Loading...
Earthquake Hazard ReportsAl - 10.September, 1992 Ms. Andrea Merrill -Mock La Quinta Hotel Golf and Tennis Resort 49-499 Eisenhower Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Andrea Enclosed, please find drawings, calculations and photographs which, included with this summary letter shall constitute a survey and evaluation of the existing San Fernando bungalow; guest rooms 111, 112. As you know, I have visited the site alone and with representatives of the city of La Quinta and their plan -check consultant. The obvious areas of damage and deterioration are evidenced by the cracked plaster on the east wall (photographs 2,3,4,5) indicating movement in at least the top course of adobe blocks here, and at the split rafter (photograph 7). There is also plaster cracking evident at the north side of the screened -in patio (photo 6) which appears to be the result of rotational movement of the patio roof during the recent seismic activity. Photograph 1 also shows minimal cracking at the chimney -to -wall location and where the end of the front veranda roof framing meets the west wall. It is difficult here to determine if these cracks are a result of the recent earthquakes or were pre-existing. In the preliminary structural investigation, the vertical load bearing capability of the rafters is studied as this is the only readily apparent area of load -bearing failure. The investigation reveals that the rafters are sized adequately to support the accompanying dead load. It is my opinion that -the' failure of this piece is; in part; due to the - method chosen 'to brace- the, roof 'structure. There is a 1 X 6 vertical support nailed to the side of the failed rafter. It appears this brace was placed here to give vertical support to the ridge board in lieu of horizontal collar -ties. This support is typically added to prevent two occurrences; the ridge board from dropping under vertical roof loads and, simultaneously, the rafters from applying an outward thrust to their bearing wall supports. By placing this brace where they did, the original constructors created a situation whereby this rafter was carrying a disproportionate share of the roof s vertical load. To exacerbate the problem, the reaction force is transferred via nails in single shear somewhere in mid depth of the 2 X 6 rafter. The result is the imminent failure of the member through load duration or, as is perhaps the case here, with the additional stress of movement due to seismic activity. There are quite simple means by which the problem of this method of bracing can be adequately solved. The most appropriate solution will be determined by the consulting Structural Engineer during the construction documents portion of the Work. c As I've mentioned, the a wall, south of the screened -in patio :ows the result of outward movement in the top course of adobe. A portion of the plaster was removed during one of my visits to reveal at least one adobe block being completely loose to the touch. This damage presumably occurred with the failure of the aforementioned rafter and it's subsequent outward thrust as the horizontal displacement appears to be greatest at this location. The ridge tiles show the result of applied forces through their buckling and sagging at the location of the failed rafter and the re-entrant screened -in patio roof. The sagging appears to be due to rafter displacement. The buckling is likely the result of the patio rake framing racking additional compressive forces (through the patio's rotation) to the main roof structure.. There does not appear to be any interior framing damage in the main roof due to these perceived forces.', My recommendations for repair and rehabilitation of the San Fernando bungalow are as follows. First, I recommend combining my architectural services with the Structural Engineering firm of Kariotis and Associates of South Pasadena, CA, whose expertise in un-reinforced masonry is widely known. They can provide a thorough structural analysis of the building and guidelines for realistic continuous stress path connections. Construction drawings will be performed by Paul S. Anderson, A.I.A. All structural analyses, recommendations and drawings will be submitted for approval by the city of La Quinta -.Building Department. The drawings, calculations and details will provide for construction of repairs and strengthening including the following: 1. Replacement of the damaged rafter. 2. Vertical support of the overall roof structure. 3. A complete and continuous stress path adequate to resist seismic forces. 4. The tieing of the existing chimney to roof structure for lateral stability if deemed appropriate by the Structural Engineer. 5. Strengthening of the screened -in patio structure to minimize re-entrant racking of the two portions of the building. 6. Additional interior shear walls where deemed appropriate by the Structural Engineer. 7. Masonry chimney cap anchorage if deemed necessary by the Structural Engineer. A copy of this letter, drawings, preliminary structural investigation and photographs is being sent - toXariotis and 'Associates td obtain a proposal for services regarding this -project. Thank you for the continuing opportunity to serve you. Best Regards Paul S. Anderson, A.I.A. Architect cc: Kariotis & Associates 2 -O ks Structural Engineers • 711 Mission Street, Suite D, South Pasadena, California 91030 • (818) 799-8269, (213) 682-2871 Fax (213) 682-1429 &AS= October 23,.1992 Architect Paul Scott Anderson P.O. Box 277 La Quinta, Ca 92253 Re: San Fernando Bungalow La Quinta Hotel Dear Mr. Anderson, We have prepared computations, specifications and sketches for the bungalow roof repair. The sagging ridge is caused by a lack of horizontal restraint at the top of the adobe wall.- The ceiling joists do not restrain the outward thrust because they run perpendicular to the roof rafters. Small outward deflections of the adobe wall top would cause downward deflections of the ridge of four times the horizontal wall 'deflection. The covered sun room roof at the northwest corner changes slope +from the main roof and stabilizes the outward thrust. This is why the sag occurs in the narrower portion. Our proposed solution mobilizes an interior adobe'wall'to support the roof. There is no requirement to relevel the ridge. Lateral analysis of the adobe dwelling is not required in our opinion as only the adobe hotel and two adobe conference, buildings have occupancies within the scope of La Quinta ordinance for earthquake hazard reduction. Please incorporate our information onto your documents and return a completed set of prints with.our m kups for review. ; Very tr ly your , Mich el Krakowe Stru tural Engineer MK:hs �r��..a: ..,r.,r..H,.+ ,.....,, �, ...,,�........-«iy,�...-•�+'tiler,•+.„✓�r'.,.Y:irhrm-".,,+�..M•;•r�'rr�ytilh^�•fi„-r"�T��,��r.-r+^........r-�..��..�. �:� � •, � JCM Inspections 39125 Gararid Lane Suite G rL 1 Palm Desert, CA 92211 �p Phone:760-345-5554 • Fax:160-772-3895 Project ame: ta uI Project No: TVOb I$ Date: - Project Address: UBC -/ Title 24 Other: Client: IIISub-Contractor: Weather: u�rt P - ,G•. General Contractor: �On� Architect: `\ Structural Engineer: Ut\V2Q �' o�t.1a Sc Tt r�,t� SD Location of Samples: RIDOA Welding Process / Electrodes: GM+o,1AA lt' f e Slump (inches): Supplliie Time Sampled: I Design: cr Welders: Time in Mixer: Specified Strength: Water Added @ Jobsite: , Admixture: Concrete Temperature: Truck #: Ambient Air Temperature: Field I.D. Marking: Description of Work Inspected: � %o 'tn ' r1 �Cer 3o arSZ)l tc 56, d n 't - %CsE4 QJ Ce t9Mr7e 1 P r e Y .C. , C, 'te ' .F 6ellr,- Ad, 6n Wefle 1014Ct ^ Cre-ens. t s i, ! AID '' t Z�v S r 1? r Sh ! ' 0. A o Tel �nn re—q.n a rnD�dl Q ' n u wits . WntJ C h1L1; � O Q1 £, a W A � J 't / .�. . e 8 X � r l� d►�GY1 W t � Q �1 t cn 1 Y11•n _ tA) :.� Ce , e � � !�o c A 4 ' Et �fJ VGti U tprl 9NDr a Page of J— Ins ector: `'Sack C., M,\\'� c:bo-��� IContra tr`s Re res tative:p 4. C..,. ', -- 4.1vi0 ... 4_ Copy 1 JCM Inspections �\J i Copy 2 Project Superintendent Copy 3 Governing Agency ,.: W i" • + 'JCM I Inspections a " ,:z>• ° %,•"tt>�?ti .,��>:39725,Garacd Lane'Suite:G i' ;' • Palm Desert, CA 92211 ' z PHone:•760-345-5554, e Fax: 760-772-3895 Project ame: Project No: Date: ^ Project Address: ' 'try Cs'•^ UBC !!!:f�Title 24 Other: ' I , a Client: Sub -Contractor: 7Weather: 1, General Contractor:,..j4 a Architect: SzoAN Structural Engineer: c v et - 6AC ._ a AnAtc. A Location of Samples: �p (� Welding Process / Electrodes: "�^"'�• i Slump (inches):. Sufpplier. Time Sampled: Mix est n:' Welders: A. Time in Mixer: Specified Strength: Water Added @ Jobsite: Admixture: r` - Concrete Temperature: Truck #: Ambient Air Temperature: Field I.D. Marking: ' Description of Work Inspected: ell a._ : 'r r rl A ne '� n,s a• , Sy Vb { ' �� E:. GQ � E QS1 ,, o� WciUs �.�trO er' t DW�r'• Q• D� �.0 . �'rS'e t t • e \ ^� ilk. 2 � Y1 r Ek �- 14P � etlm IStit.. Fib • OtA n (' ei% sT 3� lllWr,� Y r0 WeC e.' e fly Ae., elf i 7` G . •be k-A, D'•. ' o Ir 119t O.C. e cortwostp i e c r �O'QA lh it n a) t)t cfe �• c., ��av�e"7I�r a �r o Se- ee n S . • Y '�' We ' `1 V I • � �I'n�C�IIC :'nQM". a.� .. V�f n &S w t�- o vqQ - `o �1e- ' n , ��l' ' Q�p.' etch b mF�1 t IJo t at e. ula, IE7t� tr F hn C, C ASS e� ' C\e ti ��f uS �J�!> S., 'F'fK'n Own c►i ' W c n a f. ,I r1ca, Cat�Q r o A .-LcU►o'�on'p,!�i+• d� r. ',' Page of �. Ins ector: JN" p , Via'. 1 • 4� �' � �. • •CAD otra o'sRe res t 'ative: CnL • Copy 1 JCM Inspections Copy�Project Superintendent Copy 3 Governing Agency f.^-+..x1.(+iL....,.,«r+.{'+xtnrM�ti,.fT:++:•..y,r..rfL..,4 �.7.:��--^a. �,..��., r ..y'aiy,'.i�Y�•�`T�c-r M'�r'�� �l'?d`�""ti-'v.."v`"�ir�'*'s'�'t1i��~S7�ic"l���tin.,./�•JA-.iYY.,,;ft1'1jsti,.."v�'"M'yliri,.i"r•/KM1>.rv.Yti.i.A.�.�w=b.;, ,..„_. JCMI� Inspections r : , k;39725;Gararid Lane Suite G . Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: 760-345-5554 Fax: 760-772-3895 101 Project Na e: T!o 11@ u; -fir- C t Project No: Date: Project Address: yg - G - i sennvw•cr t , t u 6 a, Cam. UBC Title 24 Other: lient: Y Sub -Contractor: Weather: a� e A- n s ~* General Contractor:.. \ AA �v Archittect: �o>� Structural Engineer: 'fir t 4ec - E Location of Samples: Welding Process / Electrodes: Slump (inches): pplier: Time Sampled% Mi esig Welders: Time in Mixer: Specified Strength: Water Added @ Jobsite: Admixture: �. Concrete Temperature:` Truck #: Ambient Air Temperature: Field I.D. Marking: Description of Work Inspected:. Ae ^y'r, � ,' t I, e O l + I0/ a�� . cs t6 e e t4o o�> " rit 4 Q InP + 6o c 3,0oJUI r e o r Q - �6 ,�, Itad O» ,,,p ;D . � A a ►.� r f � Q S .ran a, a X' s `n a �.,- 4J S C, , lllSr` i Q u -LWO 't C&v grroLen 4?0Ok Soil-,W� �� ► G 0 e Jnl1S a' li. 4oc '1/ n r en tiva Q s r �( o be p A �) F c.4- o IT 30l 412111 po 0 I+t,c.Lae_Q o' n c o u Y1, CA ►' So Al ^O�Q PQc� Pt 11 AA C- FOc- ^ �. t T we-XlfS t • SQ J1 A? S" r n airVV \A, JS.a w ,rS, wec e. i -- nn-e e_ 4pcteb 40 UL o p o in cA/ n finsp eA , 0.1 Q�acc ode ��Ps scrQAns �t • 1 0 ti o �ir� o 601es�fd.•. otir \J414 �C u3 h�dC e rl \ \,Oko 1 c.1 QA,A Aqliicki Page., t ,,of Inspector :`Gr 4 \��'h��o s Cont a t-r's R p sen ativ /'^ Copy 1 JCM Inspections Copy 2 Project Superintendent , Copy 3 Governing Agency Y"'Apf JCM, Inspections k. -.1,39725 t d Lane Suite, Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: 760-345-5554 - Fax: 760-772-3895 Project Name 6 a Project No: Date: `7 9% Project Address: UBC y Title 24 Other: Client: Sub -Contractor: Weather: General Contractor: C-dkA, c. " A— , _�R A rchit Ct' ew I e 130 A S I Engineer: 6M±2r: ' , A Location of Samples: Welding Process Electrodes: Slump (inches): Time Sampled: Time in Mixer: Water Added @ Jobsite: ✓Admixture: Concrete Temperature:' Ambient Air Temperature: Supplier: Mix Design: _466MZd Strength: Truck #: Field I.D. Marking: Welders: Description of Work Inspected: c" 60 0114 '1 0 0 (.3 S*1 4. 21Ae It P 11 0.42. 1)i� OV� 1& 2 6 -TVIIII�('4P' C_ 00 9-4. SCIA14 J V-10in, &Ir C MA 0,1 -e:r,- W�n.vr.a Uia Nzol� "•u\..l nq+ coo 0, &,r s-P.& A.0 V 'LL Sne�ra-P a On �"'o W .J a C 0, 14 ti f, 0i ff\ Pi 11 it Gde5_ t+0LI'Aaktis 1'fReLovj velag VOD,to At C�n 4(PA YCW 4 Page Of 4, Inspector M"00- "Xceo ContracA6rQ'5P_ep yese t�ve 1o. Copy 1 JCIVI Inspections Copy 2 Project Superintlenndent Copy 3 Governing Agency .. , r-y.,.4!,.1„n-...rw. ,.� ..r..^ru•...w..�.,,,,-...,n�,.�3ds...�,n..3s'�-w,.fi++.rrii;tc+�,re..►3'�S;.Tdt�'�'rT;r'� �7 ��_�,y'r"*_-T.,.�..y,.v...,.-.,.....,-..,,;r--'ww�7 .it..... � �7:�t;-�:.,,; � � - ;. JC1VI, Inspections 1' 39725 Garand Lane Suite G Palm Desert, CA 92211 -- Phone: 760-345-5554 • Fax: 760-772-3895 Projec0, 1 0� , _ , }, Pr �c •Date: . r u;06:-' QS cG' �:.i �a (0) lD Project Address: t4 9 - �A `19 S 5'V AAt)we <- l r , Lot o n*q Cam„ UBC t/ Title 24 Other: ClU �1 Sub -Contractor: 0� ij 1 �o Weather: =nN .fit to Q5.0� e C - Ash . e - •C- General Pontractor: Architect: �, u�.Q. Structural Engineer: \y -C — EdA, Cotes , ay. e _ w e Location of Samples: 1 Welding Process / Electrodes: Slump (inches):. Supplier: Time Sampled: t cf Design'. Welders: Time in Mixer: / Specified Strength: Water Added ® Jobsite: Admixture: Concrete Temperature: Truck #: Ambient Air Temperature: Field I.D. Marking: Description of Work Inspected: n(� , CJC ¢. � & 1w ce •+ � tf •c .1 A c.� \n . a�T r e -0. "1 eC e. As vt . 1 01'a� �s -• at t 3l \114 ini nun a P- a14�t13•C. f n o\p nz .COD rr�'IaCem5a ' osQ- ��Ae n wt c - 6-u stlerl 1d W a a. n w j Mc �ot'�s eC t e a a n oij V_. , C 1f OrQS i 0 n fL92_0 La n S e Q t' A ca.., u �C. Coats n a o. nns Page J=of Inspector Q �„ L�Q Cont; o 's Represe.n tive� C�Copy 1 JCM Inspections `H Copy2 Project Superintendent / Copy 3 Governing Agency 1, r ::7 ,. . _ . 21;,_ .. .. ,� M . L ,,. as 1 '1• v+.} __.. y, gay Lf 1 i. 'd `4 - ., tr f .�rf• '-a t .�. f «s �f b�,-. > c'yyv it.1 t ktc5. n. �' ^� l N r, Sr � r �r F u i� ,cyi �.�y� � � -id •�.�p} '� t�-"'^ - CLIENT ? • Y f Av f �i i � •t , y ` �* G. h � i ... y i, �Cf�2LM�'.1.Y !.h.F ..a h.f.� if`�C 1. _• 'i! r �• �p /of 4 �Y wM ¢ �! KRAKOWER &'ASSOCIATES 101 .f�. ,s►,T; STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS By /ike SUEU &: L.A QuiwTA A107 XL DATE 109!q:*r 9li 14AZ tb c,a Z3Jul N: ,it N�� a 2T 2 / AAT / N CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT. APPROVE® FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE 31dD BY . CLIENT i¢✓OfitS6AI KR KOWER'& ASSOCIATES sHT 2 of . STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS BY' "PIX SUaJEC P L G7 !i/ N%Q -A07-6 L -DATE ITEM .. Ao esle A/ elzl7ZA-14 Joe No. 92 -GOS _ �'Ti2�GT•f� y .D SSG--� Co 11"A-S VoA-JTO�l) leac i,514 S�Sf--------------- /k -fT� /ems 2 ¢-' ?o " 2x� c� G►'tG� 2.O /3 y CLIENT XRAKOWER & ASSOCIATES .'s-.. OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ay -P7 SUBJECT: DATE 14-f ITEM Joe No. gJ- eac's 40 Id-,O AF/ 1,0 04 /000p s Z 4- 9 S,0= >e #V oz 4 Z -4, 4- e- Z5, ;ux � m 'c r^ r a . e - 'F` � , r � t .- � � � n � '4 ..,� �; � `tt Y .,�;' S r t�f "vr e` � +s 3� `•� � � � --. � .• . a y .`i :�e �y , b � _': , p ,dj tr s y�`` i s (L �, �,:. �y�'' ,y~ t 'a1 .. �.3�`�?Pr'+ �" - /yYV � �/Q.�L � k i` .. �: ,.,:; ....:.� �"••'•� ` SHT.���OF CLIENT /�lI KRAKOWER & ASSOCIATES ' STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS _ �r /YltK '~ SUBJECT: LA Q V lA/T�L DATE ITEM I-.AR-J� 8 v i Lo 1.^j& s Joe No. 9 3 —60 5 s/A 425 (Z 1o4 SA ~ /5 00 k SRO 4LS C) 5 5 a 2:70 0 2.5 F-/Svv. f Sao- 3/75 ' 77,4 22 �'s� x �6 = f%+ tc-L -7- L 4q Z7 r DF" 4,VO s tc/ > i.•i y�c q,�� e l •ti E CLIENT �9 'Li�A.:r ,� ., KRAKOWER $� ASSOCIATES F saT. of STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Bv•: ._`Mx �1♦ SUBJECT:. oy-' rgr 4•' ' &ATE ITEM AV a4LL SJ"/��ENEiC. S - /N f 'Q ' " K/TG�EN Joe No. iov i .34N = ¢8id�x�'�S.S'= �5�4 �6 r Z • %/i ,v�j/ L, f, CLIENT 4v KRAKOWER &ASSOCIATES S►,T. of s STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS By 49 /.< / SUBJECT: L /nr le�ll V l I1 %'A Ao 7,tL / DATE J cJrJ n! 9� ITEM �,¢L.� 2 o� 0 �J/cam r�/`j JOB NO. D oyc r7)1-,c.X W41L s ,w t t �S4v G P u�G x 7,,r x f X /S, 7,a •° °' '�'"'� 1 P ec x 8 L P �w tAJ r ct /4 29 y ' F t 7,9 � a, 2 e , .10 '� / - /. 4 r reOXJCf �.• /G �o% q: 2 �K &AL:..2' 7.3 .. 'i' •• - - .. «. muc`a" � r„: ati-`rr '.r.-s}:rix etxmci6.Tu•� -c 3 "e#x- y'R+.R>r � "ti• ra.-^v:F•xc-�vYT -• - y*••MM '. .•...Suwo-.aand� st � -,a :..xssv +z-ti.+s.wJ+l' - - -� 06i25i1998 16:22 5629079910 SPECIALIZED TESTING PAGE 04Y_; SPECIALIZED TESTING - - REPORT OF ANCHOR QUALIFICATION TESTS LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB — LA QUINTA, CA TEST REPORT NO. AT8026 FIELD DATE 6/25/98 REFERENCE Field Anchor Qualification Test Program La Quinta Resort and Club La Quinta, CA _ . - PURPOSE The purpose of the test program was to determine the tension and shear capacity of 3/4" diameter High -Tech epoxy anchors installed in the adobe walls at the referenced address. The data from the test program will be used by the structural engineer in the earthquake hazard reduction design. PROCEDURE Three sacrificial shear anchors and three sacrificial tension anchors were installed (by Progressive Fastening Systems) and tested to ultimate capacity. Load and displacement were recorded. The test procedures are summarized below. - The tension test apparatus was set-up as follows- A reaction bridge was placed over the test ... anchor. A connector rod was passed through the reaction bridge and coupled to the anchor. A hollow core hydraulic cylinder was positioned over the connector rod so that it rested on the;: reaction bridge. The anchors were loaded in tension using a calibrated hydraulic system consisting of the hollow core cylinder, a rand pump, and a 0 to 6,000-psi pressure gauge. The anchors were loaded at a uniform rate to failure (or until distress was observed in the wall). The displacement of each anchor was monitored with two dial indicators reading in thousandths of an i Inch. The shear test apparatus was set-up as follows. A reaction fixture was anchored to the wall. An _A­,Y, anchor shear fixture was placed over the test anchor. A hollow core hydraulic cylinder was positioned between the reaction fixture and the anchor shear fixture such that the cylinder was in. direct bearing with the reaction fixture. A connector rod was passed through the hollow core . ", tl;.,t`' cylinder and threaded into the shear fixture. A split nut was positioned onto the connector rod to fix the system. The anchors were loaded in shear using a calibrated hydraulic system consisting of the hollow core cylinder, a hand pump, and a 0 to 1,000-psi or 0 to 6,000-psi pressure gauge. .:. The anchors were loaded at a uniform rate to failure (or until distress was observed in the wall).k- The displacement of each anchor was monitored with a dial indicator reading in thousandths of -,-' an inch. -" ' ? x..f + SPECIALIZED TESTING REPORT OF ANCHOR QUALIFICATION TESTS LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB — LA QUINTA, CA • TEST REPORT NO. AT8026 Page 2 TEST RESULTS A summary of the test results in presented in Table 1. The raw data and load vs. displacement graphs are attached. The location of the test anchors is noted on the raw data sheets. TABLE 1 — DATA SUMMARY TEST NUMBER LOAD ORIENTATION ANCHOR LOCATION PEAK LOAD LBS COMMENTS 1 Shear Bed Joint 3,960 See Data Sht. 2 Shear Head Joint 3,681 See Data Sht. 3. Shear Center of Unit 2,280 See Data Sht. Mean 3,307 4 Tension Head Joint 4,518 See Data Sht, 5 Tension Center of Unit 3,044 See Data Sht. 6 Tension Bed Joint 4,797 See h!. Mean 4,120 Fi ld Technicians T. Foster T-. Bostrom -s/'—x Ai2 33o 7 2 �jAW 211S Sinned for The Company Tim Foster, P.E. Specialized Testing 6.2 /G rN4L - -Co ✓,F/LT"' C/A IVT S� 2 4(w 13006 Philadelphia Street, Suite 303 Whittler, Callfomla 90601 (S64)907-9900 Fax (564)907-9910 i January 24, 2007 Greg Butler Building & Safety Manager City of La Quinta Morgan House ProtectiveFence-La-Ouinta Resort ,. La uanla CA 92253 Dear Greg, As per your request on January 17, 2007 we have read the report by Telesis Engineers (T.E.) regarding the recommendations for a protective fence/barrier around the Morgan House. The proposed recommendations are to provide a fence/barrier a safe distance away to keep debris contained in the possible event of a collapse of the adobe structure. T.E has proposed constructing an 8' tall fence/barrier that would be structurally adequate to keep falling debris within the perimeter of fence with setback distances ranging from 2' to 8' from the building. It was noted in the report that there is a concrete bond beam at the floor level and roof level of the adobe bearing walls. It is not clear of the size, reinforcing, or condition of the concrete bond beam. We agree that a reinforced, continuous concrete bond beam would aid in the restrain of the adobe walls from out of plane forces but without knowing the details and extent of the concrete bond beam it cannot be certain if the concrete bond beam would provide total restraint of the adobe walls at the height of the concrete bond beam. T.E notes that the concrete bond beam at the first floor level would reduce the height of the adobe wall to the second floor level thus reducing the setback distance. Further investigation of the existing concrete bond beam should be performed to justify the reduced setback limit of the fence. A structural design shall also be provide on the fence/barrier construction to justify the adequacy of shielding falling debris from the public areas. A factor of safety should be added to the computed setback distance. The city ordinance for URM buildings shall be reviewed and should be.maintained on this building. Justification of the adequacy of an 8' tall fence/barrier keeping the general public out of the "danger" zone shall be determined by others. It should be noted that the building code does not have any provision for the containment of debris from a building under collapse or forces generated by that building on structures meant to contain -that debris. The location of those structures and the structural design thereof are a matter of judgment by the designing design professional and' the City needs to defer to that judgment or establish suitable criteria for the basis of review. If we accept or modify the judgment or analysis of the designer in absence of a criteria approved by the City we are in effect designing *1K704(041N% FN_.�r !1TFRINCr._, I R_VI �� _.........W.W. ,value.ngg.rsom...................................___..........................._....................................._.....cat 5 Palm Desert; Ca. 92211 P.(760) 360�770 F:(760) 360-5719 the structure and bringing liability back to the City. For this reason we would ask the City to establish the criteria for the review of this situation prior to engaging us to perform a.review. If you have any questions please call. -- Sincerely, John Thompson, P.E. ` Greg Butler . From: KURT'[KCulver@esgil.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:17 AM To: Greg Butler Subject: RE: LQ Adobe Structure Review Greg, We've reviewed the report prepared by Telesis Engineers for this project: The overall design approach is rational, with one exception: The report assumes that the walls will fall away from the structure at an angle perpendicular to the wall plane. Due to the complex nature of seismic movement, this may not be the case. As a wall falls away from the structure, it may be at an angle less than 90-degrees to the wall. plane. Accordingly, the "zone" where injury may occur might be larger than indicated in the report. This is difficult to quantify, and itmay be necessary for the engineer to "guesstimate" . the possible. injury zone. Please contact me if you have any questions. Kurt Culver EsGil Corporation From: Greg Butler [mailto:gbutler@la-quinta.org] Sent: Monday,,January 29, 2007 8641 AM To: KURT Subject: LQ Adobe Structure Review Kurt,. ; There exists a 1920s URM (adobe) structure at La Quinta Resort and Club. It's mitigation has been somewhat ignored for awhile. Now, the resort is planning to build a sizable recreation area immediately adjacent to the structure, and we've used this opportunity.to make sure that they address this open issue, which revolves primarily around a fence to protect the public from a potential collapse. _._Tom Hartung has asked that I send the attached report to you. He has.informed the City'attorney that, "We will send it to ` our structural consultant for a peer review and if they validate the assumptions in the report we'll use those distances for the fence." Would you please review the attached document, render an; opinion, and bill us as needed? Thanks, Greg Butler: Building & Safety Manager ;City of La Quinta <<LQ Resort - Morgan House Fence Analysis.pdf>> 1/31/2007 Telesis Engineers .480 Arlington Avenue, Berkeley, California 94707 Charles C. Thiel Jr., Ph.D. Telephone (510) 528-8262, Facsimile (510) 528-8293 Gary S. Varum, S. E. Recommendations Protective Fence at the Morgan House La Quinta Resort, La Quinta, California 1 SCOPE -OF -WORK The Morgan House' is a two-story structure relying on adobe load -bearing walls to support the roof and second floor. It is evaluated as posing a significant likelihood of collapse in a significant earthquake. The building is between the nearby San Andreas and San.Jacinto faults, respectively to the east and west. These faults are evaluated by the US Geological survey as the highest likelihood faults for magnitude 8 earthquakes in Southern California:' The building is currently unoccupied. This letter report recommends a plan for the placement of fences to restrict entry to the structure and protecting casual visitors from the seismic hazard posed by the building. 2 DESCRIPTION The Morgan House is an adobe two-story adobe residential structure. It was designed and constructed in the 1926-7. Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 show elevations images of the building from the east, west and north sides. The building has a two-story core and one-story.extensions. On the south side there is a shed. roof framing a covered porch. There is a partial basement on the south side of the building constructed of reinforced concrete walls. Figure 1 shows a plan of the building. It has perimeter and interior adobe load -bearing walls with a wood framed' floor and roof system with clay tile roof. The structure has a partial basement of board -formed concrete walls and a crawl space with adobe walls. The adobe walls are reported to be 17 inches thick at the exterior of the first floor, as well as at the interior walls below the second floor gable end wall: The adobe walls are reported2 to be 12 inches thick at the remaining first floor and on the second . floor. The interior partitions are wood framed on the second floor, including a portion of the exterior north gable end wall, see Figure 4. The wall shave. a continuous reinforced concrete bond beam below the second floor joists and another bond beam below the roof rafters, including along the gable ends of the walls. USGS, 1995. "Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994 — 2024," Working,Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp..379-439 z Architectural Resources Group, 2006. Evaluation of Adobes at La Quinta Resort, La Quinta, California. Architectural Resources Group, San Francisco,,Califomia, June, 2006. Field measures recorded by CC Thiel of Telesis Engineers in June, 2006 indicate that the second floor. adobe walls are less than 12 inches thick, measured at 10" at a south facing window. 0 VIf W�V .Pao XSX + x a s C , 009 •.7hEi' T.CC� JRYw9. • ^ '•r - � too i WT, " xx.;zxx E .. ax xxxxxs xx. • m}n%s}annannn%p - ' • r -'d2NVION. , xxzxx^rax XYSfiSRCx97SXJsSXiSxYSiftCXRc xtx„x.axs8escszexti=oS�\. 14C,✓R •, L' Xd`FlY.aCSS73CY S SSR i41S5S.X 9Xdseid.Y }py/':vx.a'VY' • "d•" . ✓x<.xoc"x•�xxaxs-:f�7X^CSYA ✓?C3.C� Y\d,F xxx4N . t r-Qlfa+' pis �. XrLX a'cx'*issfY%=Ya.4YK•S>o%,eNCsXr xY.<ai€Y✓}R'i✓CiYYr\Y' Ca Xaxa HxR xxx%isaMUxxY;xx"s one taxxx*:axTiO3 x.Xx} Yx �htY , - i p�.t.,.YI �;xx^xx.x:�cf,rax�lxxXar tirsaq F 9., /1V71AV'G Ili UY/IIW1�4I �ILVI - .•.•M3..plg Y >iC'\icXQCY:C S " R:7C]"SCi r . ' t. n to fool s • rod Waal-lrambed twill . .. windowa� s�`Ctfid Ilovr, ' . � r r H - Figure +1.'Ptan of the Morgan house showing the locations of principal.structural elements. The bold face letters are the marks for different areas setback areas for the location of the fence as discussed in the•text ` and Table' 1' - ,.. 06 The roof sections are she with straight wood boards and clay tile. The ,+ roof over the two-story sec4ion of the building is a gable roof with low slope. The r ' roof over the one-story sections and the porches are slow slopped shed roofs with ` „ clay_tile sheathing: The one.story former garage section, recently used as offces, has a wood -framed wall enclosing the space'between the adobe exterior'walls. �. The principal seismic concern for the buildings is the:thinness of the'adobe . walls: Within the two-story'"aection of the'building'the fusf floor walls of the two story section,of the building have height to thickness ratios of about 5.5 .(17 inches divided by eight feet) for the primary, walls. The second floor ratio is of the order of 8 for the longitudinal walls and 12 for -the gabble' end walls - These r are well:beyond the ratios that are normally. considered to be.safe, Le., of the %' ! ,order of 4 or lower.' Exacerbating the problem for the second floors the section of { wall on the -north "side that is wood framed (with windows) -and for which there is no lateral restraint of the return sections bf wall' see Figure 3. , , Morgan House Fence Assessment ' Page 2 " At one location where the support of the second floor joists was exposed, the joist was pocketed into the adobe wall without any attachment either to the adobe or to the concrete bond beam on which it set. The walls support the second floor roof without any food beams in the transverse direction. The evaluation of the.expected seismic behavior of the building is that it will be severely damaged in strong earthquake ground motions. This report addresses how a fencing system should be placed to mitigate the possibility of the failed building posing a safety risk to'people in its vicinity. 3 FENCE Restricting access to the Morgan House is required to provide safety. The essential issue is how. to accomplish this. Placement•of a fence is an efficient way to limit where persons could be in the event that an adobe wall falls during an earthquake. Experience indicates that adobe building walls are likely to fail by falling outward not inward during earthquakes. This is because the interior wall and floor framing limits the displacements inward, but not outward. Often the walls crumble, but on occasion they fall outward rotating about the base of the wall. This latter is unusually, .but can happen and therefore is the basis for the evaluation of fence location. The presence `of concrete bond beams changes the .expected performance of the walls. The bond beams are connected at comers to the out -of -plane walls. They tend to cause the out -of -plane displacements of the wall to be restrained at. the ends, and forces a "breathing" action of the wall, with a focus on shear failure,. also limiting the ability of the wall to rotate about its.base. The principal impact of this observation is particularly important for the two story high,wall sections. The upper sections are thinner than the lower sections in the Morgan Building. The presence of the bond beam in this case provides added strength for the lower section of the wall and forces initial failure of the wall to the upper portion of the wall. The maximum distance that a wall can reasonably be expected to fall is limited by the height above the rotation point where it fails. Determining where this is likely to be depends upon the location and structural support of the wall. The distance away from the building that is safe depends 'on the height of the wall, and its structural integrity of the fence. Let: H height of the wall above the rotation point, Y The height of the protective wall X The distance of the fence from the adobe wall. If we suppose that the wall is structurally sufficiently strong that when the wall fragments hit the wall 'ii will -deform in a predictable way to protect persons at the exterior to the fence. The X can. be determined easily as: X=(H2-Y2)os If the fence.is not strong enough, then the distance.X should be equal to H. For the -following discussion we assume that the fence is 8 feet high, whether it is structural or non—structural. This should be tall enough to prevent casual entry to the Morgan House except by those willing to exert significant effort. Morgan House Fence Assessment Page 3 The issue is then to determine what the stand off distances should be for different parts of the building. These will be addressed in the following discussion keyed to the areas of Figure 1. We assume that the first value given is if theefence has no structural capacity, that is it is outside the fall line. The second number assumes that the fence has structural capacity and that it is 8 feet high. Table I reviews the conclusions ofthe fence setback distances based on the two different assumptions for the construction of the fence. The structural fence is assumed to be constructed of tube steel columns set in concrete foundations and tube steel horizontal elements that are sized to remain structurally continuous when struck by segments of adobe. When adobe fails, it seldom fails in large sections. Therefore, we expect that constructing the fence columns of 6" diameter'/4" wall thickness steel section pipes will be adequate, set into concrete footings about 4 feet deep. They should be about six feet apart; center -to -center.. and coupled,with a similar steel stringer at the top and half - height point that is welded to the columns. The inside face of the fence should be constructed of corrugated light gauge steel deck, say 2.5 inches deep. Such deck is typically used for composite steel concrete floor diaphragms. It is chosen to take advantage of impact resilience of the corrugations. The deck comes in 36" wide sheets in 6 to 12 foot lengths. These should be placed at the top of the wall,. and the lower 24" infilled with a portion of a deck sheet, or chain link fence. Any adobe pieces that penetrate the bottom 24 inches of the height pose no falling hazard to persons outside the fence. This is only -one of several styles of structural fence that could be.designed to achieve this purpose; the actual design. should be developed I consultation with an architect. The setback distances of Table 1 can be changed for other heights of the structural fence in order to move the fence closer to the building walls; except for the areas where the hazard is posed by the second story wall sections, areas marked B and L in Figure I . If it is necessary to move the fence line closer to the . building, then steel. trusses can be fabricated that are placed perpendicular to the walls that extend to the top of the wall, with the steel trusses supported by drilled concrete foundations. At the building face a series of horizontal 'steel beams can be placed just beyond the adobe face to act as restrainers for the wall's out -of - plane displacement.. This truss system is estimated to require 4 feet of space outside the wall, thereby reducing. the setback -distance to 4 feet. OA Charles C. Thiel Jr., Ph.D. Gary S. Varum, S.E.. TE 908.2 January 14, 2007 7-ff Morgan House Fence Assessment Page 4. . Table 1, Assessment of the distances the fence should be setback from the building at different sections denoted in Figure 1. The column denoted "non-structural" is for a fence that has no ability to withstand impact by the falling adobe; W high structural" denotes a fence that has the ability to withstand falling adobe without failing. Distance to fence Mark : Discussion Non- 8" high structural structural A This wall is wood framed and posses no falling hazard. 2' from roof Edge of B The -second floor porch framing limits the point of rotation to be at roof T from Edge of the second floor, while the continuous roof framing elements that edge of Porch form the roof of the porch limit the height of the wall section that porch can rotate to about 6 feet. The porch is about three feet wide. C This section of wall is one-stoy high.with a slopped roof having a 9' from wall' 2' from wall maximum height of about 9 feet. D This section of wall is one-story high with a maximum height of 8' from wall 2' from wall about 8 feet. . E This wallis wood framed,and posses no falling hazard. Edge of the Edge of the F This wall supports a slopped. shed roof with its maximum height at. roof ' roof 10' from 6' from the the back courtyard of about 'l0 feet. the wall edge of the G This section of wall is one-story high with a maximum height of wall 8' from wall 2' from wall about 8 feet. H The wood framed roof extends beyond the wall and limits the Edge of Edge of falling distance. Its depth is about eight feet. roof roof J Same as H Edge of Edge of. K This wall supports a slopped shed roof with its maximum height at roof. roof 10' from 6' from.the the back%courtyard of about 10 feet. the wall edge of the L The wall is about 16 feet high. It is a) 7" thick wall at the first floor wall • 8' from the 8' from the level and 12" at the second. Because of the, second floor level . wall wall framing, and the thinness of the upper•wall,,the first section of the wall to fall with be the upper section, whish is about 8 feet high to the roof eve. Therefore, it is unlikely that the whole wall will topple in one piece. Protection is only appropriate for the upper wall section, since after it falls, the lower wall will fall in the within the, same -area. M This wall is wood framed and posses no falling hazard. Edge,of Edge of N The location along the south side of the main building where there roof roof 2' from Edge of is a slopped roof porch, see Figure 1 and 2; that is as wade as the edge of roof first floor is tall: The piers supporting the porch are evaluated as roof posing a small hazard. Therefore the fence should be placed outside the only two feet outside the limit of the roof, since the tallest section of the wall, the chimney, is approximately this height above the top of the roof connected to the wall Morgan House Fence Assessment Page 5 Photograph 1. Exterior view o `the east side of the Moran House. See Figure 1 for orientation on image. Photograph 2. Exterior view of the west side of the Moran House with two garages to the left. See 57 t.re 1 for orentatioa on image. Mgrg=r. House Fence Assessment Gage 6 Photograph 3. Exted3r v'ew cf `he north side of the Moran House. Note that the second floor wail has a vindow wall over most of its length. See Figure 1 fcr o, ienta!ion cn ir-iege. Photograph 4. Exterior cf the ewidsed garage. The wall behind tf e shallow clay tile roof sect%on .s mood framed. See Figure 1 for onertation on image. " Morgan House Fence Assessment Page 7 AUG-08-2005 MON 09:36 AM LA QUINTA RESORT ENGIN. FAX NO. 7*60564 -7677 P. 01 P.O. BOX 1504 78 - 4 1) C,�j, L.,, Q ULN!T A, j: b R.,,, i..% IJ 2 2 3S, June 6, 200-� Bun.i)INC DI;PARTM.E.NT {?fill.) 7 0 12 FAX (71.-,(.)) 777-7 Oil Paul McCormick Vice Pre.Sident CN-L 49-499 Elsehho-wer (A. QUill[a, CA 922.53 Subject. 49-401 Avenida Obregon, LaLwbreni and- La Sala ROOMS Dear Mr. McCormick: In. .1.990, the above struc Tures were determined to be subject to Chapter 8, 1., 2) of the La Quitita Charter Municipal Code titled "Earthquake Hazard 'Reduction in ExistinS�, Buildings," A notice to 'that effec t -waS recorded on the properties, As such it was required to structurally analyze,the btilldinds to determine if the, st ructures met the minimunn requiremEnts of Chapter 812 If the analysis deterinined that 'St1'UC-tL1fa.l -de.6clencies emled. The own.er Nvould.have the option to seismically retrofit or demolish ibe build.in�.,s. To date, that analysis has not been submitted to the City for I review. Chapter 8..'12 which provides the specific criteria for the analysis'can b found on the Clt)`websi-Te at wk1XVja-quinta-,,)r_g Furiberniore. recent State legislation. req uires that unrein.forced maso4, buildings be signed to inform occupants of the Potential danger associated with the sttuctu - P re, *1 have enclosed a portion. of Go'vernlnent Code S87-5,8 that detaijs the exact req.uj�-errients f�or 0 e signs. The a-Forernentioned signs are required to be installed within 15 da PT of rhis letter. flea ,Se contact me at. 777-7013 'go that we can discuss the above issues id determine a realistic schedule: for compliance, .Di1't:Ct0l_ Of'Building and Safety AUG-08-2005 MON 09:36 AM LA QUINTA RESORT*ENGIN FAX NO, 760 564 7677 From: Brie. Goftlieb To: Rick Middleton Gate; 6/25/2005 Time: 4:31:22 PM i B.G. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRIAN GOTTLIE19 - CIV 1L ENGINFER - Lie. No. C33047 45-535 Via Corona Indian Wells, -CA 92210 (760)568-3553 (760)568-5681 Fax June 25, 2005 Mr.. Paul McCormick. Vice President, CNL 49-499 Eisenhower La Quinta, California 92253 RE: 49-401 Avenida Obregon, La Laibreni and La Sala Rooms On Tuesday June 21, 2005 Mr. Brian Gottlieb of B.G. Structural Engineering, Rick Middleton Director of Engineering — La Quinta Resort & Club, on site to referenced structure to response to the City of U Quinta letter' dated June 6, A Quinta letter requests a seismic review to determine the structures compliance Chapter 8.12 titled "Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings The existing structural is two-story with an open beam wood framed roof and f adobe walls over a partial basement: There are no seismic ties from the roof or the adobe walls and the adobe walls have no seismic connection to the bast basement walls are poured in place concrete, but may or may not be reinforced. The current structure is in non-compliance with this portion of the. city code. T issues with the vertical load systems of the structure. Several areas of the roof ; as wood trusses and the connections appear to be under designed. Also at th doesn't appear to be any connections from the beams to the posts.. The current structure can be re -engineered to comply with the city code. The will be substantial and best determined by a general contractor specializing in of un-reinforced masonry structures. met with Mr. ,uss the above The City of La i the city code System, with r structure: to I walls. The -re may also be ucture are built balconies there of construction mic retrofitting P. 02 Pape 2 of 3 RUG-08-2005 MON 09:31 AM LA QUINTA RESORT ENGIN FAX NO. 760 564 7677 i P, 03 flrom; 41ia� d:.ttfi�b Tom: R;ok M"Wtw, Date: W25J2095 MrAr: 4:31:22 PM I P290 3 of 3 La. QuintaResort & Club, La'Quinta, CA. 2 of 2� June 25,-20,OS. i i Our recommendations in this report are based on field observation, meetings, an our understanding_ of the proposed project. No tests have been'conducted on any ma*rWs or soils, no structural ealcuations have been prepared and no warranties are expressed or imp ied. The - opinion above is based upon widely held engineering principles and judgment, Vd it follows a standard of care which defines a level of skill and competence ordinarily and con temporanequsly demonstrated by professionals of the same discipline practicing in the same local and faced with the same or similar facts and circumstances, If you have any questions please call me to discuss them. at (760) $68-3553. � Respectfully Submitted, GO op�oFEssroyw Brian Gottlieb, P.E, w m m m a No. C33047' cc. file * Ems.63008 S� CIVI\- qrF AF CA1-'e . 0 .November 16, 1992 TO: Tom.Hartung, City of La. Quint - .FROM: Judy Vossler Woodard � As we discussed by ,telephone today, tine following is in . respcn`ie to your letter of September 16, 1992, regarding the City earthquake code. - Budgets are being prepared to include engineering studies to be completed in 1993 on specific buildings at the La Quinta Hotel and La Quints Hotel Tennis Resort. The time line will be determined by the availability of the engineering firm and .RTC/CRI.approval. A schedule to retrofit will be set when we are in receipt of an engineering opinion and a construction bid. Please pass along our gratitude for extensions -and patience while we are in this precarious position. I will keep you advised. JVW/gk _ Nov.1992 BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT. 49-499 Eisenhower Drive P.O. Box 69 'La Quinta, California 92253, (619) 564-4111 Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. 78-140 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Quinta, Telephone (619) 564-8130 Facsimile (619) 564-8184 �c��uv� D. FEB I I 4692 February 13, 1992 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: Honorable John Pena Mayor of the City of ,La Quinta 79-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Re: Earthquake Hazardous Building Reconstruction Dear Mayor Pena: Pursuant to your discussion with Judy Vossler Woodard, this letter shall serve as the written request of the La Quinta Hotel Golf & Tennis Resort to the City of La Quinta for'an extension of time for compliance with the commencement of structural design pursuant to Title 8 of Municipal Code Chapter 8.12 "Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings." I respectfully request written confirmation of an extension of time for compliance to be forwarded to this office at your earliest convenience. I thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Very ]truly yours, /5?Z, MICHAEL E. BRADLEY7 ,::Ounsel MEB/sb Michael E. Bradley, Counsel F"Ps 1 -1-y r)�T 4 . ' !_A Q 1 N - - LANDMARK STANFORD OAKS TEL: 916-624-7842 Jan 16,92 11:26 No.003 P.01 LANDMARK LEGAL TO: Judy Vossler Woodard FROM: Peter Sherman DATE: January 16, 19 2 RE: Eart uake Hazardous Buildi Reconstruct n As a follow-up to my December 20, 1991 memorandum to you, I spoke with Fred Turner of the California State Seismic Safety Commission yesterday, January 15, 1992. I believe that the City of La.Quinta adopted the Commission's model ordinance. Mr. Turner stated that the local governments are required to establish a mitigation program that (i) gives notice to the owners of buildings requiring reconstruction, and (ii) mitigates the problem. It is up to the local jurisdiction to determine the specific mitigation measures they will require. It is not mandatory that the local jurisdiction adopt the commission's model ordinance. This is consistent with my reading of'Government Code Section 8875.2, as set forth in my previous memorandum to you. Accordingly, the City of La Quinta has the right to modify its ordinance to alleviate the mitigation measures and/or prolong the time frames required for conformance with the ordinance. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to give me a call. . PS: dh September 4, 1991 Mr. Tom Hartung, Senior Building Official CITY OF LA QUINTA 78 105 Calle Estado La Quirita, California 92253 RE: File #201.16 3 • La Ouinta Hotel Dear Mr. Hartung: Pursuant . to our meeting Tuesday, September. 4, 1991, in your office regarding the seismic rehabilitation requirements for the La Quinta Hotel, this letter will confirm that we have been granted an extension to October 1, 1991 for the commencement of structural design. If you have any questions or comments concerning this information,, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Regards, LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. Pete Hendren Vice President, Construction ss cc: Joe Woodard Judy Vossler Woodard Sep 0 �P4% _ e 004,M N 40U 7997 �Fpr LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Land Planning, Engineering, Design & Construction 78-150 Calle Tampico, P.O. Box 1000, La 9uinta, California 92253 '(619) 564-4500 FAX (619) 564-8052 M LAN ARK LAND CO. MEMORANDUM DESIGN & PLANNING P.O. Box .1000 La Quinta, CA 92253 (619) 564-4500 FAX 564-8052 DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1990. TO: JOE WOODARD FROM: GARY KERNEY RE: LA QUINTA HOTEL SEISMIC The Hotel was noticed on May 14, 1990,' as to the earthquake ordinance. The ordinance requires the following: 1. Engineered plans on the , reinforcement are due by. January 14, 1991. 2. A building permit -is required by May 14, 1991. 3. You have to start construction by November 14, 1991. 3 4. Construction must be complete by .Noxe ' ", 199+. M� ASL Engineers were the lowest of the two bids for plans at $51,900. ASL's estimate of construction was $500,000. GK/kr CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-105 Calle Estado NOTICE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: EARTHQUAKE HAZARD La Quinta, CA 92253 This document certifies that the structure(s) described in the attached exhibit is within the scope of Chapter 8.12 of the La Quinta Municipal Code titled "Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings". The owner, Hotel .Association of,Palm Springs, thereof has been ordered to structurally analyze the buildings) to structurally alter or demolish the building(s) where it is found not to comply with Chapter 8.12. If - at such time the building(s) is found not to be within the scope of Chapter 8..12, or as a.result of structural alterations or analysis is found to be structurally capable of resisting minimum seismic forces required by Chapter 8.12, 'or is. demolished, a subsequent document will be recorded which certifies that the status of the subject building(s)' is no longer within the scope of Chapter 8.12 - Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings. - Tom Hartung _. Building Official City of La Quinta cc a. cc rn 1: NI �„ y Cq cd J� O. �N d. cc CS/DOCTH.001 T4ttt 4 78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246 May 14, 1990 Hotel'Association of Palm Springs 11200 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-3003 SUBJECT: 49�499.EI'SENHOWER THE LA QUINTA HOTEL Dear Property Owner: Widespread concerns over earthquake safety caused the State Legislature to pass SB547 in 1986. This law requires every city in our Seismic Zone to create a list of "potentially hazardous buildings" that identifies certain buildings which contain walls constructed of brick or other masonry materials built before earthquake resistant codes were enforced, and which do not have steel bars embedded in the walls. Such buildings, commonly called "unreinforced masonry buildings", may not withstand earthquakes well, and they have caused many injuries and deaths in large earthquakes. The State has encouraged cities to enact local ordinances or other mitigation programs to reduce the hazard posed by these buildings. The City of La Quinta has adopted such an ordinance, a copy of which is enclosed. The. structures which are affected by the ordinance are the original Hotel main building as well as the attached meeting rooms, the La Laibreni Room & the La.Sala Room: The original guest cottages themselves are exempt from the ordinance. All three of the buildings have been classified as "High Risk Occupancies" as defined in the ordinance. (Chapter 8.12 attached). The buildings must be shown through structural analysis to comply with I the minimum* seismic standards of Chapter 8.12. CS/FORVIAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LAldUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Exhibit D (continued) CitylCounty:4 A '✓T� Building Survey Form #1 Date of Field Survey: Inspector's Name: Building Name1r6:4 cTiviry Address Locality/District Qc• Legal Description: IPA �, Lot Block Tract Use of Building, Bldg Name, % of Bldg Area if Mixed U: ❑ Retail ❑ Office (#. of Businesses) % ❑ Residential (# of Units) % ❑ School ❑ Pre-school ❑K - 12 % ❑College ❑ Hotel % ❑ Restaurant % ❑ Theater _ —_ _ % ❑ Industrial - % ❑ Warehouse -- --- - - % ❑ Garage - -- -- -- - - % Map Page Parcel 4dl "3 �D - 0,1�6 Owner 1(lot`Ec �gssoc�,a7�y,�J 0,.v: t'•Q�pn SP2iN�S Owner's Address oop �• �. Assessed Value: Improvements $ Land $ Total $ Number of Stories cZ Building Size 8 ft x ft. i Floor Area 5191�2& sa. ft. Date of Construction (Sketch Building Footprint Here) ................................ ................................ ...... ............. .... ...... 41?. .... ..YR2 .............. ................................ ................................ oe: ❑ Public Utility ❑ Hospital— % ❑ Police Department % ❑ Fire Department __ __ % ❑ Jail - - - - % ❑ Church -- - --- - - - % ❑ Other - _ - - -- - % Is Building Essential for Emergency Response? ❑ Yes [=; No Occupancy Group -- Estimated No. of Occupants (Max. in 24 hrs.) Plans Available? [-IYes-i No Any Retrofit Done? F !Yes❑ No Permit Date Qualified Historic Building? � !Yes[ ' No If Yes, what List or Register? Chapter 9 Reference Material Exhibit D (continued) r Building Survey Form #1 (continued) Type of Building Possible Hazards ' Bearing Wall ❑ Interior Walls? ❑ Yes ❑ No Steel Frame ❑ Gables? ❑ Yes ❑ No uConcrete Frame D Signs? ❑ Yes ❑ No Other ❑ (Type: ) Roof Tile? ❑ Yes ❑ No Building.Shape Coping? -❑ Yes ❑ No Facing? ❑ Yes ❑. No Square/Rectangle ❑ Towers? ❑ Yes ❑ No L - Shape ❑ Marquees? ❑ Yes D No U - Shape ❑ Ornamentation? ❑ Yes ❑ No T - Shape ❑ Chimneys? ❑ Yes ❑ No Irregular ❑ Other Exterior x f Abutting Buildings? El Yes ❑ No Parapets Veneer? D Yes ❑ No Are there Parapets? ❑ Yes ❑ No Architectural Significance? ❑ Yes ❑ No Unsupported Height ft. Maximum Unsupported Wall Height Braced or Reinforced? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown Bond Beams? Architectural Importance? ❑ Yes ❑ No None ❑ .' ,� , Floor ❑ ' Cornices Roof ❑ Ae there Cornices? - ❑ Yes ❑ No Projection from Wall Other Notes or Comments Supported or Reinforced? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown Architectural Importance? ❑ Yes ❑ No, pGC Exhibit D (continued) City/County: a (:Oat tirTA /d Building Survey Form #1 Date of Field Survey: Inspector's Name:_77 A ( Building Name4a HOTFt- Address of Y9 4F 45 6J/-/& vf2 Locality/District Legal Description: Lot Block Tract Map Page Parc&!-3�" 2 0 'cv'71 OwnerOZ(eO Owner's Address //00 /zo«vi-ccPtce OCWL,1LCC o)lniff_S%Z -.3ova Assessed Value: Improvements $ Land $ Total $-- Number of Stories Building Size ft x — ft. Floor Area I a 000 sq. ft. Date of Construction ► 9-2O 'S Use of Building, Bldg Name, % of Bldg Area if Mixed Use: _» ❑ Retail % ❑ Public Utility % ❑ Office (#. of Businesses) %, ❑ Hospital ___—__ % ❑ Police Department — __ —_ % ❑ Residential (# of Units) %; ❑ Fire Department _ % ❑ School % ❑ Jail _ - _. % ❑Pre-school — %; ❑ Church--.---- % ❑ K - 12 ❑ Other — - --- - % ❑College % Is Building Essential for Emergency Response?❑YesX No R Hotel �""m"� % Occupancy Group A, 3 �I Restaurant % Estimated No. of Occupants (Max. in 24 hrs.) ❑ Theater % Plans Available? ❑ Yes X No ❑ Industrial % Any Retrofit Done? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Warehouse % Permit Date ❑ Garage __-___—__ °Po Qualified Historic Building? bQYes ❑ No If Yes, what List or Register? Chapter 9 Reference Material Exhibit D (continued) Building Survey Form #1 (continued) Type of Building Possible Hazards Bearing Wall Interior Walls? ❑ Yes [V No Steel Frame ❑ Gables? 09 Yes ❑ No j Concrete Frame ❑ Signs? ❑ Yes ®' No Other ❑ T e: ( yp Aoo F B ) Roof Tile. �, Yes ❑ No Building Shape Coping? ❑Yes ®No Facing? ❑ Yes ® No Square/Rectangle ❑ Towers? Yes ❑ No L - Shape ❑ Marquees? ❑ Yes '10 No U -, Shape ❑ Ornamentation? ❑ Yes ©' No T - Shape ❑ Chimneys? WYes ❑ No Irregular Other Exterior Abutting Buildings? ❑ Yes ❑ No Parapets _ Veneer? ❑ Yes E No Are there, Parapets? "S 'Yes D No Architectural Significance? ❑ Yes ❑•No Unsupported Height. q / ft. Maximum Unsupported Wall Height Braced or Reinforced? ❑ Yes ❑ No Unknown, • Bond Beams? Architectural Importance? [Yes ❑ No None ❑ Floor ❑ Cornices Roof ❑ Are there Cornices? ❑ Yes No Projection from Wall Other Notes or Comments Supported or Reinforced? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown Architectural Importance? ❑ Yes ❑ No , 4.! ozo- 007 S. //2 of SE. //4 of 020 - 008 2Oo' % "- 7-7 .V -09' S6'n7�(y ..,a J/2.20 �. 7� ..� S 72 - ?If - 20.32 Ac. _- O mid 20 Q o Cc Q o a • C' • C Z3o C /4 a 7G/.gi 496 G9 ao 20 a a ® n, 47t AC. 0 7/ r5s. Ii i i 1/4 C0.4. r.6S 71 DOI7.' G. c f'7143; 6-C- iO4 ; 5'S APR. • 1967 4(4j 78-105'CALLE ESTADO -' LA QU.INTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 (619) 564-2246 September 28, 1988 Hotel Association of Palm Springs P. O. Box 1000 La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: 49-499 Eisenhower Dear Property Owner: Widespread concerns over earthquake "safety caused the State Legislature to pass SB547 in 1986. This law requires every city in our Seismic Zone to create a list of "potentially hazardous buildings" that identifies certain buildings which contain walls constructed of brick or other masonry materials built before earthquake. resistant codes were enforced, and which do not have steel bars embedded in the walls*. Such buildings, commonly called "unreinforced masonry building", may not withstand earthquakes well, and they have caused many injuries and deaths in large earthquakes. The State has., encouraged' cities to enact local ordinances or other mitigation programs to.reduce the hazard posed by these buildings. The City of La Quinta. is in the process of developing an ordinance that may require.strengthening of your building. It is expected that this ordinance will be in effect by January 1, 1990. Before this goesintoeffect however, public hearings will be held before the City Council. The City of La Quinta has completed the identification task, and has compiled a list of approximately 7 unreinforced masonry buildings. The building referenced above is on this list. Before this list of "potentially hazardous buildings". is finalized, the City wants to be sure the list is accurate. If you believe that. your building is not an unreinforced masonry MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX _15& LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 BJ/FORM:140 MY PROPERTY AT: 49.-499 Eisenhower (La Lailbreni Room & La Sala Room) / / is not an unreinforced masonry building (Supporting information is attached). has been structurally analyzed. Analysis shows compliance with minimum lateral force resistance requirements. (Supporting information is attached:) is an unreinforced masonry building and has been strengthened. -against earthquakes. (Supporting information is attached.) Approximate date of strengthening: Comments: Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone No. ( ) Date Mailed Please fold and mail to: Mr. Tom Hartung Building Official City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 BJ/FORM.142 October .17, 1988 Tom Hartung Building Official City of La Quinta - 78-105 Cal.le Estado - La Quinta,-CA 92253 _ Re: La Quinta Hotel Expans-ion _ La Casa' Dear -Tom: Per our phone conversation Friday October_14th, this is to acknowledge receipt'of your letter dated September 28, 1988 regarding the State concerns for earthquake safety. It is our understanding that you will issue a building permit on the La Casa project so that we may proceed.__ I want to thank you very much for_ -your cooperation and expedience in this -matter. S'rdro urs. 1 rtinez A cccrney Judy Vossler-Woodard dard Greg Abadie Ernie Vossler LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC'., 100 Clock Tower Place, Suite 200, Carmel, California 93923 (408) 625-406Q N u Masonry pier One story Two story Adobe wall to second floor Adobe wall to Wood -framed wall Window wall second floor # Photograph #direction 1k, H c Q Additional set back for open fence G F