or implied. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and the Client's authorized agents. ESCSW should be provided the opportunity for a general review of , final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If ESCSW .s not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. Although available through ESCSW, the current scope of our services dDes not include an environmental assessment, or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air on, below, or ad_=acent to the subject property. P DTLf CVCTcndC r n-IC,I If r. •.r r .. .T..... September 22, 2000 -21 - File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 L2 Additional Services This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program of client consultation, construction monitoring, and testing will be perfornied during the final design and construction phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining ESCSW as the geotechnical consultant from beginning to end of the project will provide continuity of services. The geotechnical engineering firm providing tests and observations shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Construction monitoring and testing would be additional services provided ®y our firm. The costs of these services are not included in our present fee arrangements, but can be obtained from our office. The recommended review, tests, and observations include, but are not necessarily imited to the following: • Consultation during the final design stages of the project. • Review of the building and grading plans to observe that recommendations of our report have been properly implemented into the design. • Observation and testing during site preparation, grading and placemer_t of engineered fill as required by UBC Sections 1701 and 3317 or local grading ordinances. • Consultation as required during construction. M Appendices as cited are attached and complete this report. September 22, 2000 File No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 REFERENCES kbrahamson, N., and Shedlock, K., editors, 1997, Ground motion attenuation relationships: Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 1, January 1997 special issue, 256 p. Blake, B.F., 1998a, FRISKSP v. 3.01b, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources, Users Manual, 191 p. Blake, B.F., 1998b, Preliminary Fault -Data for EQFAULT and FRISKSP, 71 p. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1993, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report; U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 93-509, 15 p. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1994, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: An Inter -_m Report, Part 2, U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 94-127. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology: Guide:ines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, and WWW Version. Envicom, Riverside County, 1976, Seismic Safety Element. Ellsworth, W.L., 1990, "Earthquake History, 1769-1989" in: The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p. Hart, E.W., and 1994 rev., Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 34 p. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, 1-)97 Edition. International Conference of Building Officials, 2000, International Building Code, 2000 Edition. Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1994, Prediction of Ground Motion in (`forth America, in Proceedings of ATC -35 Seminar on New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion Estimation and Implications for Engineering Design Practice, Applied Technology Council, 1994. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Leinkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwarz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 96-08, 59 p. Proctor, Richard J. (1968), Geology of the Desert Hot Springs - Upper Coazhella Valley .Area, California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Special Report 94. September 22, 2000 - 23 - Fi-e No.: 07117-10 00-09-772 Riverside County (1984), Seismic Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan, Amended. Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California - Santa Ana Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Sieh, K., Stuiver, M., and Brillinger, D., 1989, A More Precise Chronology- of Earthquakes Produced by the San Andreas Fault in Southern California: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 94, No. B1, January 10, 1989, pp. 603-623. Sieh, Kerry, 1985, Earthquake Potentials Along The San Andreas Fault, Minutes of The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, March 29-30, 1985, USGS ?pen File Report 85-507. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 1996, Recommenckd Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. Tokimatsu, K, and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands DL.e To Earthquake Shaking, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, August 1987. Van de Kamp, P.C., 1973, Holocene Continental Sedimentation in the Salton Basin, California: A Reconnaissance, Geological Society of America, Vol. 84, March 1973. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 379-439. Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p. CA OTU CVCTCN.IC I II Tn \ITC C/li 1T1J11/rT APPENDIX A Site Location Map Boring Location Map Table 1 Fault Parameters 1997 Uniform Building Code Seismic Parameters 2000 International Building Code Seismic Parameters Logs of Borings opt 0 0, e,01 .-A dye I. \ Pun D L -0 h - 'be e 0 :N Ne 0 Cl\\ -e tiN AVENUE GO\"\ 29' V N or N 0, 5 =LMS Reference: La Quinta & Indio USGS Topographic Quadrangles Maps Scale- 1 2,000' 0 2,000 - 4,000 Figure 1 - Site Location Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Project No.: 07117-10 olw�i_ Earth systems Consultants ItZRK Southwest IX T .4 UAL -- We' 3 Z. Ole ni . .... ...... vv a 1�'r L 0 0, e,01 .-A dye I. \ Pun D L -0 h - 'be e 0 :N Ne 0 Cl\\ -e tiN AVENUE GO\"\ 29' V N or N 0, 5 =LMS Reference: La Quinta & Indio USGS Topographic Quadrangles Maps Scale- 1 2,000' 0 2,000 - 4,000 Figure 1 - Site Location Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Project No.: 07117-10 olw�i_ Earth systems Consultants ItZRK Southwest IX T 3 Z. Ole ni 0 0, e,01 .-A dye I. \ Pun D L -0 h - 'be e 0 :N Ne 0 Cl\\ -e tiN AVENUE GO\"\ 29' V N or N 0, 5 =LMS Reference: La Quinta & Indio USGS Topographic Quadrangles Maps Scale- 1 2,000' 0 2,000 - 4,000 Figure 1 - Site Location Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Project No.: 07117-10 olw�i_ Earth systems Consultants ItZRK Southwest 52nd Avenue B5 CP.T- .'.'c—i:'.._..:-:.::'- �:� �..--�-z—ter+moi r-. "_•..+-ac.,n`'r�.".c .`�,��•. ,.~. .. .._ .ave. '^! _s✓:�=- '�✓J^ .'.tsc. 'X'�7 --:! ^••r-'�_f. :.Y.— - - .;R'-_ .>.�-•�.—_f1_ - _ - -%: �� f ,�i�`aT'a':s%i:�•-`.-^~:_ _. �:f•.. ._ - -- ��-•\j_' � - tom, - . /• TB. , 6= - - ;ice;;•_ t - _ J • O ''l �K:f.-_ - �`.f�.,`•'. /'_.'•'• •i ``_-_fir _ :�\_-'^ -.t.� ._yl- B I A B1 7 _ CPT 4 -_. —--- c — --'— --- _ _ _ O —.. B7', .0 PT-3_ _ . B1, .CPT-2 - _..._._r-- ... _........,.--..a.-..a.:__,s; -_ -•- Wit`" - _ ...,.-. .:�.�.�' 'ice: ; ©:•:; -.._, mss_ -54th venue LEGEND Approximate Boring or CPT Location Scale: 1" = 800 feet 0 800 1.600 Figure 2 - Exploration Locations Project Name: Country Club of the Desert I Project No.: 07117-10 Earth Systems Consultants Southwest Count rytlub of the Desert Table 1 Fault Parameters & Deterministic Estimates of Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 07117-10 Fault Nane or Seis"icLone Distance from Site (mi) (km) Fault Type use Maximum Magnitude Mmax (Mwl Avg Slip Rate (mm/yr) Avg Return Period (yrs) Fault Length (km) pate of Last Fupture (year) Largest Historic Event >5.5M (year) Mean Site PGA (g) Refereane Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (2) (2) (2) (5) (6) San Andeas - Coachella Valley 6.1 9.8 SS A 7.1 25 220 95 c.1690 0.36 San Andeas - Southern (C V +S B M) 6.1 9.8 SS A 7.4 24 220 203 c.1690 0.41 San Andeas - Mission Crk. Branch 7.8 12.6 SS A 7.1 25 220 95 6.5 1948 0.31 San Andeas - Banning Branch 7.8 12.6 SS A 7.1 10 220 98 6.2 1986 0.31 San J acinto (Hot Spgs - Buck Ridge) 16 26 SS C 6.5 2 354 70 6.3 1937 0.12 Blue Cut 16 26 SS C 6.8 1 760 30 - 0.14 San J aceto -Anza 20 33 SS A 7.2 12 250 90 1918 6.8 1918 0.15 Burnt Mountain 20 33 SS B 6.4 0.6 5000 20 1992 7.3 1992 0.09 San J aQlto - Coyote Creek 21 34 SS B 6.8 4 175 40 1968 6.5 1968 0.11 Eureka Peak 21 34 SS B 6.4 0.6 5000 19 1992 6.1 1992 0.09 San Andeas - San Bernardino Mtn. 22 35 SS A 7.3 24 433 107 1812 7.0 -1812 0.15 Morongo 32 51 SS C 6.5 0.6 1170 23 5.5 1947 0.06 San J aatto - Borrego Mountain 33 53 SS B 6.6 4 175 29 6.5 1942 0.06 Pinto Mountain 33 53 SS B 7.0 2.5 500 73 0.08 Emerson So. - Copper Mtn. 34 54 SS B 6.9 0.6 5000 54 - 0.07 Pisga h -Bullion Mtn. -Mesquite Lk 35 57 SS B 7.0 0.6 5000 88 1999 7.1 1999 0.07 Landers 25 57 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 83 1992 7.3 1992 0.09 San J achto -San Jacinto Valley 39 62 SS B 6.9 12 83 42 6.8 1899 0.06 Brawl eySeismic Zone 39 62 SS B 6.4 25 24 42 5.9 1981 0.05 Earthquake Valley 39 62 SS B 6.5 2 351 20 0.05 Elsinore- Julian 43 70 SS A 7.1 5 340 75 0.06 JohnsonValley (Northern) 46 74 SS B 6-7 0.6 5000 36 - 0.05 Elmore Ranch 47 75 SS B 6.6 1 225 29 1987 5.9 1987 0.04 North Frontal Fault Zone (East) 47 75 DS B 6.7 0.5 1730 27 0.05 Calico -Hidalgo 47 76 SS B 7.1 0.6 5000 95 0.06 Elsinore- Temecula 48 78 SS B 6.8 5 240 42 0.05 Eisinore -Coyote Mountain 49 79 SS B 6-8 4 625 38 0.05 San Jacinto - Superstition Mountain 51 81 SS B 6.6 5 500 23 c.1440 - 0.04 San Jacinto - Superstition Hills 51 83 SS B 6.6 4 250 22 1987 6.5 1987 0.04 Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman Spas 52 84 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 149 0.06 North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 59 95 DS B 7.0 1 1310 50 0.05 Helendale - S. Lockhardt 60 96 SS B 7.1 0.6 5000 97 0.04 San Jacinto -San Bernardino 61 99 SS B 6.7 12 100 35 6.0 1923 0.03 Notes: 1. Jennings (1994) and CDMG (1996) 2. CDMG & USGS (1996), SS = Strike -Slip, DS = Dip Slip 3. ICBO (1997), where Type A faults: Mmax > 7 and slip rate >5 mm/yr &Type C faults: Mmax <6.5 and slip rate < 2 mm/yr 4. CDMG (1996) based on Wells & Coppersmith (1994), Mw = moment magnitude 5. Modified from Ellsworth Catalog (1990) in USGS Professional Paper 1515 6. The estimates of the mean Site PGA are based on the following attenuation relationships: Average of: (1) 1997 Boore, Joyner & Fumal: (2) 1991 Sadigh et al; (3) 1997 Campbell (mean plus sigma values are about 1.6 times higher) Based on Site Coordinates: 33.671 N Latitude. 116.252 W Longtude and Site Soil Type D EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST Project Name: Country Club of the Desert File No.: 07117-10 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC) SEISMIC PARAMETERS Sa (g) 0.00 Reference Seismic Zone: 4 Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone Factor: Z 0.4 Table 16-= Soil Profile Type: S n Table 16-1 Seismic Source Type: A Table 16=U Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source: 9.8 km = 6.1 miles Near Source Factor: Na 1.01 Table 16-S Near Source Factor: Nv 1.22 Table 16-T Seismic Coefficient: Ca 0.44 = 0.44Na Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient:: Cv 0.78 = 0.64Nv Table 16-R Closest Signficant Seismic Fault Source: San Andreas - Southern (C V +S B M) To: 0.14 sec Ts: 0.70 sec Seismic Importance Factor, I: 1.00 Table 16-K EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST 1997 UBC Equivalent Static Response Spectrum Period T (sec) Sa (g) 0.00 0.45 1.2 0.05 0.68 0.14 1.11 0.20 1.11 1.0 0.30 1.11 0.70 1.11 (n 0.8 0.80 0.97 C 0.90 0.86 1.00 0.78 0.6 1.10 0.71 1.20 0.65 Q 1.30 0.60 0.4 1.40 0.56 U 1.50 0.52 CL 1.60 0.49 0.2 1.70 0.46 1.80 0.43 1.90 0.41 0.0 2.00 0.39 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Period (sec) EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST Project Name: Country Club of the Desert File No.: 0.00 07117-10 0.05 2000 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) SEISMIC PARAMETERS Seismic Category 0.20 D Table 1613.3(1) Site Class 0.60 D Table 1615.1.1 Latitude: 0.80 33.671 N 0.90 Longitude: 1.00 -116.252 W 1.10 Nf 2x mum Considered Earthquake (MCE) 1.20 Ground Motion 1.30 Short Period Spectral Reponse Ss 1.50 g Figurel615(3) 1 second Spectral Response S, 0.60 g Figurel615(4) Site Coefficient Fa 1.00 Table 1615.1.2(1) Site Coefficient F„ 1.50 Table 1615.1.2(2) 0.27 SMs 1.50 g = Fa*Ss SM, 0.90 g = Fv*S, Design Earthquake Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Reponse SDs 1.00 g = 2/3*SMs 1'second Spectral Response SDI 0.60 g = 2/3*SM, To 0.12 sec = 0.2*SD,/SDs Ts 0.60 sec = SDI/SDs Seismic Importance Factor IE 1.00 Table 1604.5 2000 IBC Equivalent Elastic Static Response Spectrum 1.2 1.0 m 0 0.8 `w 0.6 U Q M 0.4 Q) 4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Period (sec) EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST Period Sa T (sec) (g) 0.00 0.40 0.05 0.65 0.12 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.70 0.86 0.80 0.75 0.90 0.67 1.00 0.60 1.10 0.55 1.20 0.50 1.30 0.46 1.40 0.43 1.50 0.40 1.60 0.38 1.70 0.35 1.80 0.33 1.90 0.32 2.00 0.30 2.20 0.27 Earth Systems Coi .Itants .:� Southwest 79-31 IB Comm Club Drive. Bermu(b Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (IOU) 343-1.133 r.yn,. you) Jas -731; BUrtt No: BI I Drilling Date: August l8, X2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Pmect Number: 07117-10 I Drill Type: Mobile 61 Bring Location: See Figure 2 I Logged Bv: Clifford W. Eatten p P Sam lei age— _ I Type ;Penetration_ j = I ` Description of Units . -9 Resistance I i UI Note: The stratification lines shown represent thr J 1 0 i o I approximate boundary between soil and/or rock ypes Graphic Trend v i o - o (Blows/6") j 0 I c U j and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count pry Density �.vi 10 i 15 ( 20 I - 25 30 4,5,6 I j i ML ; i SANIDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp, �'; I I ; I i with minor fine grained sand 1.111 I(�1 93.4 1 2.1 I I I Ill�lli Il�ilj� li!!0i I i I 185.6 i I 18.4 i I I � i I i II Ili I ll;;l i I � I I I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to i SM III ! . :I- 193.2 11.5 I medium grained, subround clasts I SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, damp, ML laminated, with minor fine gained sand Illlj'I I�li�ij 77.7 5.7 � l i I i Illiil� I I � 86.8 I 42 i , I I i ' i TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered Earth Systems Cor. Atants Southwest 79-81113 Ccuncry Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201 Phonc (760) 345-1588 FA.\ (7601345-7-11 ; BOrin No: B2 NIL i Drilling Date: August IS, 2000 Prgect Dame: Country Club of the Desert I ; Drilling Method: S" Hollow Stem Auger Prqect Number: 07117-10 9,10,10 t Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boing Location: See Figure 2 ■ 1 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten L 10 I Sample I ! Page 1 of 1 84.4 i Type`Ipenetration; _ I ! .N ,,;` Description of Units SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, d_y, fine to i I Resistance I U I u c I t c I Note: The stratification lines shown represent the 4,5,6 i (Blows/G ) 1 I � 0. : I approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend transition be Blow Count pry G N0 i c i C' i v and the may gradational. Density _ NIL i I SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp, I j y j 9,10,10 ! III S i L 1 i ■ 8,11,12 L 10 i I 5,5,5 I 84.4 i I 14.3 1 I i i i I I I I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, d_y, fine to i I .J. -i.; I .i ; 190.4 — 15 I I I i ; ■ 1 4,5,6 — 20 i 1 I � , i 9,11,13 i 25 i I - ! i I I I I 1 30 i I i I 1 TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered ; i i I I i ; NIL i SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp, j y j laminated, with minor finegrained sand j i 195.9 !! 1 2.6 � Ilr �IIIII i I � I I I 84.4 i I 14.3 1 I i i i I I I I ; sM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, d_y, fine to i I .J. -i.; I .i ; 190.4 I 1 1.3 medium grained, subiound clasts I I I NIL I SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, ds-yto damp, ' ' laminated, with minor fine grained sand Il�l�il i 81.2 ; 2.9 jllll� i ! I I ;I i ii ! j83.3 1 i ,4.6 I ' I I i i i ' i I i I i I 1 TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered ; i i I I i ; Earth Systems Cor Itants ..� Southwest 79-911 B Como y Club Drive. Bennud3 Dunes. CA 92201 !hone liou13i3-1353 rA" LIOU) 343-7315 BOCInb No: B3 Drilling Date: August IS, -000 Pnject Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: �S" Hollcw Stem Auger Pnject Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Biting Location: See Figure ? I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten r j Sample Description of Units !Page 1 of I Type ` I Penetration ; i •` � Resistance I � I UI ` v .v c E Note: The stratification lines shown represent the j c i approximate boundary between soil 'and/or rock t3rpes Graphic Trend C I o 01 (Blows/6") I I "� i G i 2 U I and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 1 zl F 10 j ' i I 5,5,5 r 1 L I it _5 L I I i 8,12,12 1 i� I L10 I 4,4,7 I ® i I 1 ■ 4,4,10 L I I 1 i I I I 70 I I i I I ■ 5,6,6 I j -75 I i 11 I 7,8,11 I '• I I I i 30 I I I I 53,9 I , r I � I I 35 I I � I 10,12,20 I _ — 40 I I 1 ! I 9,10,10 I , i I 1 — 45 r j 1 1 I , I I i I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dr-, fine to medium grained, subround clasts ' • 91.1 10.9 I I 96.0 1.6 i SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, moist, I i laminated, with minor fine grained sand 182.0 X9.6 I� i SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, daimp to dry, fine to medium grained, subround to subangular 84.8 16.8 clasts I 1 i i I • 190.4 i 4.1 95.9 . 2.4 • I ' j L]. j 93.2 Z9 i i I j 11 I::I.'.:t I I • i•-i:.l:l i 96.9 1.9 1 1:;i'i� ML ; lillllj ' 92.1 , 4.3 U l 1!I I I SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, damp, laminated, with minor fine gained sand i TOTAL DEPTH: 41.5 feet No Groundwater or Bcdrock Encountered I Earth S Southwest ems Cot. Atants 79-811 B Cv-unay Club Drive. Bermudi Dunes, CA 92201 Phone(760)345-1583 FAX (760)345.7315 foriIIg No: B4 '•. Drilling Date: August 18„2000 Poject Name: Country Club of the Desert ; Drilling Method: 8” Hollow Stem Auger Poject Number: 07117-10 j Drill Type: Mobile 61 Bring Location: See Figure 2 Logged Bv: Clifford W.3atten Sample L IPage- j Type c 1 U j •V ^ E;� Description of Units -' Resistance i � t I U Note: The stratification lines shown represent the u Blows/6"• v� D I �, i � � I approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend p i ) i i and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density UI 10 15 20 25 — 40 45 i I 4,5,6 I 3,4,6 I I 6,8,8 II i' 8,10,15 14,16,20 8,10,12 ! ' Stet I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, d --y, fine to medium grained, subround clasts • X89.5 1.2 i �•: 99.1 1.2 MUCL I CLAYEY SILT: brown, stiff, moist, larrinated, with I I j minor clay nodules �r"IJ 177.0 ! 15.3 1 i. I. 79.1 S.l A ' MUCL E MUCL I. I'•" �'; SM I is i i,•� i i SM i ML I I i 15.4 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, cry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts SANDY CLAYEY SILT: brown, stiff, noist, laminated, low plasticity CLAYEY SILT: brown, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, with minor silty sand lenses I i SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts i I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, iry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts, with minor silt and clay nodules SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, laminated, with minor fine grained sand and clay TOTAL DEPTH: 41.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered • ! 73.5 y .i• i E MUCL I. I'•" �'; SM I is i i,•� i i SM i ML I I i 15.4 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, cry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts SANDY CLAYEY SILT: brown, stiff, noist, laminated, low plasticity CLAYEY SILT: brown, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, with minor silty sand lenses I i SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts i I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, iry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts, with minor silt and clay nodules SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, laminated, with minor fine grained sand and clay TOTAL DEPTH: 41.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered • ! Earth Systems Con Itants OM Southwest 79-81113 County Club Drive, Bennuda Dunes. CA 92201 Phone (760) 345-1588 F.a.-X (760) 345-731 ; lBDC1II° NO: Bj � Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Nect Name: Country Club of the Desert I.i sM Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger PDject Number: 07117-10 ! SILTY SANT D: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to I i Drill Type: Mobile 61 Bering Location: See Figure'_' i Logged Bv: Clifford W. Batten ^ Sample Type � � Penetration I I _ i �, ;� �— (Page I of l ; Description of Units - c Ii •. p v;I .c ' Note: The stratification lines shown ent eulResistance 11.0 Y approximateondary between soil and/orrock es Graphic Trend Dp I (Blows/6)I o ` Blow Count pry De be nsitYyg.> 5 i I 5,5,7 1:;•j r � 1 I.i sM i ! SILTY SANT D: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to I medium °rained, subround to subangular clasts i I� ■4,4,4 i :!".I"{ i 87.1 11.0 � II i :'I:��:� j I I i 5 i I 5,5,7 1:;•j 86.1 1.2 1 • 10 i I 4,5,6 ' { I .I ! 189.6 10.S i I I •r ::!::�:i i � I !1 it 15 7,11,14 I..:I,; i�.l•.• 1 85.3 : l.3 i II I i; i .I i I •i' i'.':'•• ! � i II i i I i 70 i 8,9,1 I I:"!:' :' ' 85.1 1.5 25 I i I i of Li i I i I i 11 30 i 11 II 1 i I TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet I l t 35 i I i I 1 I i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i it i •, 1 i — 40 I i I Is I I- 45 I i I I I � I , 'I •I Earth Systems Con Atants Southwest Borin�aq No- B6 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert P!oject Number: 07117-10 Bring Location: See Figure 2 Sample i I Type I penetration i _ ! LL o I v j Resistance I F I U. v 11 c -0i (Blows/6") us C I � v) i 79-S i l B Co -tinny Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201 rllonc t ion) 1— 1 joa IOUI J43-73 IS ! Drilling Date: August IS, 2000 I Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger i Drill Type: Mobile 61 Logged By: Clifford W. Fatten (Page 1 of 1 I i Description of Units Note: The stratification lines shown represent tht > " I approximate boundary between soil and/or rock ypes Graphic Trend a I U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Day Density -i Snt I I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to !. . medium grained, subangular clasts ? • 1 88.; 10.4 i• 88.0 10.8 i •-�ll •1 I.•I I� ! i 91.2 I I I 10.9 I. i i A- i. 91.9 i 1.5 I:A 1 96.8 ! i I i 2.6 with silt lenses i I ! i I I I i 1 . ! i ! TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet i I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i i I Earth systems Cor, Atants Southwest 79-31113 Comtry Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes. CA 9301 Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (7601 ijc, ,, Boring No: B7 i Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Pluject Name: Country Club of the Desert ` Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 I Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure , I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample i Type`IPenetration I I .V j 0 1 Description Of Units Page 1 of 1 — U Resistance I I I E to U tii I ;, C 1�', = I G — Note: The stratification lines shown represent the c N (Blow/6") E; approximate boundary between soil and/or rock .ypes Graphic Trend the be Blow Count ol i Icri IG i and transition may gradational. Dry Density a sM F �' 13'4.6 : I: 5 ' I 356 IP•I i • i I i �.I��1.1 to ! I: 1:1 i 1 i i j I��I�•i•; 8,8,10 I I 1 I 1 I'• I � i '! i Ir i i I�• � k I r 20 I ' I L' -I I 567 1 { : L•i I a I 25 I I j::I:: 6,7,8 F I ! ! 1-- 30 ! 6,9,10 1 I 35 I � I i I i 40 ' I I I IF I i — 45 I i I i l I L SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subangular clasts 95.2 (0.7 I I i 95.4 1_2 1 • 87.8 2.1 95.2 : 1.3 i I 1 TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet i I I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I I i i i i Earth systems con. .ita nts Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Ph— flAnl 1Ji_1 SQA FAY /7tmi - _ %rids No: B8 I , I I 4,4,4 45.6 j Drilling Date: August 18,:2000 Poiect tame: Country Club of the Desert ML ' ; Drilling Method: 8" Holbw Stem Auger Poject Number: 07117-10 IIII I Drill Type: Mobile 61 Bring Location: See Figure 2 - 30 I I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten SampleI 5,6,6 I•]�.I•i Page TypeIPenetrationl i I = j `o 1 of 1 Description of Units73 1 _ 1 Resistance I c I U I v 0I , = Note: The stratification lines shown represent the 1 v l I I of (Blows/6 n 0 '°-' approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend ii I j and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density r i I , I I 4,4,4 45.6 I!ill! !fill SM ML ' 6,7.8 IIII s - 30 I I 5,6,6 I•]�.I•i -35 15 I i , I 7 9,11 1. 1 I � I r 20 I 4,4,5 I ! j..,'.1 ; I. 'S I ! ! 13,4,6 - 30 I I 5,6,6 I•]�.I•i -35 I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to ! ! medium grained, fossiliforus, subangular. clasts I� I 87.9 10.7 II I I I 90.2 ' 2.5 SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, d -y i I I ; I1 I I j it i Ii SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, day, fine to � � I! • I 90.7 1.7 i medium grained, subangular clasts 91.0 11.1 I : 1 • I � i is II 1 !i I I I :i I ; I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet I ' i I i No Groundwater or Bcdrock Encountered I i i ! i i 1 1 ! 1 I i I I Earth S Southwest Con_ .pants 79-81 IB County Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201 Phone(760)345-1588 FAX (760)345-7311; BOrina No: B9 j ! Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Pnject lame: Country Club of the Desert .I j Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Pttject Number: 07117-10 I• Drill Type: Mobile 61 Being Location: See Figure 2 I feet, subround to subangular clasts Logged By: Clifford W. Batten �I •� 1 191.4 I. Sample.. I ! i Units ^ Type Penetration I = o, o Description of 190.3 Resistance j U v u I I Note: The stratification lines shown represent the .•i.•I.1 � v i I �' 0- p (Blows/6")I v = I Q a I Q approximate boundary between soil and/or rock —ypes Graphic Trend and the transition may be dational. Blow Count Dry Density G ; 1 CJ I y gra ,• 'I ! 3,3,4 i II r t L S , 6,8,10 I L L I I— 10 I I S,S,IO I - IS i i I ■ 5,8,8 ' i ! I I I I - 20 �I 4,6,6 4,4,5 5.5,7 1 1 SM ! j SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry .I to damp, fine to medium grained, fossilibtus to five I• 74.2 1.5 I feet, subround to subangular clasts �I •� 1 191.4 I. j ! 6.1 ! I :I..I., 190.3 12.4 I I I .•i.•I.1 � i I .i-1 1 87.7 i 2.6 I ,• 'I I. ,.! MUCL I I I CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low • 1.J 1 i I plasticity, with minor silt j I i I i i ' '•'l SM I. �..�. I I ' SILTY SAND: brown medium dense, dry, fine to ; , I ` 1 medium grained, subangular clasts is MUCL j I CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low i• �. I I I plasticity I �— I i ' I ( � i I i i j TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet i I i i I I i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i Earth Systems Co, iltants f►;� Southwest Boring No: B10 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Project Number: 07117-10 Boring Location: See Figure 2 Sample I I Type Penetration u l Resistance I L I ru n I (_` I (Blows/6") C) © V r 0 I- i r �F I 5 i r F ' 10 i L 1 1 r �-- 15 i I 20 40 — 45 i i 4,5,5 5,6,7 I� 6,8,8 6,8,9 4,6,8 II 5,7,7 5,7,9 5,7,9 79-81113 Ccunuy Club Drice. Bermuda Dunes. C 9220 Phone (760) 345-1583 F.A < (760) 345-7315 Drilling Date: August IS, 2000 Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Drill Type: Mobile 61 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten I v Description of Units N u U 0 • _N a Note: The stratification lines shown represent tfe C c =_ l approximate boundary between soil and/or.rock.types L and the transition may be gradational.' G Ji 7 2. 2 9'_.7 91.7 IPage IofI Graphic Trend Blow Count Dry Density SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium cense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts 1.2 i • I� 1.6 � I I I S.c• i I 1 87.3 12.7 I i I I I i TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet I i i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i i• Earth Systems Cor. Atants �i Southwest 79.31 IB Co anay Club Drive. Bemwda Dunes. CA 92 201 Phone (760) 345-1583 FA -1C (760) 345-73 15 Boring No: BI i Drilling Date: August IS, 2000 Project Name: Country Club of the Desert : Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 i Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 I Logged By: Clifford W. E•arten Sample ^_ I Type I Penetration' I 1 1 I .'—_' �, o ! Description of Units (Page _ � i � Resistance U v Note: The stratification lines shown represent th- as = F o (Blows/6") I I C 12 0 ' I approximate boundary between soil and/or rock .ypes Graphic Trend and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density m rn g I 1 CD I Li i Q r I' SM I SILTY SAW: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to !! medium grained, subround clasts 5,8,8 I.:r.l�, 0.5 I I • ;i , 8,12,12 i .�: ';. i. 0.7 95.5 '0.7 • • �• ` ` I •�I I i i I 10 5,8,8 l i 1 91.6 I 1.2 i i I I I �• ,.t I . ML SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, d. -y, minor _ I 4,4,7 I iil 1 clay nodules I l S I I�II1i! illi; Ili;l � I I i I i ! i I � j— to I _ s.s.s Ii i l l F I I 1 Il�lii i 1 MUCL CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, mois_, low ; j— 25 I i I I ', I plasticity I 1 5.5.7 vl .-1 i - 3o a: 7,11,10 I — 35 I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet 1 i 1 40 I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I —45 I I j Earth systems Constants Southw@st 79-3118 Cowrtry Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201 Flione (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345.731 i Bring No: B12 I Drillin; Date: August IS, 2700 Pnject Name: Country Club of the Desert I Drilling Method: S" Hollow Stem Auger Pnject Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Bering Location: See Figure 2 I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten I Sample > I i (Page I of 1 iType (Penetration' I Description of Units ,v i Note: The stratification lines shown represent the i Resistance ! U i" v; .1 v I Y o ! ; I ; o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock rapes Graphic Trend C I O1 (Blows/6") ; I ^ ; c o i and the transition ma be adational. Blow Count y gr Dry Density S ! SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry-, fine to i medium grained, subround clasts I 93.0 j 0.4 ! 97.2 0.7 �•. I'. i'j � i I I ' 92.2 1.2 '? ML SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dr -r, minor cls nodules 1 I i i11M I !j�ll 1 i MUCL CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, mois-, low plasticity ! yr I , I :iai i 1 i I I i I I TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I • Earth Systems Con._altants ti Southwest 79-811 B Co•mrry Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (760)345-1588 FAX (760)345-7315 BOrina No: B13 I Drilling Date: August I8, ?000 Project Dame: Country Club of the Desert I Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 1 Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 ; Logged By: Clifford W. Eatten ! Sample i j Type IPenetration' I = `' ! Description of Units Page 1 of I LL c rn _ Resistance I J I v .y Note: The stratification lines shown represent the � C _c approximate boundary between soil and/or rock -ypes Graphic Trend G I - i (Blows/6") rn I I C i and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count pry Density 0 5 10 15 - 20 i I IF ■ 2,3,3 5,8,8 I 14,4,4 I i I 4,5,5 I I I I, 5,5,5 sM '1 A— xi .1.1 :11A .'I. i•1 MUCL i 76.2 1 0.8 I i 90.8 1.2 1 Silt — 25 ! j L I 5,6,6 I i .• MUCL I � l i• '1: I I 3° I 6,9.8 I r 1 I 35 i 40 _ i I _ I i — 45 i , I i i SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts !� I• 111 i I it ii ! SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, i low plasticity ' i i� I'. SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to medium grained, subround clasts I SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low plasticity TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered Earth Systems Con;..jltants Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone 1760, 3.15-1583 FAX Cmnt inc —. - bring NO: B14 Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Project lame: Country Club of the Desert I Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Pmject Number: 07117-10 I Drill Type: Mobile 61 Btring Location: See Figure 2 i Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample i � Pae 1 0 ( If ^ Type I penetration! ' .v .� �v Description of Units L 1 ( O U I; Resistance I L U SCI 7 v ' = ! Note: The stratification lines shown represent the C N (Blows/6 ) ; I = Q j v Graph rock types glow Count[ Dry Density ty androximate the transition mar} be gradationalbetween soil . Blow Densi i I 10 I I I I I 20 I I I I 25 4,4,4 6,7,8 3,2,2 4,6,7 5,6,7 6,6,_ - 30' 6.7,9 it - 35 ! i I I i - 40 I SM I I:I.T MUCL V;i i SM ; MUCL {;EI i r•'�.i 1-4 SILTY SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry, I fine to medium grained, subround clasts • 75.1 10.7 i li 86.8 1.4 II j 1 jl I I II II i j II I I j SAWY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, siiff, moist, ! 1 low plasticity I ' I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, cry, fine to i medium grained, subround clasts ! I CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moi!t, low 'I plasticity I i l t i i TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered ! i Earth Systems Comiultants Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201 ?hone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 34i -7'I i ; Lorin- No: B 15 i Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Pmject lame: Country Club of the Desert I Drilling Method: 8" Hollcw Stem Auger PAoject Number: 07117-10 i Drill Type: Mobile 61 Boring Location: See Figure 2 i Logged By: Clifford W. Batten ^ I Typee(Penetration; I = I vo` I Description of Units Page 1 of I I c Resistance I L U I � U U � I =C1 I I I C � I 'c Note: The stratification lines shown represent the approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend i 1 C I F- o (Blows/6") rn I i i 2 U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density i 4,5,6 6,6,7 6,5,6 5,5,5 6,7,7 MUCL SM 98.1 1021 81.3 3.2 I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, drv, fine to i medium grained, subround clasts i CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist. low plasticity, with sand ' I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, cL-y, fine to medium grained, subround to subangula_ clasts i 1 '1 i TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered ' Earth Systems Consultants �r Southwest 79.811 B Counny Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone (760) 34i-1583 FAX (760) 345-7313 Boring No: B16 j Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 Abject Name: Country Club of the Desert i Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger j Abject Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61 i Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample Penetration i j 'I ` DeSCCIPtIOOf Units page 1 of 1 ` I -I' Resistance U I v +!+ c j Note: The stratification lines shown represent th_ Trend ! 1 i (BIows/6") U I I androximate the transition may gradationaloundary between soilnd/or rock types Blow Counrt pry Density . U o , j 0 r sm I•.j�. 1 1 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to 11 1 i � I I � medium grained, subround clasts ; I i I• I 4,5,6 .l 186.4 0.3 i I/ j- I $ 1 �•-�•i I I ! , 5,6.5 : j 72.6 ! 2.7 I ML j SANDY SILT: dark brown, loose, dry, to , 4,4,4 ili l j ' II sM I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to 1i I I I ! medium grained, subround to subangular clasts 1: I 1 6,7 ,8 I �•.��.i-; ! I i ! j I I it 20 I I X5.6.7 j • 25 8,9,10 !' ' 1' i • r !— 30 1 7,7.7 ::..j.; j i • i _ , I — 33 I I •:. i TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet i — 40 No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered i !; I !j Earth Systems Consultants Southwest 79-311 B Ceunvy Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 922( rnone ! roul )+TI aaa rT.,, ( 160) 345-73 1 5 5ring No: B24 i Drilling Date: August 23,2000 Paject Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: S" Holbw Stem Auger Project Number: 07117-10 I Drill Type: Mobile 61 Baring Location: See Figure '• I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten Sample i I 'Page Type (Penetration! I N i Description of Units !Page I o rn Resistance I c I N C a V v i -=I Note: The stratification lines shown represent the s I > I o approximate boundary between soil andior rock types Graphic Trend C I ; (Blows/6") I C v i 2 a I and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density I i I - v - 5 - 10 ■ 4,5,5 ■ 4,4,5 . 7,8,8 - 15 I � 1 4,4,4 ! - 20 I I I I I 5,6,6 - ,5 I i FE! 14,5,6 ;l I tvtL i SILT: brown, loose to medium dense, dr-., to damp, I i i laminated I 71.9 ; 3.3 I• I jjj1 I II I 85.7 ' 21.I ' • •iil'il i � i I 'i SM ' I i SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, d --y, fine to l medium grained I II' 100.2 :2.9 I MUCL I i CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, mois:, low plasticity, i I: . i SM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, cry, fine to 11 medium grained Ai:'': I i I'��'•i'I I i I I I I i I I I i 1 TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet i I i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I i i Earth Systems Consl..iantS out west + w LU aLocation: CPT Sounding : CPT -1 Cone Penetrometer: FUGRG., Inc. Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Cone Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -:on reaction weight See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000 W in Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (ts1l) (Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 5 _ Sity Sand to Sandy Silt very dense ! Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense j Sand to Silty Sand very dense* I Sand to Silty Sand very dense - -- Sand to Silty Sand dense i I i Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense i Sand to Silty Sand dense 10 Sand to Silty Sand dense Sity Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sity Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense i i Sity Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I I I I 15 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense j I Sity Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sity Sand to Sandy Sift medium dense I ' Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense I 20 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sity Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i Sity Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i 25 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense _ Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense ! 30 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sand medium dense ! , Sand to Silty Sand medium dense _ Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 35 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i 40 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand dense , Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 45 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense _ Sand medium dense Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i — - 50 i • Earth Systems Con: tants �.' Southwest P =CRT Sounding : CPT -2 Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO, Inc. W Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Cone U- Project No.: 07117-10 J with 23 -ton reaction weight Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000 a W Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tsf Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand very dense Sand to Silty, Sand very dense I Sand to Silty Sand very dense i 5 - Sand to Silty Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense I i Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I i Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i Sond to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense j Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Overconsolidated Soil medium dense i i! Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense —7-- - Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand dense ; Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand dense _ Sand to Silty Sand dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense _ Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand dense 10 15 20 25 30 35 i 40 45 1 44 Earth Systems Con; .tants out west i= CPT Sounding : CPT -3 Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO•. Inc. WProject Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Cone Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -*on reaction weight Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000 a W Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (ts0 (Robertson &Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense I i I Sand to Silty Sand very dense ; Sand to Silty Sand very dense 5 - Sand to Silty Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Sand to Silty Sand dense '• j , Sand very dense Sand very dense ; Sand very dense Sand very dense j Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I I Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose ! Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose I ; Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose i Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose i ! Clay stiff ' Clay firm Clay stiff Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff ' Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff i Silt to Silty Clay very stiff Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I i Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i , Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i _ Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I _ Sand to Silty Sand medium dense ! I Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff ' Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff I i Clay very stiff Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff ; Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense _ Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 10 I I I 15 I 20 25.Clayey i 30 35 _ ! 40 j 45 _ 50 i �.A. Earth Systems Cont .tants ll out h west P U1Project -- CPT Sounding : CPT -4 Cone Penetrometer: FUGRC, Inc. Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Cone Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -ton reaction weight Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000 CL lL Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tsq Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 Sand to Silty Sand very dense + Sand very dense ! Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very.dense I Sand to Silty Sand very dense I I Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand verydense Sand very dense i Sand very dense Sand dense I i Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand dense i Sand dense I i Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Silty Clay to Clay very stiff I i Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Sandy Silt to Clayev Silt loose i Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt loose Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I Sand dense Sand dense Sand medium dense ! _ Sand medium dense Sand dense I ' Sand dense Sand dense Sand dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense i Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Clay very stiff Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff Clay very stiff Clay very stiff _ Silty Clay to Clay very stiff Silty Sand to Sandy Silt loose Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense ; i -5- i I 0 15 i 20 25 30 35 _ 40 45 50 APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: Country- Club of the Desert - B 1 2 Unit Moisture USCS B 1 Sample Depth Dry Content Group B 1 Location (feet) Density (pcf) (%) Symbol B 1 2 93.4 2.1 SM B 1 5 85.6 8.4 ML B 1 10 93.2 1.5 SM B 1 15 77.7 5.7 ML B 1 20 86.8 4.2 ML - B2 2 95.9 2.6 ML. B2 5 84.4 4.3 ML B2 10 90.4 1.3 SM B2 15 81.2 2.9 ML B2 20 83.3 4.6 ML B3 2 91.1 0.8 SM B3 5 96.0 1.6 SM B3 10 82.0 9.6 ML B3 15 84.8 6.8 SM B3 20 90.4 4.1 SNI B3 25 95.9 2.4 SM B3 30 93.2 2.9 SM B3 35 96.9 1.5 SM B3 40 92.1 4.3 ML B4 2 89.5 1.2 ML B4 5 99.1 1.2 SM B4 10 77.0 15.3 ML, CL B4 15 79.1 5.1 SM B4 20 73.5 15.4 ML'CL File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 (UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample Location Depth (feet) Unit Dry Density (pco Moisture Content N USCI Group Symbol B5 B5 2 87.1 1.0 SM. B5 5 86.1 1.2 SM B5 10 89.6 0.9 SM B5 15 85.3 1.3 SM B5 20 85.1 1.5 SM B6 2 88.4 0.4 SM B6 5 88.0 0.8 SM B6 10 91.2 0.9 SM B6 15 91.9 1.5 SM B6 20 96.8 2.6 SM B7 2 95.2 0.7 SM B7 5 95.4 1.2 SM B7 10 87.8 2.1 SM. B7 15 95.2 1.3 SM. B8 2 87.9 0.7 Sm B 8 5 90.2 2.5 ML B8 10 90.7 1.7 SM B8 15 91.0 1.1 SM B9 2 74.2 1.5 SII= B9 5 91.4 6.1 SII_ B9 10 90.3 2.4 SIS_ B9 15 87.7 2.6 SIII B10 2 72.2 1.2 sm B10 5 92.7 1.6 sm B10 10 91.7 3.0 SIS[ File No.: 07117-10 Septzmber 22, 2000 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 &- D2216 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert B10 15 Unit Moisture USCS Sample Depth Dry Content Group Location (feet) Density (pcf) N Symbol B10 15 87.3 2.7 Sm B11 2 --- 0.5 Sly[ B11 5 95.5 0.7 Slid B11 10 91.6 1.2 Slid B12 2 93.0 0.4 SM B 12 5 97.2 0.7 SM B12 10 92.2 1.2 SM B13 2 76.2 0.8 SM B13 5 90.8 1.2 S1�1 B 14 2 75.1 0.7 SM B 14 5 86.8 1.4 SM B 15 2 98.1 0.2 SM B15 5 81.3 3.2 SM B16 2 86.4 0.3 Sm B16 5 72.6 2.7 Sm B17 2 90.1 0.4 Sm B17 5 87.1 3.1 ML B17 10 103.3 5.3 SP -SM B18 2 89.0 1.1 Sm B18 5 87.1 2.8 M -.- B18 B18 10 115.7 1.4 SP -SM B 19 2 89.0 1.0 Sm B 19 5 83.4 4.0 ML/ -L B 19 10 82.1 18.2 ML/LL File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample Location Depth (feet) Unit Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content N USCS Group Symhol B20 B20 2 85.1 4.1 ML - B20 5 82.3 2.6 ML - B20 10 83.9 19.5 ML/CL B21 2 62.6 4.0 ML B21 5 87.4 3.5 ML B21 10 83.3 20.0 ML/CL B22 2 64.0 3.6 ML B22 5 88.5 1.8 SIS: B22 10 104.3 4.1 SP -SM B23 2 66.8 2.6 ML B23 5 85.2 4.3 ML B23 10 109.1 1.4 SP -S -M B24 2 71.9 3.3 ML B24 5 85.7 2.1 ML B24 10 100.2 2.9 SM File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B1 @ 0-5 Feet Description: Sandy Silt (ML) Sieve Percent —Si , ze Passing 100 100 3/4" 100 1/2" 100 3/8" 100 94 100 #8 100 #16 100 #30 99 450 96 #100 80 #200 55 100 90 80 70 Or -n 60 r - CU U 50 40 30 20 10 % Gravel: 0 % Sand: 45 % Silt: 47 % Clay (3 micron): 8 (Clay content by short hydrometer method) 0 1 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size ( mm) FA- `q LM I I 0 1 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size ( mm) File No.: 07117-10 • PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS September 22, 2000 ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B5 @ 5 Feet Description: Silty Sand: Fine (SM) Sieve Percent Size Passing 1-1/2" 100 1" 100 3/4" 100 1/2" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 #8 100 #16 100 % Gravel: 0 930 100 % Sand: 76 450 94 % Silt: 20 #100 62 % Clay (3 micron): 4 #200 24 (Clay content by short hydrometer method) 100 90 80 70 60 a 50 c v u 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size ( mm) File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: 136 @ 20 Feet Description: Silty Sand: Fine w/ Silt Lenses (SM) Sieve Size % Passing By Hydrometer Method: 3" 100 Particle Size % Passim 2" 100 59 Micron 20 1-1/2" 100 23 Micron 11 111 100 13 Micron 9 3/4" 100 7 Micron 8 1/2" 100 5 Micron 6 3/8" 100 3.3 Micron 6 #4 100 2.7 Micron 5 #8 100 1.4 Micron 1 #16 100 #30 100 % Gravel: 0 450 97 % Sand: 75 #100 67 % Silt: 20 #200 25 % Clay (3 micron): 5 100 90 80 70 60 m .N 50 0 40 30 20 10 0 MIMI 1111M NIM v v l00 10 1 0.1 Particle Size (mm) 0.01 0.001 File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B7 @ 0-5 Feet Description: Silty Sand: Fine (SM) 100 90 80 70 ar-O 60 so 40 30 20 10 Sieve Percent Size Passing 1-1/2" 100 111 100 3/4" 100 1/2" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 #8 100 #16 100 #30 99 #50 90 #100 58 #200 24. % Gravel: 0 % Sand: 76 % Silt: 19 % Clay (3 micron): 5 (Clay content by short hydrometer methoe) I 0 -i— too 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size (mm) mum Lill NIMIUU�� M1111011 �w --- mum MEM IMIll I Elm WOM EM 0 -i— too 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size (mm) File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B16 @ 10 Feet Description: Sandy Silt (ML) Sieve Size % Passing By Hydrometer Method: 3" 100 Particle Size % Passin? 2" 100 49 Micron 56 100 22 Micron 19 1 " 100 13 Micron 11 3/4" 100 7 Micron 7 1/2" 100 5 Micron 7 3/8" 100 3.4 Micron 5 #4 100 2.7 Micron 4 #8 100 1.4 Micron 1 #16 100 #30 100 % Gravel: 0 #50 100 % Sand: 24 #100 97 % Silt: 72 #200 76 % Clay (3 micron): 4 100 90 80 W 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ■ a IMN ■ MIMI 111111 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size (mm) File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B19 @ 5 Feet Description: Clayey Silt (CUML), with sand 100 90 80 70 60 .m 20 50 0- 40 30 20 t0 0 100 Sieve Size % Passing 3" 100 2" 100 1-1/2" 100 1" 100 3/4" 100 1/2" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 #8 100 #16 99 #30 99 #50 99 #100 97 #200 85 By Hydrometer Method: Particle Size % Passing 42 Micron 81 19 Micron 50 12 Micron 39 6 Micron 27 4 Micron 23 3.2 Micron 19 2.6 Micron 17 1.4 Micron 6 % Gravel: 0 % Sand: 15 % Silt: 68 % Clay (3 micron): 17 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size (mm) File No.: 07117-10 Septernber 22, 2000 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B20 @ 15 Feet Description: Clayey Silt (CL/ML) Particic Size (nun) Sieve Size % Passing By Hydrometer Method: 3" 100 Particle Size % Passing 2" 100 42 Micron 83 1-1/2" 100 16 Micron 75 1" 100 10 Micron 62 3/4" 100 6 Micron 46 1/2" 100 4 Micron 38 3/8" 100 3.0 Micron 32 #4 100 2.5 Micron 29 #8 100 1.3 Micron 10 #16 100 #30 99 % Gravel: 0 #50 99 % Sand: 10 #100 96 % Silt: 61 #200 90 % Clay (2 micron): 29 100 -1 I I II I 90 80 S I I I � Illlli ;' I ji; ��� i I !I I• I!' i � !� �! i i � I � I I i�llll I I � I li I I j I��jl 70 ! I i j 60 so ; G 4o 30 it I I �I j l I I I Ijll I I I I I I II I I l j i �I! I 20 jl I I I III Jill I I i i!lil. ! i I., I �I i I!i.j ! I ►o I lill l IIS! I I� I 'll I!II � I I I lil�l I ! j l II Il;lii I i l i I i j III!li . 111111 I 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particic Size (nun) File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333 -Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density: 88.2 pcf 136 @ 20 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 0.4% Silty Sand: F w/ Silt Lenses (SM) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 RinaC) Sample Initial Vold Ratio: 0.890 2 1 0 -1 -2 on -3 -4 on -5 ea -6 CU -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 Hydrocollapse: 2.6% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram e5l t� rm * Before Saturation -Hydrocollapse * After Saturation ---W--Pphnund Trend 0.1 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, Icsf 10.0 F-- j i 7 777 7 0.1 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, Icsf 10.0 File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333 Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density: '79.3 ) pcf B19 @ 5 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 4.0% Clayey Silt (MUCL) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Ring Sample Initial Vold Ratio: 1.102 0 -1 -2 on -3 Z -4 -5 U 6 O. -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 Hydrocollapse: 2.5% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram t5l e3l * Before Saturation Hydrocollapse * After Saturation Pp.hnund Trend 0.1 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf 10.0 � a■■m 0.1 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf 10.0 File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2,-35-90 & D5333 Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density: 74.6 pcf B20 @ 10 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 19.5% Clayey Silt (CUML) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 PUng Sample Initial Void Ratio: 1.233 I 0 -1 -2 an -3 -4 on ca U -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -l2 Hydrocollapse: 0.9% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram Change * Before Saturation Hydrocollapse * After Saturation ---W-- Pp.hnund -Trend 0.1 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf 10.0 File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333 Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density: 83.3 pcf B24 @ 5 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 2.1 % Silty Sand: F w/ Silt Lenses Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Ring Sample Initial Vold Ratio: 0.955 Hydrocollapse: 1.8% @ 2.0 -csf -3 CU -4 ca U -6 -7 -8 -9 -to -12 % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram ED e� * Before Saturation Hydrocollapse * After Saturation --- W—Pphnund -Trend 0.1 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf 10.0 M 0.1 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf 10.0 C File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 PLASTICITY INDEX ASTM D-4318 Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Sample ID: B20 @ 15 Feet Soil Description: Clayey Silt (CL/ML) DATA SUMMARY TEST RESULTS Number of Blows: 32 28 22 LIQUID LIMIT 40 Water Content, % 39.0 39.4 40.5 PLASTIC LIMIT 27 Plastic Limit: 26.7 27.5 PLASTICITY INDEX 13 Flow Index 41.0 40.5 ' 40.0 U 39.5 3 39.0 38.5 10 Number of Blows 100 70 60 Y 50 d 40 Cj 30 20 10 0 Plasticity Chart 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit I I ! CH I i CL MH i I ML 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified) Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Procedure Used: A Sample ID: B5 @ 5 Feet Prep. Method: Moist Location: Native Rammer Typ•:: Mechanical Description: Silty Sand: Gray Brown; Fine (SM) Sieve Size % Retained Maximum Density: 105.5 pcf 3/4" 0.0 Optimum Moisture: 15.5% 3/8" 0.0 #4 0.0 14011 I 135 130 125 110 105 ■■■■ ■■■��►\ �■■■ ■■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■■\�\\■■■■■■■■ I-�� 100 + 0 HEEN W I MM■ RIN - - 5 10 15 20 15 Moisture Content, percent 30 File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000 MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified) Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Procedure Used: A Sample ID: B7 @ 0-5 Feet Prep. Method: Moist Location: Native Rammer Type: Mechanical Description: Silty Sand: Gray Brown; Fine (SM) Sieve Size % Retaine3 Maximum Density: 106 pcf 3/4" 0.0 Optimum Moisture: 15.3% 3/8" 0.0 44 0.0 140 135 130 IN ■� m �i 5 10 15 20 :5 Moisture Content, percent 30 SOIL & PLANT LABORATORY SOIL ANALYSIS and CONSULTANTS, Inc. 79-607 Country Club Drive for.: Earth Systems Consultants Southwest Suite 7 Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 report date: 9-8-00 760-772-7995 ins*.,/lab$: 189 - No. Description Sat.% pH Ohms -cm, ppm --------------- Res NO -N PO -P K meq/L ppm ------------ Ca + Mg Na Cl mg/Kg SO4 07866-01 Country Club of the Desert B2 C 0-2' 8.4 2350 34 20 B6 C 0-2' 8.3 1700 72 40 B9 @ 0-2' 8.2 950 86 123 B11 @ 0-2' 8.4 1850 40 58 ;QN, �f,