12-0412 (SFD) Geotechnical Engineering ReportCOUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT
P.O. BOX 980
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT, PHASE 1
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
J
Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
September 22, 2000
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
' M
Dear Ms. Grana:
79-8118 Country Club Drive
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
(760)345-1588
(800)924-7015
FAX (760) 345-7315
File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
We take pleasure to present this Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared "for tl-e proposed Phase I of
the Country Club of the Desert to be located between 52nd and 54th Avenu-.s; 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 appropriate governing agency
or other members of the design team.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contaca our office if there are
any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
Southwest
Shelton L. Stringer
GE 2266
SER/sls/dac
Distribution: 6/Country Club of the Desert
1/VTA File
2/BD File
oQFpF E SS/p,19
c� Z C z
¢ 0 NO. 2266 a) m
r
EXP. 6-30-04
`rayl 0r- CHN��P��e
F OF C ALIF�e
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description................................................:.................................................1
1.2 Site Description.......................................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work....................................................................................2
Section. 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION....................................................................4
2.1 Field Exploration........................................................:...........................................4
2.2 Laboratory Testing..................................................................................................5
Section3 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................6
3.1 Soil Conditions.......................................................................................................6
3.2 Groundwater.................................................................................................:.........6
3.3 Geologic Setting......................................................................................................6
3.4 Geologic Hazards.................................................................................:..................7
3.4.1 Seismic Hazards..........................................................................................7
3.4.2 Secondary Hazards......................................................................................8
3.4.3 Site Acceleration and UBC Seismic Coefficients.......................................9
Section4 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................I I
Section 5
RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................12
SITE
DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING.....................................................................12
5.1
Site Development - Grading..................................................................................12
5.2
Excavations and Utility Trenches..........................................................................13
5.3
Slope Stability of Graded Slopes...........................................................................14
STRUCTURES..................................................................................:.............................14
5.4
Foundations............................................................................................................14
5.5
Slabs-on-Grade......................................................................................................15
5.6
Retaining Walls.......................:...............................................................................16
5.8
Seismic Design Criteria.........................................................................................17
5.9
Pavements..............................................................................................................18
Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES...........................................20
6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations.............................................................20
6.2 Additional Services........:............................:..........................................................21
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................22
APPENDIX A
Site Location Map
Boring Location Map
Table 1 Fault Parameters
1'997 Uniform Building Code Seismic Parameters
2000 International Building Code Seismic Parameters
Logs of Borings
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 I - File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
This Geotechnical Engineering Report has been 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.
The project will ultimately consist of three, 18 -hole golf courses with about '166 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 Denver, Colorado, dated
May 12, 2000, extensive mass -grading is proposed to construct the golf courEes and "super" pads
for the residential units. Fills as much as 20 felt 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 in;lude mass grading,
"super" building pad preparation, underground utility installation, strut 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 ir_ 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 and 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 fornierl.y agricultural and undeveloped land associated with
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 . - 2 - File No.; 07117-10
00-09-772
former ranches on the property.. The Fowler Packing Ranch and the vineya_ds on the Majestic
Property are the only two areas currently in use for agriculture as of the date o- 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, excep` for the material in
the 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
agricultural properties, with the All American Coachella Canal borderi.zg the site to the
northwest. Residences were associated with some of the agricultural land.
There are underground and overhead utilities near and within the developnment 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.
➢ 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 exploratDry 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 criteria,
Excavation conditions and buried utility installations,
• Structure foundation type and design,
• Allowable foundation bearing capacity and expected total and differential settlements,
Concrete slabs -on -grade,
Lateral earth pressures and coefficients,
Mitigation of the potential corrosivity of site soils to concrete and steel reinforcement,
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000
Seismic design parameters,
Pavement structural sections.
-3-
File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
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.
i= An environmental assessment.
Investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the
soil, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property.
o Separate Phase 1 and Phase II Environment Site Assessment reports -lave been prepared
by Earth Systems Consultants Southwest in 1998, 1999, and 2000.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 4 - File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
Section 2
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
2.1 Field Exploration
Soil Borings: Twenty-four exploratory borings were drilled to depths of atout 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 Penetr.-tion (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 anc 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 extens1we work at numerous
hi-1perial and Coachella Valley sites.
The CPT exploration was conducted by hydraulically advancing an instrument 10 cm` 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 oaf CPT data provides
correlations for SPT blow count, phi (0) angle (soil friction angle), ultimaae shear strength (Su)
of clays, and soil type.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 5 - File No.: 071.17-10
00-09-772
Interpretive logs of the CPT soundings are presented in Appendix A cf 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 -De analyzed further.
Those selected for laboratory testing include soils that would be exposed and used during
grading, and those deemed to be within the influence of the proposed struct-ire. Test results are
presented. in graphic and tabular form Ln Appendix B of this report. The tes _s 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).
i Maximum density tests were performed to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of
typical soils encountered (ASTM D 1557-91).
i 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.
i Consolidation (Collapse Potential) (ASTM D 2435 and D5333) to evaluate the
compressibility and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential of the soil.
S' Liquid and Plastic Limits tests to evaluate the plasticity and expansive 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.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 6 - File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
Section 3
DISCUSSION
3.1 Soil Conditions
The field exploration indicates that site soils consist primarily of an upper _ayer of silty sand to
sandy silt soils (Unified Soil Classification Symbols of SM and ML). These soils are loose to
medium dense. At depths greater than'5 feet, layers of clayey silt soils and some layers of sand
were 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 arid climatic regions, granular soils may have a potential to collapse upcn 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 .l to 3% collapse upon inundation and is considered a slight 10 moderate site risk.
The hydroconsolidation potential is commonly mitigated by recompactio-i of a zone beneath
building pads.
The site lies within a recognized blow sand hazard area. Fine particulate matter (PM,o) can
create an air quality hazard if dust is blowing. Watering the surfac-, 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 imgation.
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 stru•�tural 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 MOunlainS 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 Precamb-ian metamorphic and
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 7 - File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
Mesozoic 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 tha._ traverse 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 sands 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-relaied 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 active faults or seismic
zones lie within 62 miles (100 -kilometers) of the project site as shcwn 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,,,,,)
listed is from published geologic information available for each fault (CDM -33, 1996). The Mma,
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 (6.OMw) earthquake
occurred east of Desert Hot Springs. This event was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area.
• Palm Springs Earthquake - A magnitude 5.9 ML (62Mw) earthquake occurred on July 8, 1986 in the
Painted Hills causing minor surface creep of the Banning segment of the San Andreas Fault. This
event was strongly felt in the Palm .Springs area and caused structural damage, as well as injuries.
Joshua Tree Earthquake - On April 22, 1992, a magnitude 6.1 Mr (6.1Mw) earthquake occurred in
the mountains 9 miles east of Desert Hot Springs. Structural damage and miror injuries occurred in
the Palm Springs area as a result of this earthquake.
• Landers & Big Bear Earthquakes - Early on June 28, 1992, a magnitude 7.5 Ms (7.3Mw) earthquake
occurred near Landers, the latgest seismic event in Southern California for 40 years. Surface rupture
occurred just south of the town of Yucca Valley and extended some 43 miles toward Barstow. About
three hours later, a magnitude 6.6 Ms (6.4Mkx,) earthquake occurred near Big Bear Lake. No
significant structural damage from these earthquakes was reported in the Palm Springs area.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 8 - File No.: 07117-10
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 bines and Geology
(CDMG) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed the -atest generation of
probabilistic seismic hazard maps for use in the 1997 UBC. We have used these maps in our
evaluation of the seismic risk at the site. The Working Group of California Earthquake
Probabilities (WGCEP, 1995) estimated a 22% conditional probability that a 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 1690 AD, based on
dating by the USGS near Indio (WGCEP, 1995). This segment has also ruptured on about 1020,
1300, and 1450 AD, with an average recurrence interval of about 220 years, The San Andreas
Fault may rupture in multiple 'segments producing a higher magnitude earthquake. Recent
paleoseismic studies suggest that the San Bemardino Mountain Segment to the 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 reservoir; are located in the
immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, hazards from seiches are considered negligible at this
time.
Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sud3en shock (usually
earthquake shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. In general, for the effects of
liquefaction to be manifested at the surface, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the
ground surface and the soils within the saturated zone must also be suscep Jble 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 generally 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 geologic material, and has a low potential for liquefaction, the potential for ground
deformation is also considered to be low.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
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 (cycl-c shear strain), and
earthquake duration (number of strain cycles). Uncompacted fill areas mFy 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:verti:al) inclination will
exist. Therefore, potential hazards .from slope instability, landslides, Cr 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 ero.sion (especially on slopes) could
occur. Significant grade changes are proposed for the site. Appropr_ate 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 estimated the horizontal
peak ground acceleration (PGA), measured in "g" forces. Included in Tabl-_ 1 are deterministic
estimates of site acceleration from possible earthquakes at nearby faults. Ground motions are
dependent primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the seismo Denic (rupture) zone.
Accelerations also are dependent upon attenuation by rock and soil deposits, direction of rupture,
and type of fault. For these reasons, ground motions may vary considerably in the same general
area. This variability can be expressed' statistically by a standard deviation about a mean
relationship.
The PGA is an inconsistent scaling factor to compare to the UBC Z factor and is generally a poor
indicator of potential structural damage during an earthquake. Important factors influencing the
structural performance are the duration and frequency of strong ground motion, local subsurface
conditions, soil -stricture interaction, and structural details. Because of these factors, 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 SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 10 - File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
Estimate of PGA and EPA from 1,996 CDMG/USGS
Prnhnhilictie seismic Hazard Mans
Notes:
1. Based on a soft rock site, SBic 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%.da-nping, as defined by
the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 1996).
1997 UBC Seismic Coefficients: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design are based
on a Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) that has an earthquake ground motion with' a
10% probability of occurrence in 50 years. The PGA and EPA estimates given above are
provided for inf6rmation on the seismic risk inherent in the UBC design. Tl=e 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
RPfarPnr.P
Seismic Zone:
Equivalent Return
TPGA
Approximate
Risk
Period (years)
(g) '
EPA (g) '
10% exceedance in 50 years
1 475
0.49
0.45
Notes:
1. Based on a soft rock site, SBic 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%.da-nping, as defined by
the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 1996).
1997 UBC Seismic Coefficients: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design are based
on a Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) that has an earthquake ground motion with' a
10% probability of occurrence in 50 years. The PGA and EPA estimates given above are
provided for inf6rmation on the seismic risk inherent in the UBC design. Tl=e 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
RPfarPnr.P
Seismic Zone:
4
Rcure 16-2
Seismic Zone Factor, Z:
0.4
Table 16-I
Soil Profile Type:
SD
Table 16-J
Seismic Source Type:
A
Table 16-U
Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source:
9.8 km = 6.1 miles
(3an Andreas Fault)
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
Seismic Zoning: The Seismic Safety Element of the 1984 Riverside County General Plan
establishes groundshaking hazard zones. The majority of the project area its mapped in Ground
Shaking Zone 1113. 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 L� deciding suitability
of land use.
2000 IBC Seismic Coefficients: For comparative purposes, the n-,wly 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 governing jurisdictions may adopt or modify the.
IBC provisions.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 11 - File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
Section 4
CONCLUSIONS
The .following is a summary of our conclusions and professional opinionE based on the data
obtained from a review of selected technical literature and the site evaluation.
:= The primary geologic hazard relative to site development is severe ground shaking from
earthquakes originating on nearby faults. In our opinion, a n_ajor seismic event
originating on the local segment of the San Andreas Fault zone would be the most likely
cause of significant earthquake activity at the site within the estimat:d 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 Eeismic forces, heavy
rainfall or irrigation, flooding, and the weight of the intended structuPs.
The soils are susceptible to wind and water erosion. Preventative rneasures to minimize
seasonal flooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans. Dust
control should also be implemented during construction.
i Other geologic hazards including ground rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced
flooding, and landslides are considered low or negligible oil this site.
The upper soils were found to be relatively loose to medium dense s: It sand to sandy silt
overlying layers of clayey soils. In our opinion, the soils within bLilding and structural
areas will require over excavation and recompaction to improve bearing capacity, and
reduce settlement from static loading. Soils should be readily cut by normal grading
equipment.
i Earth Systems Consultants Southwest (ESCSW) should provide geo=echnical engineering
services during project design, site development, excavation, grading, and foundation
construction phases of the work. This is to observe compliance witr_ the design concepts,
specifications, and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that
subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
Plans and specifications should be provided to ESCSW prior to b ading. Plans should
include the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation details. Preferably, structural
loads should be shown on the foundation plans.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
a
September 22, 2000 - 12 - File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
Section 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING
5.1 Site Development - Grading
A representative of ESCSW should observe site grading and the bottom of excavations prior to
placing fill. Local variations in soil conditions may warrant increasing the de-3th of recompaction
and over -excavation.
Clearingand 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
soils, we recommend recompaction of soils in the building and structural areas. The existing
surface soils within 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 (whichever 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 etisting grade and be
verified by testing. These recommendations are intended to provide a mir_imum of 48 and 36
inches of moisture conditioned and compacted soil beneath the floor slabs and footings,
respectively.
Auxiliary Structure Subcrade Preparation: Auxiliary structures such as card --n or retaining walls
should have the subgrade prepared similar to the building pad preparation reconunendation 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 abo-e 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 de --p seated clayey soil
may occur after grading, but is expected to stabilize relatively soon thereafte-. Monitoring allows
the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the movement (if any) and its potential impact on
construction.
Subo,rade Preparation: In areas to receive non-structural fill, pavements, or hardscape, the
ground surface should be scarified; moisture conditioned., and compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction (ASTM D 1557) for a depth of 24 inches below subgrade. Compaction should be
verified by testing.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 13 - File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
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
lifts (loose) and compacted to at least 90% 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 less 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 soils meeting the
USCS classifications of SM, SP -SM, or SW -SM with a maximum rock s-ze of 3 inches and
5 to 35% passing the No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the import fill
ZD
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
no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted 'to at least 90% relative compaction
(ASTM D 155.7) near optimum moisture content.
Shrinkage: 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,2,i.t,�50Y. This estimate is based on compactive effort to achieve
an average relative compaction of about 92% and may vary with contractor rnethods. Subsidence
is estimated to range from 0.1 to 0.3 feet. Losses from site clearing and rerr-oval of existing site
improvements may affect earthwork quantity calculations and should be considered.
Site Drainage: Positive drainage should be maintained away from the structures (5% for 5 feet
minimum) to prevent ponding and subsequent saturation of the foundation_ soils. Gutters and
downspouts should be considered as a means to convey water away from foundations if adequate
drainage is not provided. Drainage should be maintained for paved areas.. Water should not
pond on or near paved areas.
5.2 Excavations and Utility Trenches
Excavations should be made in accordance with CalOSHA requirements. Our site exploration
and knowledge of the general area indicates there is a potential for caving of site excavations
(utilities, footings, etc.). Excavations within sandy soil should be kept moist, but not saturated,
to reduce the potential of caving or sloughing. Where 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 backf ll within private property should be placed in conformance
with the provisions of this report. In general, service lines extending inside of property may be
backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Backfill
operations should be observed and tested to monitor compliance with these reconunendations.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
L�
September 22, 2000 - 14- File 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 -:)e as steep as 2:1.
However, maintenance with motorized equipment may not be possible at thds 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 engir_eering calculations
should be performed to evaluate the stability using shear strength values obtained from soils
composing the slopes. Erosion control measures should be considered.for sloes 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 a3 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 design of widths, depths, and reinforcing are the responsibilit_v 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 shoul.3 be removed from
footing excavations prior to placement of concrete.
Conventional Spread Foundations: Allowable soil bearing pressures ar✓ 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).
i 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 maybe used up to a maximum value Df 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 and 400 psf for -each
additional 0.5 foot of footing depth may be used up to a maximum value of 3000 psf.
A one-third (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 valuzs and the grading
requirements.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 15 - File No.: 07117-.10
00-09-772
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
any structural requirements provided by the structural engineer.
Expected Settlement: Estimated total static settlement, based on footings funded on firm soils
as recommended, should be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement b=tween exterior and
interior bearing members should be less than 1/2 -inch.
Frictional and Lateral Coefficients: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil fraction 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 paEsive 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 fiction 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 jesistance is based on
the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations is properly compacted.
5.5 Slabs -on -Grade
Subprade: 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 con.:rete shrinkage. The
effectiveness of the mQisture barrier is dependent upon its- quality, method of overlapping, its
protection during construction, and the successful sealing of the barrier.aroimd utility lines.,
Slab thickness and reinforcement: Slab thickness and reinforcement of slab -on -grade are
contingent on the recommendations of the structural engineer or archite-t 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 -or -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
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
S,epteznbcl 3?'; x'11:, - 16- File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
':patterns to reduce,Jil potential for 'random oriented, contraction cracks. Contraction joints in
the slabs shoule., be -tooled at the time. of the pour or saw cut (1/4 of slab depth) within 8 hours of
concrete placeiri nI.. Consu u-ctioti _(cold) joints should consist of thickened butt joints with one -
ha ?nch dowels at 18=Triches on.center or a thickened keyed -joint to resist vertical deflection at
the joint �l'l consttZictiori joints in exterior flatwork should be sealed to reduce the potential of
.moisture or fei ei g -n material intro-sio.n: These procedures will reduce the potential for randomly
.oriented ted -cracks. but may; ilot: prevent them from occurring.
Curing and'Quali'ty:Control The contractor should take precautions to reduce the potential of
cutlr}g of slabs in chis `arid desert region using proper batching, placement, and curing methods.
Cur ng.is. highly effected by temperature, wind, and humidity. Quality contnl procedures may be
used iiicludii ti al batch• -mix desiotis, batch plant inspection, and on-site special inspection and
.testing. _-Typically- for this type of.construction and using 2500 -psi cone.,rete, many of these
quality control procedures ai-e not required.
5A Reta>Inleig_Walls
Tfie following table presents lateral earth pressures for use in retaining wall design. The values
are igiven as.equivalent fluid pressures without surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressure.
Lateral Pressures and Sliding Resistance
Granular Backfill
Passive Pressure
375 pcf : level ground
Active Pressure (cantilever walls)
35 pcf - level ground
Abte.ro Fotate•0. t% of structure height
-At -Rest -Pressure -(restrained walls)
55 pcf - level ground
Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure 2
Acting at.mid hei ht of structure;
25H psf
Where.il-is height of backfill in feet
'Base Lateral Slidin-Resist
Dead load x Coefficient of Frictioti:
0._`0
• :Notes:.. - .: - -
1. Thcse values are ultimate values. A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used in stability analysis except
for dynam_ ic earth pressure where a factor of safety of 1.2 is acceptable.
2. D}rnamic pressures are based on the Mononobe-Okabe 1929 method, additive to active earth pressure.
Walls retaining less than 6 feet of soil need not consider this increased pressure.
Up ward._ sloping backfili or surcharge loads from nearby footings can create larger lateral
..pressures. ShOUld- any walls be considered for retaining sloped backf_11 or placed next to
foundations;. our office should :he contacted for recommended design parameters.. Surcharge
Ioads shouldlbe-coi'Istdcred if they.exist within a zone between the face of the wall and a plane
projected 45. degrees upxi,ard" fioin, the base of the wall. The increase in lateral earth pressure
should be taken.:as 35%0 of the surcharge load within this zone. Retaining walls subjected to
traffic loads should include a unifoi-rn. surcharge load equivalent to at least 2 feet of native soil-
Dtaina_�c: A backdrain-or an equivalent system of backfill drainage should be incorporated into
the. retaining wall design. Our Finn can provide construction details when the specific application
i.s deternlin6d:- .Backfill immediately behind the retaining structure should be a free -draining
EARTI SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
1N�. I.YfNMM�w..--•rMIM�S ..w1 M.+3�M'1K• 'pM}Ny:C.:i
September 22, 2000 - 17 - File -No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
granular 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 L horizontal distance
equal- to one wall height should be performed by hand -operated or other ligl--tweight compaction
equipment. This is -intended -to reduce potential locked -in lateral -pressures cLused by compaction
with heavy grading equipment.
Footing Sub,�rade Preparation: The subgrade for footings should be prep a_ed' 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 -.he low chloride ion.
concentration. Sulfate ions can attack the cementitious material in concrete, causing weakening
of the cement matrix and eventual deterioration by raveling. Chloride ions can cause corrosion
of reinforcing steel. The 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 testiric, should
be conducted' on the building pad soils after mass -grading.
A minimum concrete cover of three (3) inches should be provided arounc steel. reinforcing or
embedded components exposed to native soil or landscape water (to 18 _nches 'above gradc).-
Additionally, the concrete should be thoroughly vibrated during placement..
Electrical resistivity testing of the soil suggests.that the site soils may presen_ a moderately severe
potential for metal loss from electrochemical corrosion, processes. Corrosion protection of steel
can be achieved by using epoxy corrosion inhibitors, asphalt coatings, cathodic protection, or
encapsulating with densely consolidated concrete. A qualified corrosioz� 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-.. esistant construction
increase safety and allow development of seismic areas. The mininnan seismic design should
comply with the latest edition of the Uniforin 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 'Lid-mernt, and
compromise. Factors that play an important role in dynamic structural perfcrmance are::
(1) Effective peal: acceleration (EPA),
(2) Duration and predominant frequency of strong grOLInd motion,
(3) Period of motion of the structure,
(4) Soil -structure interaction,
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 18 - File 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 ine_astically.
Factors 5 to 8 are included in the structural ductility factor.(R) that is used ir_ 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 designthat 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 des_gn 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 that is acceptable.
Performance based criteria could be set in the design. The design engineer lbas 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 spenal 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 areas. The follow'ing
table provides our recommendations for pavement sections.
EARTH sl'STGN9S CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
• September 22, 2000 - 19 - File No.: 07117-10
.00-09-772
RECOMMENDED PAVEMENTS SECTIONS
R -Value Subgrade Soils - 40 (assumed) Design Method— CALTRANS 1995,
Traffic
Index
(Assumed)
Pavement.Use
Flexib e.Pavements '
Rigid Pavements
-Asphaltic'..:
Concrete:` .
Thickness ; '
(Inches)
:: _ Aggregate
Base .
Thickness
(Inches)
Po.rtlarid
Cemd t
Corier�te
(Inches)
Aggregate
Base.
Th'ckiiess
(Inches)
4.0..
Auto Parking Areas.
2.5
4.0
4.Q
4.0
5..0
Residential. Streets
3.0
4.0
5'.G
4.0
6.5 ;
Collector Road'
3.5.
6.5
---
---
7.5 _
Secondary•Road ...
A.5
.7.0.:
September 22, 2000
-20-
Section 6
LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
6.1 uniformity of Conditions and Limitations
File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
Our findings and recommendations in this . report are based on selected points of field
exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, our
findings and recommendations are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary
significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. Van ations in soil or
groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and
extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or
groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to . our
recommendations.
Findings of this report are valid 'as of the issued date of the report. However, changes in
conditions of a property can occur with passage of time. whether they are fro -n 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. Acccrdingly, findings of
this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our con!rol. Therefore, this
report is subject to review and should_ not be relied upon after a period of one year.`
hi the event. that any changes .in the nature, design, or location of structures are plamied, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered val.id. unless
the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or verifi?d in writing.
This report is issued with the understanding that the owner, or the owner's representative, has the
responsibIIityto bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of
the architect .and engineers for the project so that they are incorporated into the plans and
specifications for the project. The owner, or 'the owner's representEtive, 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 Co-isultants Southwest
(ESCSW) has striven to provide our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineenng.practices in this locality at this time. No warranty or guarantee i,c 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 creneral review o:* final. design and
specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly
interpreted and, implemented in the. design: and specifications. If ESCSW is not accorded the
privilege of making this recommended -review, we can assume na responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations.
Although available through ESCSW, the current scope.of,our .services does not include an
environmental -assessment, or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or
toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air on, below, or acjacent to the subject
property.
EA1. RTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWLST
September 22, 2000 -21 - File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
6.2 Additional Services
This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program of Tient consultation,
construction monitoring, and testing will be performed during the final design and construction
phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining ESCSW as the
geotechnical consultant from beginning to end of the project will provide continuity of services.
The geotechnical engineering firm providing tests and observations shall assume the
responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
Construction monitoring and testing would be additional services providec by our firm. The
costs of these services are not included in our present fee arrangements, but can be obtained from
our office. • The recommended review, tests, and observations include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:
• Consultation during the final design stages of the project.
• Review of the building and grading plans to observe that recommendations of our report
have been properly implemented into the design.
• Observation and testing during site preparation, grading and placement of engineered fill
as required by UBC Sections 1701 and 3317 or local grading ordinances.
• Consultation as required during construction.
•1•
Appendices as cited are attached' and complete this report.
EARTH SYS'I'ENiS CU\SUI:f A\'TS SOU'fl.iwiEs-i'
September 22, 2000 -22- File No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N., and Shedlock, K., editors, 1997, Ground motion attenuation relationships:
Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 1, January 1997 special issue, 256 p.
Blake, B.F., 1998a, FRISKSP v. 3.Olb, A Computer Program for the Probablistic 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 Furnal, T.E., 1993, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak-
Accelerations
eakAccelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An - Iri_erim 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 Responw Spectra and Peak
Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: An Intim Report, Part 2,
U.S" Geological Survey Open -File Report 94-127.
California.Department of Conservation; Division' of Mines and Geology: Gtiid�lines 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 An-dreas, Fault System,
Califonua: 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, 1997 Edition.
International Conference of Building Officials, 2000, International Building Code, 2000 Edition.
Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of
Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000.
Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1994, Prediction of Ground Motion in North America, in
Proceedings of ATC -35 Seminar on New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion
Estimation and Implications for Engineering Design Practice, Applied Tecluiology Council,
1994.
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel,-A.D., Lcirikaemper,
J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwarz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for
the State of California: California Divisiorn of Mines and Geology Olin -File Report 96-08,
59 p
Proctor, Richard J. (1968), Geology of the Desert Hot Springs - Upper Ccachclla Valley Area,
California Division of Mines and -Geology, DMG Special Report 94.
EARTfi SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 -2-3 - File 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 Southem 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, Minctes of The National
Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, March. 29-30, 1985, USGS" Open File Report
85-507.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 1996, Recommended Lateral Force
Requirements and Commentary.
Tokimatsu, K, and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due To Earthquake
Shaking, ASCE, Journal, of Geotechnical Engineering., Vol. 1.13, 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 Eazards in Southern
California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 379-439.
Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S.- Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1515, 283 p.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
5
F,
Well
it C
LL
�d
o
3
Y
J;:
water -
ta
ki
rj
L17
-11 WeP .52 7
20 iums
50
Oe
%
A,),
A
ec,
0
'C
e
JV -No -
A
A
5
.1v
Reference.- La Quinta & Indio-USGS Topographic Quadrangles Maps
Figure 1 Site Location
Project'Name- Country Club of the Desert
Project No', 07117-10
Scale: 1" = 2,000' Earth Syste-ms Consultants
0 2,000 4,000 Southwest
r-
0
GO
W
52nd Avenue
--N
J
77
2
".0
B
6-
%B22
X
lin� YB
IT`
BZ'4"
7, -,
Q PT4 W
Cf)
0
LEGEND
Approximate Boring or CPT Locition
Scale- 1 800 f6et
.01 00 .1.6-00
Figure 2 -.Explorationi.'Locafloins
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert'
Project No..: 07117-10
Earth -Systems Consultants
Southwest
B14
BI 13
_2
81 .2;::
7:
-7"
B9
B8®
B7-,-.0 PT -3
BIT'
B1 C -2
PT
venue
LEGEND
Approximate Boring or CPT Locition
Scale- 1 800 f6et
.01 00 .1.6-00
Figure 2 -.Explorationi.'Locafloins
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert'
Project No..: 07117-10
Earth -Systems Consultants
Southwest
Country Club of the Desert
Table 1
Fault Parameters &
Deterministic Estimates of Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA'i
07117-10
Fault Name or
Seismic Zone
Distance
from Site
(mi) (km)
Fault
Type
UBC
Maximum
Magnitude
Mmax
(Mw)
Avg
Slip
Rate
(mmlyr)
Avg
Return
Period
(yrs)
Fault
Length
(km)
Date of
Last
Rupture
(year)
Largest
Historic
Event
>5.5M (year)
Mean
Site
PGA
(g)
Reference Notes: (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(5)
(6)
San Andreas - Coachella Valley
6.1
9.8
SS
A
7.1
25
220
95
c.1690
0.36
San Andreas - Southern (C V +S B M)
6.1
9.8
SS
A
7.4
24
220
203
c. 1690
0.41
San Andreas - Mission Crk. Branch
7.8
12.6
SS
A
7.1
25
220
95 •
6.5
1948
0.31
San Andreas - Banning Branch
7.8
12.6
SS
A
7.1
10
220
98
6.2
1986
0.31
San Jacinto (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 Jacinto -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 Jacinto - 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 Andreas -.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 Jacinto - 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
Pisgah -Bullion Mtn. -Mesquite Lk
35
57
SS
B
7.0
0.6
5000
88
1999.
7.1
1999
0.07
Landers
35
57
SS
B
7.3
0.6
5000
83
1992.
7.3
1992
0.09
San Jacinto -San Jacinto Valley
39
62
SS
B
6.9
12".
83
42
6.8
1899
0.06
Brawley Seismic 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
Johnson Valley (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 Spgs
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 mmlyr &Type C faults: Mmax <6.5 a, -id 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) 1997 Sadigh et at; (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 CO.NISULTANTS SOUTHWEST
Project Name:
Country Club of the Desert
File No.:
07117-10
0.14
1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC) SEISMIC PARAMETERS
0.20
1.11
Reference
Seismic Zone:
4
Figure 1.5-2
Seismic Zone Factor:
Z 0.4
Table 16-I
Soil Profile Type:
S D •
Table 16-J
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.C6efficient:
Ca 0.44
=0.44Na Table 1E -Q
Seismic Coefficient::
Cv 0.78
= 0.64Nv Table 16-R
Closest Signf cant 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 1E -K
1.2
1.0
_rn
co
0.8
c
0
CU
0.6
U
U
Q
f° 0.4
U
(D
[a -
U)
0.2
0.0
1997 UBC Equivalent Static Response Spectrum
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Period (sec)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTIHWEST
0.00
0.45-
0.05
0.68
0.14
1.11
0.20
1.11
0.30
1.11
0.70
1.11
0.80.
0.97
0.90
0.86
1.00
-0.78
1.10
0.71
1.20
0.65
1.30
0.60.
1.40
0.56
1.50
0.52
1.60
0.49
1..70
0.46
1.80
0.43
1.90
0.41
! 2.00
0.39
Project Name:
0.65
Country Club of the Desert
File No.:
0.20
07117-10
0.30
2000 INTERNATI®NAL
BUILDING CGDE
(IBC) SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Seismic Category
0.86
D
Table 1613.3(1)
Site Class
0.67
D
Table 1615.1.1
Latitude:
0.55
33.671 N
0.50
Longitude:
0.46
-116.252 W -
0.43
Maximum Considered Earthquake
WCE)
Ground Motion
Short Period Spectral Reponse
SS
1.50 g
Figure1615(3)
1 second Spectral Response
S1
0.60 g
Figure1615(4)
Site Coefficient
Fa
1.00
Table 1615.1.2(1)
Site Coefficient
Fv
1.50
Table 1615.1.2(2)
SMs
1.50 g
= Fa*Ss
SMI
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
= SDS/SDS
Seismic Importance Factor
IE
1.00
Table 1604.5
Period Sa
2000 IBC Equivalent Elastic Static. Response Spectrum
T (sec) )
0.00 0.40
1.2
1.0
c�
0.8
0
T .
`(D
a� 0.6
U
U
Q
�o
0.4
a)
a
0.2
0.0 F
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Period (sec)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
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 Consultants
NIf Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 3-15-1583 FAX(760)345-7315
Boring No: B1
i
I
I
j.
I.
l
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
4 5 6
193.2
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
1
® 5,10.10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
I f
I ILIIj
I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sampl
T
T e
Type
Penetration
I
,,
•N
--
B o"
Description of Units Page I of 11
L
Resistance
E
Cn
U
U U
� �
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
1 v
E
n
o c
approximate boundary between soil and/or ro_k types Graphic Trend
Q
i (Blows/6")
I
C
(� U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
I
ML
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp, ! i!
with minor fine grained sand
10,10,10 III 1 93.4 2.1 1
l—.5 ! 15,5,10• �' •
85:6 � 8.4
10
- 15
- 20 I
- 25
- 30
- 35
40
1
1
45
I
f
— 50
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to .
1.5 { medium grained, subround clasts I it
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, damp, I
laminated, with minor fine grained sarid
5.7
! 7,10,12 l! �'I j 86.8 4.2 ! ® !
1 ! �
TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet.
I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
I
I
t
i
I
I
j.
I.
l
L I
1 SM
I.' T
4 5 6
193.2
1
® 5,10.10
I'Ih 77.7
I f
I ILIIj
I
I I
II11:1 I
1
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to .
1.5 { medium grained, subround clasts I it
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, damp, I
laminated, with minor fine grained sarid
5.7
! 7,10,12 l! �'I j 86.8 4.2 ! ® !
1 ! �
TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet.
I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
I
I
t
i
I
I
j.
I.
l
I
i I
!
i
i
I
_ 1
1
I`
•
it
„
I
j.
I.
l
1.
r;
Earth S
Southwest
ms Consultants
79-81 IB Country Club Drive. Bermuda Duna, CA 91201
Phone (760) 3.15-1538 FAN (760) 345-7315
Boring N0: BZ
Drilling Date: August :S, 2000
ProjectName: Country Club of the Desert
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense. dry to damp,
Drilling Method: 8" Follow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 6"
Boring Location: See Figure 2
laminated, with minor fine grained sand i�
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
i
®
Sample
Type
Penetration
2.6
•
II
L a�
Page I of I
Description of Univ
8,I1,12
—
Resistance
-I
I „ I
U
� G
v r
Note: The stratification lines shown represert the
SM
1 v
I
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense dry, fine to
toZD
I.>
approximate boundary between soil and/w rock types Graphic Trend
v
G o
(Blows/6")
®
Z'
o
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
I l
30
— 35
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
7 40
It
f i ! -
I i I
:I
'— 4
5 I i
I
NIL
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense. dry to damp,
I
j
laminated, with minor fine grained sand i�
®
9,10,10
i I 195.9
2.6
•
II
8,I1,12
84.4
I;
4:3
-I
I „ I
SM
I
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
®
5,5,5
:.I . 90.4
I:'
1.3
I l
M1tL
SANDY SILT: brown; medium dense dryto damp,
4'0'6
18 L2
12.9
laminated; with minor fine ;rained sand i
® e
Ili
I
1
I
I
i
9,11,13
(i� ilk 83.3
� I
14.6
I
.I
I I m li •
I � f •� �i
I
1
I 1
I
II
I TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet
— 35
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
7 40
It
f i ! -
I i I
:I
'— 4
5 I i
I
/!,� Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
79-811 B ::ounw Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX(760)345-7115
Boring No: B3
Drilling Date: August 13, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 8" Hcliow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
SILTY SAND: brown. medium dense, jry, fine to
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford "I. Batten
I
^
Sample
Type
Penetration I
5,5,5
L 1
91.1
0.8
i B o
PagTl,
Description of Units
`
Resistance
U
C
_
Note. The stratification lines shown represent the
'
1
I i
L i.;j.�{{{ 96.0
I
1.6
D
C] .--
o �
I approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
Q
(Blows/6°)
16%
L
2 6
U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
�.
c
I
ML
!
0
SM I
SILTY SAND: brown. medium dense, jry, fine to
'medium grained, subround clasts i •
5,5,5
L 1
91.1
0.8
•.
(
5 I
I
8,12,12
I i
L i.;j.�{{{ 96.0
I
1.6
I
ML
!
i
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, moist,
10.
I
182.0
laminated, with minor fine grained san3
4,4,7
9.6
j
I
{-:I• i SM
(.a..l.i
SILTY SAND: broom, medium dense, damp to dry,
15
I
I •I 1jI.
fine
t to medium grained, subround to si-bangular e
<
rm
4,4,10
L is .# 84.8
6.8
clasts _
(.j
L
! (
l
f.'!. I
i
- -- 20
I
I
110
-I'''
5,6,6
I' i
r L 10.4
'
1 4.1
I •
25
7,8,11
i:a.'!:1 i 95.9
`. 2.4
j •
1
-
30
I
I
! I
®
5,7,9
.] i 93.2
12.9
i
j
- 35
l
I
10,12,20I
1.
i 96.9
�.A.j I
! 1.9
t i •
i
Mi-
i
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense damp, ;. 1
40
laminated, with minor fine grained sar d
+
I
9,10,10.
�' ! 192.1
I
4.3
i 45
!
1
�. .i
TOTAL DEPTH: 41-.5 feet
I
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered- �-
I
50
1
- --- ----- — ---
Earth Systems Consultants
�►`�� Southwest
79.8113 County Club Drice• Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 34 5-73 15
Boring No: B4
(
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
I Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
^
Sample
Type
Penetration
i
_
Description of Units Page I of 1
v
_
�)
Resistance
O U,
I U
C C
I v j
7 —.
n =
Note. The stratification lines shown represent the
v
= 1
C]
o °' !
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
O
o o
Blows/6" j
!
U
and the transition maybe gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
21
i
t.
I
—o
= —
10
15
- 20
i— 25 i
L
1
r !
30
t
!
35
I
i
— 40
I
I—� I
— 45
_ 1
I
�• ! ' SM I i 1 SILTY SAND: brown, -medium dense dry, fine -to I
I medium grained, subround clasts •
:,:'
7.7,11 ....L; j 89.5 � 1.2 f
I
9,9,9 L.i,. .' '•. 99.1 : I.'_
4,5,6
I ! ,
3,4,6
I
I {
;
' I
6,8,8
i
8,10,15
1
14,16,20
! 8,10,12
I
111
10,10,1?
1
i I
I I
I
f
I I .
turC1CL I CLAYEY SILT: brown, stiff, moist, laminated, with 1
minor clay nodules
I
i77.0 1 15.3
I; , i
' ` ? Slit I D
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, d fine to
I. , fie
! •r 79.1 5.1 medium -rained, subround clasts t
! '! ; MUCL I SANDY CLAYEY SILT: brown, stiff, moist,
laminated, low plasticity
73.5 1 15.4
I'I i i
6'tL/C L '' i CLAYEY SILT: brown, very stiff, moist, medium
I plasticity, with minor silty sand lenses
�. sm ! ' ! SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
:T.,I i medium grained, subround clasts
i
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, 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
i
TOTAL DEPTH: 41.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
Earth systems Consultants
Southwest
79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone(760)345-1588 FAX (760)345-7315
Boring No: B5 Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten .
^
Sample
Type
Penetration
I
o Description
I .T
I `
of Units Page I of l
v
Resistance
_ I
o I v'
_ "
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
I
G.
'o ,�
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
o
(Blows/6")
I
C'
2 U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count pry Density.
Q
m
G
i
G
i
- 0
5 l
10�
(� 's
L
I
1
L
F� 20
I
F
_ 75
i-
i
30
i,
i
r
I
35
i
L
i.
I
I
40
— 45
~— rt)
SM i I
® 4,4,4 i' ' 1 87.1 I LO
5,5,7 ::!.:;. 86.1 1.2
{ 1
4,5,6 :I :: 89.6
i 11 1
•i
7,11,14 I: +: is 85.3 11.3
1 � 1
I, 1
I..I
8,9,1 l i I:'; t 85.1 1.5
Li•'' 1 I I
I i I
i I I I
i I
�i
1
i
i
i'
i I
i
1
i
1 I
i1 I
I i
1
I . 1
_ 1
I I
1
I
I
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to-
medium grained, subround to subangular clasts (�
i
1
i;
i I
i
i
I�
TOTAL DEPTH:.21.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
79.8113 Country Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phonc (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-731 i
Boring No: B6
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert _
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 6!
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
Type
I
Penetration
_
-
B;`
!Page l of I
i
Description of Unitacn
r
• a
Resistance
1 -0
U
v U
. N c
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
-
u
j
4,5,6
`"
t,
c B
approximate boundary between soil and/or nck types Graphic Trend
Q.
J � p
I (Blows/G" )I
>
1t
U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
i 30 i
—
-35
1
I i i
— 40
45 I i
1
Sit
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to II
�•' ; •;
medium grained, subangular clasts j
i
3,4,5
88.4
0.4
r
I!
1
—5
j
4,5,6
T.
!
88.0
0.8
j • :i �.
i
1t
} l !
10
I
i
®
7,9,11"
191.2
0.9
— l5
5,8,10
;"
91.9
11.5
i— 0
f j
6,8,11 -
I ',
96.8
j 2.6
j with silt lenses . e ;i •
i� 25
i
!•
I I 1
j
i
I
ti
i 30 i
—
-35
1
I i i
— 40
45 I i
1
Earth systems Consultants
Southwtp.St 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bemiuda Dunes. CA 92201
• Phonc (760) 345-1588 FAX(760)345-4315
BorN N0: B7 I Drilling Date: August IS, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Drilling Method: fi" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10 Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
^
Sample
Type
Penetration
I
�'
B
P�a—e 1 of 1
Description of I Units I —
-I
Resistance
"
U
a,
I c _
Note. The stratification lines shown represent the
F
C
o
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
'
= r—
Q
0
and the transition be Blow Count ygDensity-
I U
I� 3,4,6
C
5 ! I 15,5,6
j ; I
;I
' to
r
i I 6,6,7
I
� I
— I 1 8,8,10
r .II
I 20 I(I 5,6,7
I
L 25 j 6,7 ,8
1
30 i I 6,9,10
I I
r �
I
1_35
i
I i j
40 f I
l t I
I
F45
L
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine, to
medium grained, subangular clasts
No Groundwater or Bedrock, Encountered I j
j
.i
I.
j
. I I
Earth S
`✓ Southwest
ems Consultants
Boring No: B8
ProjectName: Country Club of the Desert
Project Number: 07117-10
Boring Location: See Figure 2 .
Sample
Type Penetration
L n�
C rn
Resistance
Q oI (Blows/6")
1— 0 SM
4,4,4
r
4,5,6 I 7. ML
I I
II
I � �ilil
10 I I . •.I. SM
16,7,8
1 'LIJ
:l
15�
.i..1.1
7911
C
20 i. I i
L 4,4,5
I I ®I
_5
13,4,6
30
35
r
r
r 40
i
i
I
I
f 45
r
I- -
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
Drillin' Method: 8" hollow Stem Auger
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
amiU
Q a
�, c
°
Z U
Description of Units
Note: The stratification. lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
and the transition may be gradational.
Parc l of I
Graphic Trend,
Blow Count Dry Densiq
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, fossiliforus, subangular clasts
I
87.9
0.7
o
kk •
90.2
I ) .5
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry
I
i
f'
it
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
I
90.7
1.7I
medium grained, subangular clasts
I °
I
91.0
1.1
I I
II
;1
I
!I
I
tl I
I
II .
It
,i
TOTAL DEPTH:31.5 feet
I
i
l
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
I
1
Earth S
Southwest
ems Consultants
Boring No: B9
Project lame: Country Club of the Desert
Project Number: 07117-10
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Sample
Type Penetration _
L O r/; N
-EResistance s U Q
(31 lows/6") 0)' c
0
S49 1
3;3,4 74.2
5
6,8,10 i.' . '.; 191.4
i— 10 ® 5,5,10- 1903
!, I
i
I 548 i 187.7
I
I •'
,0 I t--�� I �(,,, I tviL/CL
I II �q 4,6,6
j I ® 4,4,5 .:' "l SM I
L f I I
J.
r 30 ; i MULL
L• I 5,5,7 :r l ,
j
i 35 I l
I I
r i
40 .. -
F
f i
! I I
45
i II
i
, l 1
79-81 IB Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-7315
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Description of Units Page I of I i .
C
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
n o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
2 o and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
U
1.5
ff-�
i 2.4
2.6
SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry 11
to damp, fine to medium grained, fossiliforus to five
feet, subround to subangular clasts i
�I
" II
I I
j r
•
1
I
I CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity, with minor silt t !
;i
•
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine'to ;0
j medium grained, subangular clasts
• 1
i;
i•I
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low I
plasticity j
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
I
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
i
,I
!
I -
Earth Systems Consultants
IM"WE Southwest
79-811 B CounEry Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345.7315
Boring No: BIO
SN'l
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 8" H)Ilow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
72.2
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See.Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
5,6,7
Sample
Type
Penetratiori
1.6
6,8,8
[Page I of I
-Description of Units -
3.0
Resistance
C".
-2: 1 U
r -
Note: The stratification lines shovm represent the
U
C,-
boundary between soil and/or rozk types Graphic 1'rend
approximate
J'J'
z C__ C)
M
(Biows/6")l•
C/) 1'•
1
and the transition maybe gradational. Blow.Count Dry Densivy
C/5 7
1
i.
. I —
0
5
I r
10
L 15
L
20
L
L ')5.
L
I L
r— 30
1-- 35
i
L
40
45
L
t
"I-
No Groundwater or Bedrock, Encountcrec
SN'l
rSILTY SAND: brown, loose to mediuE-n dense, dry,
fine to.medium grained, subround class.
4,5,5
72.2
1.2
5,6,7
i.
92.7
1.6
6,8,8
91.7
3.0
6,8,9
J'J'
1-87.3
2.7
"I-
No Groundwater or Bedrock, Encountcrec
Oft Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
79-8113 Country Club Drive. Berniuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1593 Fa -Y (7AM 1 c
Boring No: B11
i
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 6:
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
I
Sample
Type
Penetration
I
=
Description of Unit iPage 1 of l
Resistance
rn
U
c
—
Note: The strati0cation lines shown represent the
G_o
v
approximatc'boundary between soil and/or nck types Graphic Trend
Q
� . 00
I`
(Blows/6")
Q
1. U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
f L
I
i.i Sm
5,8,8
8,12;12 J.'
� IP
I1H!111 ML
- 40
- 45
4,4,7
5,5,5
95.5
91.6
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to ;
medium grained, subround clasts
0.5
0.7 I o 0
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dens dry, minor
clay nodules
i � •i
,m
!. •.; MULL i i CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, n_oist, low
plasticity
51517
7,11,10
I 1 TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet .
i.
I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered II
Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest 79-81 1 B County Club Drwc, Berniuda Dunes, CA 92201
Plione (760) 345-1588 F.4 -X (760) 3-35-7315
Boring No: B12Drilling
Date: August 18� 2000
I.0
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 9" Ho low Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2,
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
Type
P-enetration
7;7,7
'Description of Units
-E
Resista6ce
30.
Note: The stratification lines shown represent *ne
U
E
�'
8,10,11
-6 E
approximate boundary between soil and/orroc< types Graphic Trend
(Blows/6"):
35
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
0
5
10 7,8,8
L 15
5,6,9
I L
20 6,6,8
45
s m SILTY SAND: brown, medium, dense cry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
93.0 0.4.
97 0.7
—
4'
92.2 1.2
ML
'W!,
IIi'Ij j
MUCL
SANDY SILT: brown,pedium dense, Jrv, minor ch
nodules
25
7;7,7
30.
1
8,10,11
35
40
45
s m SILTY SAND: brown, medium, dense cry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
93.0 0.4.
97 0.7
—
4'
92.2 1.2
ML
'W!,
IIi'Ij j
MUCL
SANDY SILT: brown,pedium dense, Jrv, minor ch
nodules
+ Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX(760)345-7315
Borin- No: B13
I I
l
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
Project Dame` Country Club of the Desert
I
I SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry,
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
i !
i
, !
20
1
Logged By: Clifford W. Patten
^
Sample
Type
Pe6etration
I
i
N
i
Description of Units Page 1 of 1
5,8 ,8
-
Resistance
°
V)
U1
i 1.2
_
Note: The stratification lines shown repiesert the
s
G
J
1
�:-i:i
I J
-�
c
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock t}•pes Graphic Trend
u .
Q
L o
(Blows/6")
-
Z'
c'
.� o (
and the transition may be gradational. BIo�� Count Dn• Density
4,5,5
C'` tq L
I
i.
r 0 l
I I
l
1 SIM
I
I SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry,
— 5
2,3,3
10
j
— 1s
I
" I
76.2
i !
i
, !
20
1
I
�
75 !
1
i
I
!
" 1
!
5,8 ,8
30
l 'i..
35 35
i 1.2
°
F
I- 40
I i
I
I
1
i i
t
I:�
1 SIM
I
I SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry,
2,3,3
76.2
6.8
I fine to medium grained, subround clasts
]
5,8 ,8
l:
l 'i..
;.96.8
i 1.2
°
•
�:-i:i
1
I
I
!
i t li
to ji
4,4,4
!'.i
{
i
it II.
4,5,5
! i MUCL
I,
t'
! SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist,
i
low plasticity
11
5,5,5
SM
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine.to
medium grained, subround clasts
I:
5,6,6
T.. !
NIUCL j
i
! SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist,
t
_
low plasticity
6,9,8
��' }'i i
i
i
• ' o
k
i TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
1�
j!
t !
f
No Groundwateror Bedrock Encountered
'!
Aoft Earth Systems Consultants
. ��►►��� Southwest
79-811 B County Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (7601 345-711;
Boris No: B14
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000 -
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
i
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
1 i
j
t
f
t
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location:See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten '
Sample
Type"`
(Penetration
-
v o ..
Description of Units Page 1 of 1
j1
—
Resistance
c
U
_
=
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
L
1 (3
-
cf:
=
Q o
.N
o —"
r approximate boundary'betwedn soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
C
QC
o
(Blows/6");
C
o
and the transition may be gradational, Blow Count Dry Density
-0
-5
10
1.5
- 20
I 25
45
L
I
I
4,4,4
f�
6,7,8
3,7,2
4,6,7
5,6,7
1 1
I 1 ;
6,6,5
(F' 6,7,9
i
SM -
iN
I'
IJ.
.l
A
La:T
MUCL
S"'l
1:! `I
n•IVCL
SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry, 1
j fine to medium grained, subround clasts
75.1 0.7
86.8 1 1.4
Ij
o II
I
I
t. 1
{ SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, I i
I • low plasticity
i.
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, Find to
1 i j medium grained, subround clasts j I 1I
1 ! CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low_
! plasticity i II
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
,.
i
1 i
j
t
f
t
I .
I I
1
Earth Systems Consultants
ti Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-73 15
BOCtIIg N0: B15 :
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
I
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 8'.' Hollow Stem•Au2er
Project Number: 07117-10 .
Drill Type Mobile 61
Boring Location. See Figure 2
Logged By: " Clifford. W. Batten
I
Sample
Typc
Penetration
Page l of I
-Description Of Units
Resistance "�
U
Note:. The stratification"lines shown represent the. .
_
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
QC.
o
(Blows/67);
G
-L U
and the transitionmay be gradational Blow Count Dry Densit%
zI
.5,5;4 :_ :� •..
51515 l .. l
MUCL
4,5,6
" � I
Earth systems Consultants
Southwest
79-811 E Country Club Dri.-e, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-7315
BOrina N0: EIC)
I
f
Drilling Date: August ?8, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
=
'— 5
G
I
f I
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Augcr,
Project Number: 07117-10
�
I.
10
�
,L
I
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: SccTigure 2
Logged By: Clifford V-1. Batten
L
f
iSample
Type
Penetration
(
_
J
F
I
I
`o
Description Of Units. Page 1 of 1 I
.�
' -
i Resistance
0
U
�, C I
—
Note: The stratification lines shown re resent the
° p
f
+
i
15,9,10
1L
i
'o
approximate boundary between soil and/or rcck types Graphic Trend
IIL
30
01
(Blows/6")
17,7,7
�'
Q' `
z U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
— 35
I
0 tI
I
f
I
® 4,5,6
'— 5
G
I
f I
`
5,6,5
I
�
I.
10
�
,L
I
I
4,4,4
L
f
iIE
i 1
F
I
I
f I
I
6,7,8
0
I
i
I
l-
l �15,6,7
i
I '
I t
f
o
i
15,9,10
1L
i
IIL
30
1
I
17,7,7
I
— 35
I
I I
i
40•
i I
I
I
J 45
t l
! !
i
I.
r
j
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense. dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts '
0.3 ' o I •
2:7.
Ii
SANDY SILT: dark brown, loose, dry-,
' s `
I�
1I tl
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to.
medium grained, subround to subang-alar clasts o I
i
! 1 11
i
t �
i
1i ;1
e 1
.1
i I
i
4
i.
i TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet !
iNo Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered !
i t>
,i
Jeftil Earth S
�� Southwest
ms Consultants
79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-711 i
Boring No: B17
Drilling Date: August 23, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 071 17-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
Type
1
—_'
( L01
Description of.DnitS. Page 1 of 1
`IPenetration
ResistanceC,
_
c
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
ce
1
I G
approximate boundary between soil anti/or rock types Graphic Trend
Q
W N p (Blows/6)
v
I
I c E _
and the transition maybe gradational. = Blow Count Dry Density
- 10
- 15
I
® 6,5,10
i I
' I
10,10
1
6,7,10
i
i 4,4,4
SM It SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
I I medium grained, subround clasts
i.) 90.1 1 0.4
I
Illlf i NIL I i SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor
Ll ! I o
I. •, : 187.1 ; 3.1 1 laminations
I i
fl ii I I I f
1 SAND: brown, medium dense, damp, fine to coarse
grained, with silt layers I
03.3 15.3
.l
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, -fine to
medium =rained, subround to subangular clasts
I o
' 1 I
1 i
I iI
�O
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry
1
�I
�i
i�
j.
Earth Systems Consultants 79-81 IS Country Club Drivc, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Southwest Phone (760) 345-1585 FA -X (760) 345.7315
Boring No: B18
1
t
Drilling Date: August 23, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
I1 9,11,12L
L
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
1.1
10
� i
L
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
i 3,4.,6
Logged,By: Clifford W. -Batten
20
Sample
Type
Penetration
I 6.7,8
L
30
16,6,7'
Pageof I
'Description of Units'
I Resistance
'
Note. Theistratification lines sho%vn represent the
U.
(Blows/6"); cr,
C/1
L,
c
I
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
Blow C6unt Dr,, Density
7E
U
and the transition may be gradational.
0
1
t
= 7,11,11
5 (
I1 9,11,12L
L
89.0
1.1
10
� i
L
i 7,9,11
!
i 3,4.,6
20
4,5,5
2.5i
I 6.7,8
L
30
16,6,7'
L
35
40
45
F
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasis
ML i I SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor
87.1 12.S
laminations
S -SM
P SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse
grained, round clasts, with silt
115.7 i 1.4
MUCL
—CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist. low
plasticity, with minor sand
I
sm
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround c asts
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
sm
89.0
1.1
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasis
ML i I SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor
87.1 12.S
laminations
S -SM
P SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse
grained, round clasts, with silt
115.7 i 1.4
MUCL
—CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist. low
plasticity, with minor sand
I
sm
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround c asts
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
•
Earth Systems Consultants'
`�_
Southwest
79-81 13 Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
'
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-7315
Boring
N0: B19
Drilling Date: August 23, 2000
Project
Name: Country Club
of the Desert.
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger,
Project Number: 071 17-10
Drill Type:. Mobile 61
Boring
Location: See Figure
2
Logged By:. -Clifford -V.-Qarten
Sample
Type
I Penetration
:
i
I-Pagc 1�—of
D6CCIf10II Of+1JIIlt3 I
Resistance
r
ci=
U
"'
Note: The stratif!cation-lines sho%yn represev the
1
CoBlows/
I
l
J I
o �_
approximate boundary between soil and/or mck types Graphic Trend
_
� (6")
i
cc r
eo
�. U
Count
and the transition may adafil1uwoun
Y be � . ona. a3Dry Density
1
!
'laminatec
1�
ML
! SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, #y, { !
.r
5,8,10
t �
�
$9:0
1.0
;
� o
I
I I
T! ! (vtUCL
I
i
r CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, dais to wet,.clm, '
— !
l 6.9,8
I '
!
! 83.4
j 4.0
P
I nodules
10
6,6,7
i;
SILTY SAND: ,brown, medium dense,.dry, fine to
i
15
medium grained, subround clasts = e
I
4,4,3
�.
70
i
6'8'8
!F!'
'
! i
1`0L/C t
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, n-oist, low
!
25.13
a a
plasticity i
-I 30
!
fj
1
6.9,10
I;
if
_ 35
-
j
i
!
TOTAL DEPTH: 31:3 feet
:40;;
No Groundwater' or Bedrock Encountered ,
— .45 1
j
I
Earth S
Southwest
ems Consultants
Borin� No: B20
Project ame: Country Club of the Desert
Project Number: -07117-10
Boring Location: See Figure 2
79-811 E Cownry Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone(760)345-1583 FAX (760)345-7315
Drilling Date:. August 23, 2000
Drilling Method: 8" Follow Stem"Auger
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Loggcd By: Clifforatten .
Page 1 of I I
Graphic Trend
Blow Count Dry Densi t}'
Sample
-- Type Penetration = j Description of lUnif�
1
U Resistance s' j .J c ( j Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
C (1 ` I „ — o approximate boundary between•soil and/or rack types.
U 0i (Blows/6"); i I c J I and the transition may be gradational.
�0
I_
l
L.
5
j
10
I
L
15
i
1
j
20
r
I
I.
— 25
i_
I
i
II
30
L
1
I
i
35
40
i
I— 45
ML
zMe"
9,10,11
I ! )i Li,4L x ,)ii- i : crown, mccltum cense cry to clamp r1
l:
�85.1 4.1
82.3 ! 2.6 ° a
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, wet, low to . ® II
f 33.9 119.5 I medium plasticity + jj
I !i
I I •;�
I SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brOWL, stiff, moist, i �1
low plasticity ® ��
1
i SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry, 0 1!
i ! f laminated ; II
if
; - a
r
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet j
Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
79-811B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201
Pl+one (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-7315
BQCIIIQ N0: B21
SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense, damp,
Drilling Date: August 23, 2000
Project ame: Country Club of the Desert
`
�'
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem AuQer
-Project Number: 071 17-10
6,10,10
) Drill Type: Nlobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
83.3
II
; {
I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten '
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, very stiff, wet, clay
Sample
Type
}
Penetration
f O
20.0
o'
Description of Units Page I of 1• 1
v
-
Resistance
L I 01
U U
�
C
,
=
!
represent
Note: The stratification Imes shown :he
_
G1
J
III1111
I'i
medium plasticity, with sand
v
e
approximate boundary between soil andlor rock ry�pes Graphic Trent!
v
I'l
c
= G. o
m
(Blows/6i)
i
I
C'
(�
__
.�, e
U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
v, L
I
I.
—0
NIL
4,6,6 62.6-
"I
5,6,8 I 87.4
I� I
I
SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense, damp,
4.0.
laminated
a
MUCL
10
6,10,10
I
rl
83.3
II
; {
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, very stiff, wet, clay
nodules
f O
20.0
I i
III
t1i ML
SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry,
15
I
_ II
�.
�
5,5 ,5
I
II
I
III1111
I'i
medium plasticity, with sand
' 4
I
�
i
1
i
iiflt
II11I11
f MUCL
i
I
F— 20 (
I i
t "
=1,4,4
t 1
I
I
I i
I ,
I°
�
{
1.' SM •
i
25
j
4,4,5.
!
I
+I
I.
30
I 6,7,8.
i
I
SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense, damp,
4.0.
laminated
a
II
3.5
I
j
II
; {
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, very stiff, wet, clay
nodules
f O
20.0
I i
SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry,
laminated, with sand
1 c
I
' SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dart: brown, stiff, moist,
medium plasticity, with sand
i
1
i
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
jmedium grained
I s
t 1
I
I
I i
I ,
I°
— 35 ! !
f 1 TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
r- 40 No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
�— 45 I t I
I j j a
I .
I
1
i.
I
Earth Sy
Southwest
ems Consultants
79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (7601345- 1 58S FAX (7601 14;_';ti, ;
Boring No: B22
t
I
Drilling Date: August 23, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
I
Ii
, a�
Drilling Method: 8'' Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
I.s medium grained
I
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse
grained, subround clasts,•with clayey silt layers
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
—
Sample---
I
�i
SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry,
laminated, with sand
Description Units I of•I
Type
Penetration
is
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense; dry; fine to
medium grained
1
of (Page
_
•
1
i
cI
v
-
Resistance
U
v,
Note; The stratification lines shown represent the
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
Of
(Blows/6" ),
^
I i
and the transition may be gradational.. Blow Count Dry Density
�0
r
L
4,5,6
64.0
i 1 88.5
6,8,8
SILT: light brown; loose to medium dense, dry,
t
larrunated
o
3.6 I
I
Ii
I -
II
j
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
I.s medium grained
I
1
;
SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse
grained, subround clasts,•with clayey silt layers
i
4.1
t'
�I
I
�i
SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry,
laminated, with sand
a
is
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense; dry; fine to
medium grained
1
i°
•
1
i
i •
TOTAL DEPTH: 3.1.5 feet 1
i
I i
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
l '
I
.� Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest 79-8I IB Councry Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 3.15-7315
1)u1 lull 19U:DLJ
Project lame'. Country Club of the Desert
-
--'"-'-------'----- -
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten .
L 10
SampleI,
Type
Penetration L
. j grained, with silt I �!
Page 1 of 1 j
Description Of Units
7,8,7 � !109.1 1.4
I• I � t y
I
`
o
Resistance I c
U
T
U Li
r
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
-
; SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
L 15
# I
: �: 1 medium grained
.i '!
4,5,3
.approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
` N o
(Blows/6") i
L
< U
and the transition may be gradational, Blow Count Dry Density
20
i
I
�.•L•i.i i1
Li`�
C•i:�l:� i � I ;1 ;I
io
�
I
0
ML I ; SANDY SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense,
dry, laminated, with sand
F 101MI 5,5,5 166.8 2.6 ® Q
— 5 I 5,8,8 'Mill i 85.2 14.3 I •
I�i I i I I L
SP -SNI I 4 SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse i
L 10
. j grained, with silt I �!
7,8,7 � !109.1 1.4
I• I � t y
I
il.
i I I
; SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
L 15
# I
: �: 1 medium grained
.i '!
4,5,3
I
L
�•I.Li I ; ! it
20
I
�.•L•i.i i1
Li`�
C•i:�l:� i � I ;1 ;I
io
�
3,4,4 I•:�.. I
Ij.
I�•I�•I.I I � I 11
I .I
CLS ANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist
o
12'3'4
i I low to medium plasticity jm
L
I Ji :
i 30
2,3
I1
i
i 35
F
.I
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
I40
I
I
I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
f ;
�— 45
i + I p
Earth systems Consultants
`..i Southwest
79-311 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201
Phone (760) 3.15-1583 FA -x(760)345-7315
Boring No:'B24 I
Drilling Date: August 23, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert.
}
Drilling Method: 8"- Hollow Stern Auger
Project Number: 071.17-10
I
l
l
Drill Type: Mobile 61 -
Boring .Location: See Figure 2,
"
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
Type
PenctYation l
�•
I
fi. 0 1
Description of Units , IPaQc� I of 1
r
J
Resistance
` o v;
( c j U
C
v �
I Note: The stratification lines shown represent the .'
_�
f
I approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
O
L o�
p
(Blows/6")i
v'
Cv
o
U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Couni Dry Density
I
0
M
r 15
f .20
r
F
L 25
L„
30
V � 4,5 ,5
Lf
4,4,5
7,8,8
4,4,4
i
I
I1 I 1
f
5,6,6
4,5,6
i
I I j
I
4,4,5
� 35
I
I
I
l
l
ML
4 SILT: brown, loose to medium dense, dry to damp, 1
laminated } '
71.9 13.3
IL `.
)
! 85.7.1 1.1 i
HIM
SM
1 !
100.2
1,41 MUCL
Ai
�' j .' i
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to i I
medium grained i I II
1 2.9 I • i o
j k CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity, .1
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
I medium grained 1 �.
d
t.
1�
I
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered !.
;
� i ,
Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
P
C.PT Sounding :
CPT -1
Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO, Inca
W
Project Name:
Country Club of the Desert
Truck Mounted Electric Cone
U
Project No.:
07117-10
with 23 -ton reaction weight .
Location:
See Site Exploration Plan
Date: 8/28/2000
i
uJ
Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy
I
Friction Ratio M) Tip Resistance, Qc.(tst
25
(Robertson & Campanella,
1989) Density/Consistency 8
6 4 2 0 100" 20Q 300 400
Silty Sand to Sandy
Sand to Silty Sand
Sand to Silty Sand
Sand to Silty Sand
Sand to Silty Sand
Silt very dense
very dense I
very dense
very dense' -
very'dense-
I 4 !
i
,
J
35
!
_
5 _
40
Sand to Silty Sand
dense
! I
-
45
Sand very dense !TI
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I i
SiltySand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty'Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt _ medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium. dense
Sand. to Silty Sand medium dense !
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
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 !
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense ! _
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense l
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense l
Sand dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense . ' r
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense —
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandto Silty Sand medium dense
Sand medium dense
Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i
l
End of Sounding @ 50.1 feet
j
10
15
'
_
!
20
i
I
25
30
35
_
40
i
-
45
50
Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
P.
LU
CPT Sounding : CPT -2 Cone Penetrometer: TUGP.O, Inc.
Project 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
'
d
.W
( ) Tip Resistance, Qc (tso ,
Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy • Friction Ratio % '
(Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency $ 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400
Sand to Silty Sand very dense,
Sand very dense I {
Sand to Silty Sand very dense_ I I I
Sand to Silty Sand very dense l i
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense i I
Silty -Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense ;
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense t (.
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense ( j
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense L
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense ! I
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
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 i
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 I I
Overconsolidated Soil medium dense I I!
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard I
Silty Sand to Sandy.Silt medium dense I
Silty Sand to.Sandy Silt medium dense ! I
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 i
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense t
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand dense
End of Sounding @ 49.8 feet ! I
a
5
j
10
15
-
20
'
25
30
I
35
j
40
45
--
50
Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
w
CPT Sounding : CPT -3 Cone'Penetrometer. FUGRO, Inc.
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck.. Mounted Electric Cone
Project No:: 07117-10 f with 23 -ton reaction weight,
Location: -.See Site.Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000
W
n
Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tso
Interpreted Soil,Stratigraphy g 6: 4 2 0 100 200 300 400
(Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency
Sand- very dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very'dense i�
Sand to Silty Sand very dense ; I
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very"dense I
Sand to Silty Sand dense j
Sand very dense
Sand - very dense ;
Sand very dense
Sand very dense
I
Sand very dense .
Silty Sand to Sandy'Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey. Silt loose
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose t
Sandy Silt to Clayey_ Silt loose
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose i
Clay stiff I
Clay firm I
I ,
Clay stiff I
Clayey Sift to Silty Clay very stiff F
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Clayey 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
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I I
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense f
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense !
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense_
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i I
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
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
Clay, very stiff
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay verystiff
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense _
Silty Sand to Sandy_ Silt medium dense !
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
1.
End of Sounding @ 50.2 feet !
!
-5_
I '
10
15
20
j
_
25
30
35
40
45
I
T I
.50
I
Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
CPT Sounding CPT-- Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO, Inc:
LU Project Name:. Country C(ub of the Desert Truck. Mounted Electric Cone'
U_ Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -tori reaction weight
Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date:. 8/28/200.0 •
CL w Interpreted $oil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance,'Qc (tsfi
p 8 6. '4 2 0 100. 200 300 400
.(Robertson € Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency "
Sand to ilty Sand very dense I 1 l
Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand verydense I
i
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very.dense I ' }
5 Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very dense f ► .
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand to Silty. Sand dense. i
10 Sand very. dense:
Sand very dense i
Sand very dense �.
Sand dense i i -
Sand.to Silty.Sand medium dense
15 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i
Sand dense i I
Sand ._dense I i
• I I
.Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand.to Sandy Silt medium dense ! !
20 Sandy. Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Silty Clay to Clay very -stiff i
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose !
25 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt loose
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt Medium dense I.
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense _
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I
30 Sand dense. !
Sand. dense
Sand medium dense 1
Sand medium dense I i -
Sand dense"
'Sand dense -
35. .Sand dense.
Sand dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium.dense.
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense ' !
40 Sand to Silty Sand 'medium dense ! I
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff i !
Clay, : very.stiff . _ -
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
45 Clay very stiff. r- i
Clay. very stiff .
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff --
Silty Sand .to Sandy Silt loose
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
50 ,
i
End of Soundingct7 49.9 -feet
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
UNIT DENSI'T'IES AND MOISTURE CONTEND' ASTM X2937 D2216
Job Name: Country.Club of the Desert
Sample
Location
Depth
(feet)
Unit
Dry
Density (pcf)
Moisture
Content
N
USCS
Group
Symbol
B1
B1
2
93.4
2.1
SM
B1
5
85.6
8.4
ML
B1
10
93.2
1.5
SM
Bl
15
77.7
5.7
ML
Bl
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
SM
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 DENSI'T'IES AND'MOIS T JRA:-, CONTENT ASTM D29_ 7L- D2216
Job Name: Country Club of the Desert
B5
2
87.1
Unit
Moisture
USCS
5
86.1
Sample
Depth
Dry
Content
Group
0.9
SM
Location
(feet)
Density (pco
' (%)
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
B8
5
90.2
2.5
ML
B8
10
90.7
1.7
SM
B8
15
91.0
1.1
SM
B9
2
74.2
L5
SM
B9
.5
91.4.
6.1
SM
B9
10
90.3
2.4
SM
B9
15
87.7
2.6
SM
B10
2
722
1.2
SM
B10
5
92.7
1.6
SM
B10
10
91.7
3.0
SM
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
-UNIT DENSITIES ANIS -MOISTURE CONTENT ` ASTM D2937 x D22 1 G
Job Name: Country Club of the Desert
B10
15
87.3
Unit
Moisture
USCS
2 .
---
Sample
Depth
Dry
Content
Group
0.7
SM
Location
(feet)
Density (pcf)
(%)
Symbol
B12
B10
15
87.3
2.7
SM
B11
2 .
---
0.5
SM
B11
5
95.5
0.7
SM
B11
10
-91.6
1.2
SM
B12
2
93.0
0.4
SM
B12
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
SM
B 14
2
75.1
0.7
SM
B14.
5
86.8
1.4
SM
B15
2
98.1
0.2
SM
B15
5
81.3
3:2
SM
B 1'6
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
ML
B18
10
115.7
1.4
SP -SM
B 19
2
89.0
1.0
SM
B 19
5.
83.4
4.0
ML/CL
B 19 .
10 _
82.1
.18.2
ML/CL.
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE ISTURE C®1eT'I`ENT AS T NI D2937 L 12216
Job Name: Country, Club of the Desert
B20
Sample
Location
Depth
(feet)
Unit
Dry
Density (pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
USCS
Group
Symbol
5
82.3
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
SM,
B22
10
104.3
4.1
SP -SM
B23
2
66.8
2.6
ML
B23
5
852
4.3
ML
-B23
10
109.1
1.4
SP -Sm -
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
I
September 22, 2000
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
i_I__J`!
;Cid►
ASTM D-422.
IIf
Job Name: Country Club of the 'Desert
I i `.
I IHillT!
II:II I � !
Sample ID: B1. @,0-5 Feet
i!!I!
i!!
I !
�_
Description: Sand, y Silt (ML)
Sieve Percent
Size Passing,
1-1/2" 100
31411 100
t/2" 100
100
1
11,1
94 100
100
416 .100
IN, Gravel:
0
-4310 99
% Sand:
45
450 96
t:
% Silt:
47
9100. 80
Clay (3 micron):
8
9200 55
(Clay content by short hydrometer method)
100
90
80
70
60
so
4& -
C-
30
20
10
II(
{1
I
I �
(�
f
i
i_I__J`!
;Cid►
! !
I !
IIf
I i `.
I IHillT!
II:II I � !
i!!I!
i!!
I !
�_
!
Mill
1
11,1
al
i
11H
I'
i
i►i!�
�I
i �'
I.
!i
III-!
!_J
I i
I�!
I�' � I �
�II� I
i
!
.I� i t;l
'�ii;il�I•I
.!I-1
i
�
,���
I
1
!iH
Ii�aiI
I
I T
I
i
iii
—,1
J1►
1 1
I I.
I-
i
� j
�1�1J
I
iii; l�
ii�
i �—
10 1 0.11 0.01 0:001
Particle Size (mm) -
EA . RTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
File No.: 07117-10
September 22, 2000
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIQ
ASTKD -42")
Job Narne':, Country Club of the Desert
Sample ID: 135 @ 5 Feet
Description: Silty Sand: Fine (SM)
Sieve -Percent--
Size Passinc,
1-1/2" 100
111 100
3/4" 100
1/2" 100
100
94
#8 100
916 100
% Gravel:
0
930 100
% Sand:
76
#50 94
% Silt:
20
9100 62
% Clay (3 micron):
4
4200 24
(Clay content by short hydrometer -method)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I'Mi I I 'Hi�-' � { I ( i ! I ll I
{— i' !isf �� i ;li!�! � i iii!! I I E �( i I 1
! ���I I i I I �� V I I I i. i I � I �Ii� I I!(
� l'iiI i _ ! �:�i ! i l l.'f. � VIII i.i
IIID 1 Ili 11 Iii t i,
',j (I ► i I: !�; {�I�.!Ill11 I� H i. I
1 —4
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001.
Particle Size mm)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
File No.: 07117-10
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
L
September 22, 2000
ASTM D -422' -
Job Name:— —Country Club of the Desert -
i�l!��
!!;�
��
.Sample ID- B6-@.20 Feet-"
!!,!
ILI
,1
I
Description: Silty Sand: Fine w/ Silt Lenses (SM)
I Ili��
'i(.
Sieve Size % Passing
By Hydrometer Method:
J 100
Particle Size % Passing
211 100-
59 Micron
20
1-1/2" 100
2' Micron
1.11
111 100
13 Micron
9
3/4" 100
.7 Micron
8
1/2" 100
5 Micron
6
100,
33 Micron
6
#4. -1.00
2.7 Micron
D
98 100
1.4 Micron
I
916 100
I
-930 100
% Gravel:
0
450 97
IN, Sand:
75.
9100 67
% Silt.
20
4200 25
% Clay (3 micron):
5
100
90
80
70
60
so
C -
'o
,4 . 0
30
20
10
6
!f
II �
i i
i�
h
i�l!��
!!;�
��
� � �
► i
!!,!
ILI
,1
I
�
i i��
I Ili��
'i(.
I t. i
` i I
!.Iil
i Ili
!
i!
i
I,
(
� I
I
I I !•I
I�
I
t
I !
I I.
I
I I�
! I
it
I I
i �i-
i
I i��
I i
i .
!iI
I
I
I��til
!�►!
•1 .1�
I•
Irillll
1�
.�
I
�l
`SII
i�
�
I
� I��.�
�
��I�.
I
-i
1
Kil
I
�1_I
l
!
�Ij!iII
I
f `IiI�I�!-I
I
ii�fl�I i �I�j�I)
�
i.
100 10 1 0.1. 0.01 0.001
Particle Sizc (mm)
L: A D -FU c-,,c-rc&,fo r-nxT-r Tr -r A M-rQ Q(')T VrTJNX1MZr
File No.: 07117-10
I�
September 22, 2000
PARTICLE 'SIZE ANALYSIS-
ii'I
ASTD-422
VI
-I
91j
Job Name: Country Club ofthe Desert
!II!!
Sample. ID: 'B7 @ 0'5 Feet
I!
j
Description: Silty Sand: Fine (SM).
a
i!
Sieve Percent,
I
I I
Size Passing..
i f I
l--1/2" 100
i
111 100
!II�i
3/4" 100
i i
� � �jL! a
1/2" 100
-(
3/8" 100
�
94 100
#8 100
916 100
% Gravel:
0
930 99
'% Sand:
76
#50 90
% Silt:
19
9100 58
% Clay (3 micron):
5
4200 24
(Clay content by short hydrometer method)
90
80
70
60
cc
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size rnni)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
0.001
I�
!
!Ei! � I I I �
ii'I
-I
91j
!II!!
I!
j
_I�I� � �
a
i!
I
I I
;lilt
i f I
��iil
i
!II�i
l
i i
� � �jL! a
i
-(
l
(�
�
LIU,
!
I III
i.
I.
ili�
i
_!
!
SII,!
I
I •!`
,�
!
!
i
i�
�
I �i
;��
i
i
I J
�
��
I �
�
i
?�I
i i
i
�iI!
�
�
I i
!�`
� �
�
!
1.
M 1
111
11
I!!1I
I
a;!!
I
II!;!f
'�i I
j
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size rnni)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
0.001
100
TT T 1
90 I� i I ! i
iI iii' 1 � ill I � i� 11�II f) I ► i�► '.i ! i
�� I I .L I ail, � � Iii i i i
80
70i! I i II�!�� i ���� I l 'II iI ISI I i l lu l�� !�,��� i � i I.
NL
60 ?I .1 Ili ► i i' , l' i � !. !ilI' ! I. !�� !:! i
.� ii) .i. Ilfl j l l ! II�! I � i 1 � � �. i � i i
' I I ! i�l. j li ' !
50
40
30.E i ( I� .► i � i ( 1I alI �ij��O -�
it
20
- �IkII (i � IiII�Ii ��ii�l.ii I ► Ilfilf{ r !!' I! �.!
10
�II1, II I L
f I
0 1 i I It li.. 4 i �.,J
100
0.1.
Particle Size (mm)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONI JLTANTS SOUTHWEST
0.01
0.001
File No.: 07117-10
September 22, 2000
PARTICLE SIZE AN�kLYstsl
ASTI -422
M D
Job Name: Country Club 'of the Desert
Sample ID. B16 @-10 Feet
Pesdilp'tion: Sandy Silt (ML)
Sieve Size %'Passincy
By Hydrometer
Method:
1.00
Particle'Sizc
% Passing
2" 100
49 Micron
56
1-1/2" 100
22 Micron
I§
111 100
13 Micron
11
3/4'.' 100,
7 Micron
7
1/2" 100,
5 Micron
7
3/8" 100
3 3.4 Micron
D
94 100
2.7 Micron
4
48 100
1.4 Micron
I
916 100
430 100
% Gravel:
0
#50 100
% Sand:
24
#100 97
% Silt:
72
#200 76
% Clay (3 micron):
4
100
TT T 1
90 I� i I ! i
iI iii' 1 � ill I � i� 11�II f) I ► i�► '.i ! i
�� I I .L I ail, � � Iii i i i
80
70i! I i II�!�� i ���� I l 'II iI ISI I i l lu l�� !�,��� i � i I.
NL
60 ?I .1 Ili ► i i' , l' i � !. !ilI' ! I. !�� !:! i
.� ii) .i. Ilfl j l l ! II�! I � i 1 � � �. i � i i
' I I ! i�l. j li ' !
50
40
30.E i ( I� .► i � i ( 1I alI �ij��O -�
it
20
- �IkII (i � IiII�Ii ��ii�l.ii I ► Ilfilf{ r !!' I! �.!
10
�II1, II I L
f I
0 1 i I It li.. 4 i �.,J
100
0.1.
Particle Size (mm)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONI JLTANTS SOUTHWEST
0.01
0.001
_�I
!
File No.: 07117-10
,III�I
September 22, 2000
' PARTICLE SIZES ANALYSIS . '`
70
ASTM D-422
Job -Name: Country Club of.the Desert
00
�
I
Sample ID: 819 @ 5 Feet
I II I L. 1
�•I � I!
IL `IILI�I
i
�►ili 1.
`
Description: Clayey Silt (CUML), with sand
n
50
Sieve Size % Passing ,, .
By Hydrometer
Method: c .
3" 100
Particle Size
.% Passing
100.
42 Micron
8I
1-1/2" 100
I9•.Micron
50
1" 100
12 Micron
39
- 3/4" 100
6 Micron
27
1/2" 100
4 Micron
23
3/8'.' 100.
3.2 Micron
19
#4 100 - .
2.6 Micron
17
#8 100
1.4 Micron
6
#16 99
I
I .I
#30 99
%Gravel:
0
#50 99
%Sand:
15
#100 97
% Silt:
68
9200 .85 % Clay (3 microai):.
too
17
_�I
!
90
,III�I
80
I.I
Li � I
Ii
70
I
�.
60
00
�
I
I
I II I L. 1
�•I � I!
IL `IILI�I
i
�►ili 1.
��'i I 1
•li'.I I I
II►'
I ilii
I
I I
1
n
50
!1,
40
30
20
40
0
_�I
!
IT
. I
,III�I
II
I.I
Li � I
Ii
I
�.
III
�i'i
;L
I
-i.
�
I
I
I II I L. 1
�•I � I!
IL `IILI�I
i
�►ili 1.
��'i I 1
•li'.I I I
II►'
I ilii
I
I I
1
I�
�I,I
!1,
.11
''111
1
t1I
H
1
Illiai
I
I
I
11fi.I
I
I
�.
-
I 1.LIi1III
ill
I I
I I
ILI
1
I
I .I
-;.
I
I
I, I
I.
.I'
I
I
S
f
ISI t
LLI1
I
I
1 I
i
li I
,, •
I��.! I i
I
I •
1111111-
i.
; IH ii
l0a
'90
80
70
60
N
50
0
40
30
20
• l0
0
100
10 C 0:.1 0.01 0.001 "
.Particle Size (rnm)
- T" -A T)TTT C` \l C, -r T i. .f TTC c,/ --Nr rrLjixrCCT
l File No.: 07117-10
September 22, 2000
PA.RTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS-
ASTINA D-422
_.
Job Name: Country Club of the Desert
Sample ID: B20 @ 15 Feet
Description: Clayey Silt -(CL/ -NIL)
Sieve Size % Passing
By Hydrometer Method:
Y 100
Particle Size .% Passing
2" 100
4? 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
100
3.0 Micron
32
#4 100
2.5 Micron
29
48 100
1.3 Micron
10
#16 100
#30 99
%-Gravel:
0
950 99
% Sand: "
10
#100 96
% Silt:
61
#200 90
% Clay.(2 micron):
29
l0a
'90
80
70
60
N
50
0
40
30
20
• l0
0
100
10 C 0:.1 0.01 0.001 "
.Particle Size (rnm)
- T" -A T)TTT C` \l C, -r T i. .f TTC c,/ --Nr rrLjixrCCT
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
Ring Sample. Initial Void Ratio: 0.890
Hydrocollapse: 2.6% @ 2.0 ksf
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
2
i
0
--I
-2
a -3
.7
W
c -4
nt,
r -5
U
. -6
v -7
G.
-8
-9
-►0
-Il
-l�
O Before Saturation Hydrocollapse
® After Saturation—*—Rahnund
Trend I
0.1 1.0 10.0
Vertical Effective Stress, ksf
177A D_rW QVQrr:NAC r`n ICT T TA.TT'T'Q Q O T ITN WFCT
{ I
I
I f f (I
I I
I
I i I
I.II
I
i i I
i
j! j.j
i i
I l
;
i
I
j
i l l l l --
'' i
�
I• !
i
I
,
I
0.1 1.0 10.0
Vertical Effective Stress, ksf
177A D_rW QVQrr:NAC r`n ICT T TA.TT'T'Q Q O T ITN WFCT
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
C� � a ���� A STi�1 2435-90 &- D5333
�� � .
Country. Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density: 79.3 pcf
B19 @ 5 Feet Initial Moisture,.%o- 4-0%
Clayey Silt (MUCL) Specific Gravity (assume'# '2.67
Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 1.102.
Hydrocollapse: 2.5% o @ 2.0 ksf .
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
O Befofe. Saturation ®Hydrocollapse i
® After Saturation W Pp.hnund
Trend - - -
0.1 1 0 10.0
L
i.
-1
-2
on
-3
Z
-4
U
-6
v
• L
-7.
-8
-9
-10
-II
1'
0.1 1 0 10.0
?r : .
w
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333
Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density 74.6•pcf
B20 @ 10 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 19.5%
Clayey Silt (CL L) Specific Gravity (assumed -i.- 2.67
Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 1.233
Hydrocollapse: 0.9% @ 2_0 ksf
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
2
0
-2
cn -3
T
-4
-s
ti
U
-6
v
u
L
-7
-8
-9
-10
-t2
O Before Saturation wrHydrocollapse
® After Saturation W_RPhr)und
Trend
o. t
i!!
I
I i
I
I i
l l l
I I I
I
I I
I I Y
i
i
I I I
I
I I
III
I j 1. i
l l s
I j
i .; ;.
LO
Vertical Effective Stress, {sf
T: d T)-TT.T'Qvc'-rch,fQ r,nxrQT (T -rA XTTQ Q n T iTT-TuiP(ZT
10.0
w
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 &'D5333
Country Club of the Desert'- Initial Dry Density: 85.3 pcf
B241@ 5 Feet Initial Moisture, %: '2.1% .
Silty Sand: F w/ Silt Lenses Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67
Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio- 0.955
Hydrocollapse: 1.8% @ 2.0 lcsf
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
2
. I
0
-I
-2
m -3
Z'
z
c -4
u
c ' -5
U
_ -6'
v
v
L
u _7
-9
-10
_ll
t�
'O Before Saturation-Hydrocollapse
® After Saturation - W RPhnund- .
Trend
I �i 1 1—t IIi I I I i i I i I
I I 1 1 4 1.1. I I i l
I I I M I I I i i i i
! .1 1 1•� l
10.0
I I I l l t I
10.0
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
PLASTICI'T'Y 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 ( I i
40.5 I l
0 40.0 I V
L 39.5
39.0
38.5
10 Number of Blows 100
I
Plasticity Chart
i
,.
70
.60
Y 50
I I
u
= 40 I l I I I CH
30 I j
N CL
�. 20 -
i �
MH .
10 I ML
i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
J ,
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE AS714n 1557-91 (Modified)
Job Name:. Country Club of the Desert Prccedure Used: A
Sample ID: B5 @ 5 Feet Prep. Method:.Moist
Location: Native Rammer Type: Mechanical
Description: Silty Sand: Gray Brown-, Fine (SM)
Sieve Size % Retained
Maximum Density: 105.5 pcf 3/4" 0.0
Optimum Moisture: 15.5%
#4 0.0
140
135
130
125
U
120
G
A
A.
115
110
105
100
A
J
+ File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
MAXIMUiVI DENSITY /'OPTIMUM' Mi)ISTURE 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 % Retained
Maximum Density.: 106 pcf 3/4" 0.0
Optimum Moisture: 15:5% 3/8" 0.0
#4 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Moisture Content, percent
140
135
130
125
u
G
Z:
120
a�
A
A
115
'
110
105
IN
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Moisture Content, percent
'
1
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
inv./lab#:
489
mg/Kg
Ohms -cm
ppm
meq/L Ppm
No. Description Sat./
pH
Res NO3N
PO4P K
Ca + Mg Na Cl
504
07866-01 Country Club 'of the Desert
B2 C 0-2'
8.4
2350
34
20
B6 @ 0-2'
8.3
1700
72
40
B9 @ 0-2'
8.2
950
86
123
Bll C 0-2'
8.4
1850
40
58
•'F� 1
D71
Sladden Engineering
45090 Golf Center Parkway, Suite F, Indio, CA. 92201 (760) 86.4713 Fax (760) 863-8847
6782 Stanton Avcnuc, Suitc A, Bucna Pack, CA 90621 (714) 523-0952 Fax (714) 523-1369
450 Egan Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223 (951) 845-7743 Fax (951) 845.8863
800 E. Florida Avcnuc, Hcmct CA 92543 (951) 766-8777 Fax (951) 766-8778
May 30, 2012
Mr. Barry Ehlert
c/o Jones & Jordon
78-060 Calle Estado, Suite 8
La Quinta, California
Project: Proposed Ehlert Residence
Lot 25D — 53444 Via Dona
The Hideaway
La Quinta, California
Subject: Soluble Sulfate Content
Project No. 544-12053
12-05-137
As requested, we have sampled the surface soil on the subject'lot to determine the sol-_tble sulfate
content as it relates to selecting appropriate concrete mix designs. Testing indicates (hat the site
soil is generally considered non -corrosive with respect to concrete. The testing indicated non-
detectable soluble sulfate content that corresponds with the "negligible" exposure 2ategory in
accordance with Table 3 of ACI 31.8-08 Chapter 9, in accordance'with ACI 318-08, special sulfate
related concrete mix designs should not be required.
If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
SLADDEN ENGINEEP
Brett L. AndersoiK
Principal Engineer
Letter/jg
Copies: 4/Jones & Jordon
o� � d �C
JUL 0 6 2012
Engineering
6782 Stanton Ave., Suite A, Buena Paris, CA 90621 (714) 523-0952 Fax (714) 523-1369
45090 Golf Center Pkwy, Suite F. Indio, CA 92201 (760) 863-0713 Fax (760) 86-,-0847
450 Egan Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223 (951) 845-7743 Fax (951) 845-M
Date: May 29, 2012
Account No.: 544-12053
Customer: Mr. Barry Ehlet c/o Jones & Jordon
Location: The Hideaway, 53-444 Via Dona, La Quinta
Sulfate Series
Analytical Report
Soluble Sulfates
per CA 417
ppm
Soluble Chloride
per CA 422
ppm
:1
Sulfate 544-12053 052912,doc
:x.
Sladden Engineering
45090 Golf Center Parkway, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 (760) 863-0713 Fax (760) 863-0847
6782 Stanton Avenue, Suite A, Buena Park, CA 90621 (714) 523-0952 Fax (714) 523-1369
450 Egan Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223 (951) 845-7743 Fax (951) 845-8863
800 E. Florida Avenue, Hemet, CA 92543 (951) 766-8777 Fax (951) 766-8778
April 9, 2012
Mr. Barry Ehlet
c/o Jones & Jordon
78-060 Calle Estado, Suite 8
La Quinta, California 92253
Project: Proposed Custom Residence
53-444 Via Dona — Lot 25D
The Hideaway
La Quinta, California
Subject: Geotechnical Update
By
Project No. 544-12053
12-04-087
JUL O6 2012 Ip
Ref: Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Earth Systems Southwest (ESS) dated
April 11, 2001; File No. 08199-01, Report No. 04-04-718.
Report of Testing and Observation During Rough Grading prepares by ESS dated
August 28, 2002; File No. 07117-11, Report No. 01-07-718
Report of Testing and Observation During Rough Grading prepar?d by Sladden
Engineering dated October 12, 2003; Project No. 544-2199 Report No. 03-10-647
As requested, we have reviewed the above referenced geotechnical reports as they relate to the
design and construction of the proposed custom residence. The project site is located at 53-444
Via Dona within the Hideaway Golf Club development in the City of La Quinta, California. It is
our understanding that the proposed residence will be a relatively lightweight wood -frame
structure supported by conventional shallow spread footings and concrete slabs on grade.
The subject lot was previously graded during the rough grading of the Hideaway project site and
was subsequently regraded. The rough grading included over -excavation of the native surface
soil along with the placement of engineered fill soil to construct the building pads. The regrading
included processing the surface soil along with minor cuts and fills to construct the individual
building pads to the current configurations. Some additional over -excavation wF-s performed in
areas where the building envelopes were reconfigured. The most recent Site grading is
summarized in the referenced Report of Testing and Observations During Rough Grading
prepared by Sladden Engineering along with the compaction test results.
The referenced reports include recommendations pertaining to the construction of residential
structure foundations. Based upon our review of the referenced reports, it is our opinion that the
structural values included in the referenced grading report prepared by Sladden Engineering
remain applicable for the design and construction of the proposed residential structure
foundations.
April 9, 2012 -2- ProjEct No. 544-12053
12-04-087
Because the lot has been previously rough graded, the remedial grading required at this time.
should be minimal provided that the building falls within the previously aEsumed building
envelope. The building area should be cleared of surface vegetation, scarified and moisture
conditioned prior to precise grading. The exposed surface should be compacted =o a minimum of
90 percent relative compaction is attained prior to fill placement. Any fill mz-terial should be
placed in thin lifts at near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction.
The allowable bearing pressures recommended in the referenced grading report prepared by
Sladden Engineering remain applicable. Conventional shallow spread footings should be
bottomed into properly compacted fill material a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent
grade. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and isolated pad footings should be
at least 2 feet wide. Continuous footings and isolated pad footings should be d.=_signed utilizing
allowable bearing pressures of 1500 psf and 2000 psf, respectively. Allowable increases of 300 psf
for each additional 1 foot of width and 300 psf for each additional 6 inches of depth may be
utilized if desired. The maximum allowable bearing pressure should be 3000 psf. The
recommended allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic
loading.
Lateral forces may be resisted by friction along the base of the foundations and passive resistance
along the sides of the footings. A friction coefficient of 0.50 times the normal dEad load forces is
recommended for use in design. Passive resistance may be estimated using an equivalent fluid
weight of 300 pcf. If used in combination with the passive resistance, the frictional resistance
should be reduced by one third to 0.33 times the normal dead load forces.
The bearing soil is non -expansive and falls within the "very low" expan=_ion category in
accordance with 2010 California Building Code (CBC) classification criteria. Slab thickness and
reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer, we recommend i minimum floor
slab thickness of 4.0 inches. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs to
ensure that reinforcement is placed at slab mid -height.
Slabs with moisture sensitive surfaces should be underlain with a moisture vapor retarder
consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane such as 10 -mil Visqueen, or equivalent. All laps
within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches of clean sand should be placed over
the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. To reduce the potential for punctures,
the membrane should be placed on a pad surface that has been graded smooth without any sharp
protrusions. If a smooth surface can not be achieved by grading, consideration should be given to
placing a 1 -inch thick leveling course of sand across the pad surface prior to -placement of the
membrane.
Based on our field observations and understanding of local geologic condition:;, the soil profile
type judged applicable to this site is So, generally described as stiff soil. The fcllowing presents
additional coefficients and factors relevant to seismic mitigation for new constru=tion based upon
the 2010 California Building Code (CBC).
Sadden Engineering
n
April 9, 2012 -3- Project No. 544-12053
12-04-087
The seismic design category for a structure may be determined in accordance with Section 1613
of the 2010 CBC or ASCE7. According to the 2010 CBC, Site Class D may be Lsed to estimate
design seismic loading for the proposed structures. The period of the structures should be less
than 1/2 second. This assumption should be verified by the project structural engineer. The 2010
CBC Seismic Design Parameters are summarized on the following page.
Occupancy Category (Table 1604.5): II
Site Class (Table 1613.5.2): D
Ss (Figure 1613.5.1): 1.50g
S1 (Figure 1613.5.1): 0.608
Fa (Table 1613.5.3(1)): 1.0
Fv (Table 1613.5.3(2)):1.5
Sms (Equation 16-36 {Fa X Ss)): 1.50g
Sm1 (Equation 16-37 (Fv X S1l): 0.90g
SDs (Equation 16-38 12/3 X Sms)): 1.00g
SDI (Equation 16-39 12/3 X Smi)): 0.60g
Seismic Design Category: D
If you have questions regarding this letter or the referenced reports, please contact the
undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
SLADDEN ENGINEEI
Brett L. Anderson��( \ r v No. C Z
Principal Engineer v Exp, -.30.2012
SER/gls'-C p1 C
Copies: 2/Mr. Barry Ehlet
2/ Jones & Jordon
Sladden Engineering