Loading...
Andalusia TR 31681-3 14-0354 (SFD) (75 Series; Plans 24-26) 2013 Code UpdateBin # City of La Quinta Building 8i Safety Division P.O. Box 1504, .78-495 Calle, Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 - (760) 777-7012 Building Permit Application and Tracking Sheet Permit # Project Address: G1 K) Owner's Name: v ,9.ter A. P. Number: Address: Legal Description: r ee c (o g City, ST, Zip: L-'r C4, Cr 2 S 3 Contractor: .� J d� O Tele h ne: �i t a 0 a � 1 P •'7 tp % Address: Pf} 20 Gj.pio ProjectDescription: City, ST, Zip: �� `T Zt �' 3 4(J $c ZL� Z S� Telephone:'%(P o 7-7 7/? 7�, ��Z9v State Lic. # : / City'Lie. #:: � 7 Arch., Engr., Designer: t4C QL /ter. o Address: City, ST, Zip:sJ � ,.,q C' 05� A• Te e h ne: 2 1 0 3 P 9' � 7 9 `f O _ Co tru f n Type: Occupancy: ns c to Y P Y P State L ic. #: ai r Demo oProJect nPa circle one): New Add'n Alter Repair Name of Contact Person: ,L Sq. Ft.: # Stories: # Units: Telephone #:of Contact Person: o -7 ? 7 171 Estimated Value of Project: e7zY_, o oo. APPLICANT: DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE # Submittal Req'd Rec'd TRACKING PERMIT FEES Plan Sets Plan Check submitted 361 Item Amount Structural Calcs. Reviewed, ready for corrections 2 Plan Check Deposit Truss Calcs. Called Contact Person Plan Check Balance Title 24 Calcs. Plans picked up Construction Flood plain plan Plans resubmitted Mechanical Grading plan 2°" Review, ready for correction issu Electrical Subcontactor List Called Contact Person Plumbing Grant Deed Plans picked up S.M.I. H.O.A. Approval Plans resubmitted Grading IN HOUSE:- 3" Review, ready for corrections/issue Developer Impact Fee Planning Approval Called Contact Person A.I.P.P. Pub. Wks. Appr Date of permit issue School Fees Total Permit Fees 0Earth Systems 104W Southwest 79-81113 Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 July 18, 2013 TD Desert Development, LP P.O. Box 1716 1 La Quinta; California 92247 Attention: Mr. Nolan Sparks File No.: BD-09305-24 Document No.: 13-07-716 _ `el Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Update �MMy� Project: Residential Home Development *'�Y ��FA Andalusia at Coral MountainT Southeast Corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 La Quinta, California References: 1. Earth Systems Southwest, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Coral Mountain, SEC Madison Street & Avenue 58, La Quinta, California, File No.: 09305-01, Document No.: 03-09-700, dated September 2, 2003. 2. Earth Systems Southwest, Recommended Pavement Sections for Interior Roadways, Andalusia at Coral Mountain, Southeast Corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, La Quinta, California, File No.:09305-02, Document No.: 05-05-702, dated May 2, 2005. 3. Earth Systems Southwest, Addendum to Geotechnical Engineering Report, Andalusia at Coral Mountain, Southeast Corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, La Quinta, California, File No.: 09305-01, Document No.: 05-06- 737, dated June 9, 2005. 4. Earth Systems Southwest, Report of Testing and Observations Performed during Rough Grading, Andalusia at Coral Mountain, Southeast Corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, La Quinta, California, File No.: 09305-02, Document No.: 06-08-719, dated August 4, 2006. _ 5. Earth Systems Southwest, 31681-04, Andalusia at G and Avenue 58, La Qui No.: 07-10-732, dated Octo 6. Earth Systems Southwest, ( at Coral Mountain, Cow Street and Avenue 58, La No.: 12-09-704, dated Sep ote�chnical—Engineering�RepoWUfidate, Tract ! �Mountaiii t �Southwest[Corner-D-M lison Street eCali orn�ia, File. e,No:-09305-01, Document f -- 11, 2007:`' F:p3 C()�%,STRL3 3TiON whnic 'l EngineeringAeport Update Andalusia �l Terrace,"IWY, Sd4thwest Corner Madison In accordance with your request and authorization, Earth Systems Southwest [Earth Systems] has reviewed the above referenced reports for the purpose of providing updated recommendations in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code. This update applies to the proposed new July 18, 2012 - 2 - File No.: 09305-24 Document No.: 13-07-716 residential structures, including any site walls, retaining walls, streets. Other proposed structures should be evaluated on a case -by -case basis for applicability to the cited reports. Our conclusions and recommendations are provided below. Additionally, please review the limitations section of this report as the information presented is integral to the understanding of this document. CONCLUSIONS Based upon our review of the referenced reports, it is our opinion that the recommendations provided in the project geotechnical (soils) reports, referenced above, remain applicable to the proposed project, except as superseded below. RECOMMENDATIONS Seismic Design Criteria This site may be subject to severe ground shaking due to potential fault movements along regional faults. The site is liquefiable. A site response analysis is typically required for liquefiable sites meeting the definition of site class F; however, we have classified this site as Site Class D as allowed in ASCE 7-05 Section 11.4.7. This section permits the determination of a site class in accordance with Section 20.3, with the corresponding values of Fa and Fv determined from Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4.2, such that a site -response analysis is not required to determine the spectral accelerations for liquefiable soils if the structure being designed has a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 seconds and the foundation soils are not subject to bearing failure from liquefaction. The site soils are not subject to liquefaction induced bearing failure. As such, the minimum seismic design should comply with the 2010 edition of the CBC using the site specific seismic coefficients given in the table below. Seismic parameters are based upon computation by the Ground Motion Parameter Calculator provided by the United States Geological Survey [USGS] at: http i/LTeohazards.usLys.6ov/designmaps,�€3s/zipltilit:ation.php (July 11, 2013 update). 2010 CBC (ASCE 7-05) Se� ism, ic arameter LA����� Site Location: rr� SAf3_3 1N '16 2417°W Site Class: B�11-p1N�'99�°� Maximum Considered Earthouak�e c 9Wnd Motion � FOIE CCoIV� � L� Short Period Spectral Response SS: 1.5 g 1 second Spectral Response, SI: gY�©.,6 g-- DATE Design Earthquake Ground- otion Short Period Spectral Response, SDs 1.0 g 1 second Spectral Response, SDI 0.6 g EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 18, 2012 - 3 - File No.: 09305-24 Document No.: 13-07-716 The intent of the CBC lateral force requirements are to provide a structural design that will resist collapse to provide reasonable life safety from a major earthquake, but may experience some structural and nonstructural damage. A fundamental tenet of seismic design is that inelastic yielding is allowed to adapt to the seismic demand on the structure. In other words, damage is allowed. The CBC lateral force requirements should be considered a minimum design. The owner and the designer may evaluate the level of risk and performance that is acceptable. Performance based criteria could be set in the design. The design engineer should exercise special care so that all components of the design are 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 major seismic sources. Grading, Observation and Testing, and Foundations Due to the time elapsed since previous grading was performed at the site and surficial disturbance, remedial grading is recommended. Existing vegetation and debris should be removed from the structural building pad, and drive areas. On existing rough graded pads, prior to any construction, fill placement, or subsequent to any cut, the exposed site soil should be pre - watered to near optimum moisture content through the use of sprinklers or other water application device to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade or finish grade, whichever is deeper. The surface should then be rolled for compaction with heavy equipment. The surface should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) at near optimum moisture content. On ungraded lots or areas, the overexcavation and compactions recommendations of reference No. 1 should be followed. Footings should be tested after excavation to confirm 90% relative compaction as outlined in the project geotechnical report (reference No. 1). Any erosional features (such as small gullies, etc.), should be cleaned of all loose material and be backfilled. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). All grading recommendations in the referenced reports still apply. Roadway and drive area preparation and compaction levels should be per the referenced geotechnical reports. Foundation design should be per the referenced geotechnical reports considering a potential differential angular distortion of 1:360 and the foundation requirements presented in Section 3.5 of reference No. 1 to resist liquefaction effects. Foundation grade soils should be observed for expansion potential (Expansion Index) related to any clayey soils. Proper geotechnical observation and testing during construction is imperative to allow the geotechnical engineer the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design process, to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during construction, and is required by the 2010 Califorr* — uildlmg Code. Observation of fill placement .by the Geotechnical Engine-�� Rec` d houl°dge, in conformance with Section 1' "' g Code:�Calfoinia� 1704.7 of the 2010 California ildin Building Code requires full time observation by the geotechni al Corisu"ltarit d"urrng�s e-grading (fi l placement). Therefore, we recommend that Earth Systems bey arned�dunngr�th�e construction of the proposed improvements to provide testing arndRobs&t, � @6' p6W6? a wit the design concepts and geotechnical recommendations., and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions or methods of constrruction differ from se —a h'le completing our previous study. DATE -- EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 18, 2012 - 4 - File No.: 09305-24 Document No.: 13-07-716 LIMITATIONS Except as modified in this report, it is our opinion that the referenced documents, including limitations, are applicable to the proposed development in regard to geotechnical and geologic constraints. This report and our scope of services are not intended to address any environmental issues or constraints related to the site or our observations. Earth Systems has striven to provide our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time. Observations reported are those existing at the time of our services and may not be the same or comparable at other times. Our observation and opinions presented are not insurance, nor do they guarantee construction of any type. This assessment does not include, and specifically excludes, observation of inaccessible areas. Only those conditions apparent upon reasonable visual observation are noted. If additional information becomes available, we must be consulted to review the effect of the information on our conclusions. No warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on our points of previous field exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, our findings and recommendations are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. Variations in soil or groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our recommendations. It is recommended that Earth Systems be retained during the construction of the proposed improvements to observe compliance with the design concepts and geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those assumed while completing this commission. If we are not accorded the privilege of performing this review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. The above services can be provided in accordance with our current Fee Schedule. The geotechnical engineering firm providing tests and observations shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Our evaluation of subsurface conditions at the site has considered subgrade soil and groundwater conditions present at the time of our study. The influence(s) of post -construction changes to these conditions such as introduction or removal of water into or from the subsurface will likely influence future performance of the proposed project. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions due to the limitation of data from field studies. The availability and broadening of knowledge and professional standards applicable to engineering services are continually evolving. As such, our services are intended to provide the Client th-a-s rofessional advice, opinions and recommendations based o e A=mi n av i aftd s�ppir'a e to the project location, time of our services, and scope. If h e pro Qsed�ccstr� do changes from that described in our reports, the conclusions ndlr e c�aton�,-ontained i this report are not considered valid unless the changes are modified or approved Findings of this report are Changes in conditions of and writir y, of the i EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST of our reports and are strictly for the client. time, whether they are from July 18, 2012 - 5 - File No.: 09305-24 Document No.: 13-07-716 natural processes or works of man, on this or adjoining properties. In addition, changes in applicable standards occur, whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or the owner's representative has the responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project so that they are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. The owner or the owner's representative also has the responsibility to take the necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors follow such recommendations. and for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. CLOSING We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional geotechnical services to you. If you should you have any questions concerning our report, please do not hesitate to give us a call and we will be pleased to assist Respectfully Su 'No. GE 2930 Exp< 9 j3012t1'14 Kevin L. Pad V Senior Engineer GE 2930, CE 70084 SER/klp/kom Distribution: 3/TD Desert Development, Nolan Sparks IBD File CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE BY EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST -Ilk Earth Systems A/ Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 May 1, 2014 R E C 1AVE r File No.: 09305-01 Document No.: 14-05-700 TD Desert Development, LP AUG 21 2014 P.O. Box 1716 CITY OF IA QUINT ,A La Quinta, California 92247 COMMUNITY DEVEL ON" ENT Attention: Mr. Nolan Sparks Subject: Site Geotechnical Update, and Foundation Plan Review for Plan 26 Project: Andalusia at Coral Mountain Southeast Corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 La Quinta, California In accordance with your request and authorization, Earth Systems Southwest [Earth Systems] has reviewed the referenced reports for the purpose of providing updated recommendations in accordance with the 2013 California Building Code. This update applies to the proposed new residential structures, including any site walls, retaining walls, streets. This report does not apply to improvements which fall within the area previously designated for "Casitas", encompassing approximately 30 acres centered to the east of the existing Racquet Club facilities (Swim/Tennis). Those improvements are covered by a separate update report (Reference No. 7). Other proposed structures should be evaluated on a case -by -case basis for applicability to the cited reports. Additionally, Earth Systems is providing a review of foundation plans submitted to us. From a geotechnical perspective, we have reviewed plans entitled Andalusia at Coral Mountain, 75' Lots Plan 26, plotted February 28, 2014, Sheets S4.1, SD-1, SN-1 through SN-3. Our conclusions and recommendations are provided below. . Conclusions Geotechnical Report Based upon our review of the referenced reports, it is our opinion that the recommendations provided in the project geotechnical (soils) reports remain applicable to the proposed project, except as superseded below. Foundation Plans for Plan 26 Comment No. 1: Sheet SN-1, Design Criteria, Note 1: This note should be updated to reference this current update report. Notwithstanding the above comment or supplemental recommendations below, from a geotechnical standpoint, it is our opinion that the plans reviewed have been prepared in substantial conformance with the intent of the recommendations in the referenced project soils reports. It is our opinion that the recommendations provided in the project soils reports May 1, 2014 2 File No.: 09305-01 Document No.: 14-05-700 are applicable to the proposed project. Please review the limitations presented below as they are vital to the understanding of this letter. It should be noted that Per Earth Systems report 09305-01, Doc. No. 05-06-737, dated June 9, 2005, for Tentative Tract Map (TTM) Lots 170 through 177, 206 through 213, 234 through 246, 252 through 257, and 288 through 295, a mat slab foundation should be used. Based upon information presented by Nolan Sparks, it is our understanding that these TTM lots are not proposed for the current Plan 26 development. If any of this information changes, the recommended mat foundation should be included in the plan set. A map from Earth Systems report is attached with this review letter indicating which lots are to receive a mat foundation. SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNCIAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Seismic Design Criteria This site may be subject to severe ground shaking due to potential fault movements along regional faults. The site is liquefiable. A site response analysis is typically required for liquefiable sites meeting the definition of site class F; however, we have classified this site as Site Class D as allowed in ASCE 7-10. This section permits the determination of a typical site class, with the corresponding values of Fa and Fv determined from the published tables, such that a site -response analysis is not required to determine the spectral accelerations for liquefiable soils if the structure being designed has a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 seconds and the foundation soils are not subject to bearing failure from liquefaction. The site soils are not subject to liquefaction induced bearing failure. As such, the minimum seismic design should comply with the 2013 edition of the CBC using the site specific seismic coefficients given in the table below. Seismic parameters are based upon computation by the Ground Motion Parameter Calculator provided by the United States Geological Survey [USGS] at: http://Reohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/ai)plication.php (July 11, 2013 update). 2013 CBC (ASCE 7-10) Seismic Parameters Site Location: 33.6221-N/116.2426°W Site Class: D Maximum Considered Earthquake [MCE] Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Response SS: 1.5 g 1 second Spectral Response, Sl: 0.61 g Design Earthquake Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Response, Sps 1.0 g 1 second Spectral Response, Sol 0.61 g EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST _ May 1,2014 3 File No.: 09305-01 Document No.: 14-05-700 The intent of the CBC lateral force requirements are to provide a structural design that will resist collapse to provide reasonable life safety from a major earthquake, but may experience some structural and nonstructural damage. A fundamental tenet of seismic design is that inelastic yielding is allowed to adapt to the seismic demand on the structure. In other words, damage is allowed. The CBC lateral force requirements should be considered a minimum design. The owner and the designer may evaluate the level of risk and performance that is acceptable. Performance based criteria could be set in the design. The design engineer should exercise special care so that all components of the design are 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 major seismic sources. Gradina, Observation and Testing, and Foundations Due to the time elapsed since previous grading was performed at the site and surficial disturbance, remedial grading is recommended. Existing vegetation and debris should be removed from the structural building pad, and drive areas. On existing rough graded pads, prior to any construction, fill placement, or subsequent to any cut, the exposed site soil should be pre -watered to near optimum moisture content through the use of sprinklers or other water application device to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade -or finish grade, whichever is deeper. The surface should then be rolled for compaction with heavy equipment. The surface should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) at near optimum moisture content. On ungraded lots or areas, the overexcavation and compactions recommendations of reference No.1 should be followed. Footings should be tested after excavation to confirm 90% relative compaction as outlined in the project geotechnical report (reference No.1). Any erosional features (such as small gullies, etc.), should be cleaned of all loose material and be backfilled. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). All grading recommendations in the referenced reports still apply. Roadway and drive area preparation and compaction levels should be per the referenced geotechnical reports. Foundation design should be per the referenced geotechnical reports considering a potential differential angular distortion of 1:360 and the foundation requirements presented in Section 3.5 of reference No. 1 to resist liquefaction effects. Foundation grade soils should be observed for expansion potential (Expansion Index) related to any clayey soils. The native soils were found to have a severe sulfate ion concentration (>1.5%). 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 California Building Code requires for very severe sulfate conditions that Type V Portland Cement plus pozzolan be used with a maximum water cement ratio of 0.45 using a minimum 4,500 psi concrete mix. The pozzolan used should have service record of improved sulfate resistance when used in concrete containing Type V cement. Proper geotechnical observation and testing during construction is imperative to allow the geotechnical engineer the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design process, to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 1, 2014 4 File No.: 09305-01 Document No.: 14-05-700 implemented during construction, and is required by the 2013 California Building Code. Observation of fill placement by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record should be in conformance with Section 17 of the 2013 California Building Code. California Building Code requires full time observation by the geotechnical consultant during site grading (fill placement). Therefore, we recommend that Earth Systems be retained during the construction of the proposed improvements to provide testing and observe compliance with the design concepts and geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those assumed while completing our previous study. References: 1. Earth Systems Southwest, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Coral Mountain, SEC Madison Street & Avenue 58, La Quints, California, File No.: 09305-01, Document No.: 03-09-700, dated September 2, 2003. 2. Earth Systems Southwest, Recommended Pavement Sections for Interior Roadways, Andalusia at Coral Mountain, Southeast Corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, La Quints, California, File No.: 09305-02, Document No.: 05- 05-702, dated May 2, 2005. 3. Earth Systems Southwest, Addendum to Geotechnical Engineering Report, Andalusia at Coral Mountain, Southeast Corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, La Quinta, California, File No.: 09305-01, Document No.: 05-06- 737, dated June 9, 2005. 4. Earth Systems Southwest, Report of Testing and Observations Performed during Rough Grading, Andalusia at Coral Mountain, Southeast Corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, La Quinta, California, File No.: 09305-02, Document No.: 06-08-719, dated August 4, 2006. 5. Earth Systems Southwest, Geotechnical Engineering Report Update, Tract 31681-04, Andalusia at Coral Mountain, Southwest Corner Madison Street and Avenue 58, La Quints, California, File No.: 09305-01, Document No.: 07- 10-732, dated October 11, 2007. 6. Earth Systems Southwest, Geotechnical Engineering Report Update, Andalusia at Coral Mountain, Covered Terrace Addition, Southwest Corner Madison Street and Avenue 58, La Quinta, California, File No.: 09305-01, Document No.: 12-09-704, dated September 6, 2012. 7. Earth Systems Southwest, Updated Geotechnical Engineering Report, Racquet Club Facilities & Residential Improvements, Andalusia at Coral Mountain County Club, La Quinta, Riverside County, California, File No.: 09305-17, Document No.: 12-11-704, dated October 31, 2012. 8. Earth Systems Southwest, 2013, Geotechnical Engineering Report Update, Residential Home Development, Andalusia at Coral Mountain, Southeast Corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, La Quints, California, File No.: 09305-24, Document No.: 13-07-716, dated September July 18, 2013. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 1, 2014 5 File No.: 09305-01 ._'I Document No.: 14-05-700 Limitations Please note that it is not within our scope of work to check the reviewed documents for conformance to codes or other client and government requirements. Earth Systems does not practice structural engineering or architectural design. As such, actual structural calculations were not reviewed. We make no representation as to the accuracy of dimensions, measurements, calculations, or any portion of the design. Conclusions contained in this letter are based on our previously documented field observations and subsurface explorations, laboratory tests, our present knowledge of the proposed construction, and the limitations presented in the referenced reports.. Variations in soil or groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our recommendations. If during construction, soil conditions are encountered which differ from those described, we should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by Earth Systems. Additionally, this letter should be included with the project geotechnical (soils) report and specification documents. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or the owner's representative has the responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project. The recommendations presented within are predicated upon the recommendations presented in the referenced project soils reports. Information and recommendations presented in this supplement should not be extrapolated to other areas or be used for other projects without our prior review and response. Proper geotechnical materials observation and testing during construction is imperative to allow the geotechnical engineer the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design process and to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during construction and is required by the California Building Code. Additionally, the California Building Codesrequires the testing agency to be employed by the project owner or representative (i.e. architect) to avoid a conflict of interest if employed by the contractor. Therefore, we recommend that Earth Systems be retained during the construction of the proposed improvements to observe compliance with the design concepts and geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those assumed for this commission. If we are not accorded the privilege of performing this review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. The above services can be provided in accordance with the Fee Schedule in effect at the time the services were performed. The geotechnical engineering firm providing tests and observations shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 1, 2014 6 File No.: 09305-01 x > Document No.: 14-05-700 Earth Systems has striven to provide our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time. No warranty or guarantee express or implied is made. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its conclusions. Respectfully submitted, oQ L EARTH SYSTEMS SOUT No. GE 2930 Exp 913012014 Kevin s C� OCl �G Vice President, Senior Eng 0F CP���� GE 2930, CE 70084 LTR/klp/m r Attachment: Mat Foundation Zone Map, excerpted from Earth Systems June 09, 2005 report La Quinta Geotechnical Report Checklist Distribution: 3/TD Desert Development, Nolan Sparks via email NSparks@rancholaquinta.com Jim Reisinger via email jreisinger@pekarekcrandell.com 1/BD File EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST LA' QUINTA 14-275 APR. 08, 2014 Please verify that soils reports contain all of the above information. In addition, to assure continuity between the investigation/reporting stage and the execution stage, please use the following checklist to verify that the conclusions and recommendations in the report cover all the required elements. Only then can we be assured that the construction documents address all of the site soil conditions. La Quinta Geotechnical Report Checklist Does the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of the report address each of the following criteria? "Address" means: (a) the criterion is considered significant and mitigation measure(s) noted, or; (b) the criterion is considered insignificant and explicitly so stated. Yes No Criterion L ❑ Foundation criteria based upon bearing capacity of natural or compacted soil. t ❑ Foundation criteria to mitigate the effects of expansive soils. ❑ Foundation criteria based upon bearing capacity. of natural or compacted soil. ❑ Foundation criteria to mitigate the effects of liquefaction. ❑ Foundation criteria to mitigate the effects of seismically induced differential settlement. ❑ Foundation criteria to mitigate the effects of long-term differential settlement. ❑ Foundation criteria to mitigate the effects of varying soil strength. ❑ Foundation criteria to mitigate expected total and differential settlement. Any "No" answers to the above checklist should be noted as specific required corrections. orF s, No. 70084 2 N ; GE 2930 xp. 9/30/2014 1'�