PGA West Signature - The Estates TR 36537 (Plans 1-4) Geotechnical Pad Cert.GEO C O
W E S T, I N C.
GEOTECHNICAL a ENVIRONMENTAL a
Project No. T2572-22-03
June 18, 2014
California West Communities
5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 110
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Mike Lake
M A I E R I A L S (10)
Subject: PAD CERTIFICATION
LOTS 2, 3, 58, 59, MULTI -FAMILY BLDG. 28 AND RECREATION BUILDING
THE SIGNATURE AT PGA WEST
TRACT 36537
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Lake:
This pad certification letter has been prepared pursuant to the request of California West Communities.
Earthwork operations for the subject building pads began on May 14, 2014. Earthwork operations were
conducted by Lippert Construction Inc. and consisted of the removal of unsuitable soil and replacement
with compacted fill. The removals were conducted to the alluvial materials, a depth of 5 feet below the
existing grades, or a depth of 5 feet below the proposed grades, whichever is deeper. The removals
extended across the site. Remedial soil removal bottoms in the subject areas were observed by an
engineering geologist. Approved removal bottoms were scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted
to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D
1557). Fill was then moisture conditioned, placed in six to eight inch lifts and compacted to at least 90
percent of the laboratory maximum dry density, until design grades were achieved.
Field density test results are shown in Table I and laboratory maximum densities for applicable soil types
are shown in Table II. Field density test locations will be presented in our final report of testing and
observation services upon completion of grading.
The foundation recommendations presented herein are for the proposed residential and clubhouse
structures. We separated the foundation recommendations into two categories based on either the
maximum and differential fill thickness or Expansion Index. The foundation category criteria for the as -
graded conditions are presented in Table 1.
40-004 Cook Street #4 IN Palm Desert, California 92211 sg Telephone 760.579.9926 0 battiato@geoconinc.com
TABLE 1
FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA
Foundation
Maximum Fill
Differential Fill
Category
Thickness, T (Feet)
Thickness, D (Feet)
Expansion Index (EI)
II
T<50
D<20
EI<90
III
T>50
D>20
90<EI<130
We understand that post -tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems will be used for the support of
the proposed residential and clubhouse structures. The post -tensioned systems are being designed by
Gouvis Engineering. Our recommendations are provided in accordance with the design criteria of the
Post -Tensioning Institute (PTI) as required by the 2013 California Building Code (CBC Section 1808.6).
Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions, we understand it can also be used
to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post -tensioned
design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented on Table 2 for the particular Foundation
Category designated. The parameters presented in Table 2 are based on the guidelines presented in the
PTI design manual. The foundations for the post -tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with
the recommendations of the structural engineer.
TABLE 2
POST -TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post -Tensioning Institute (PTI)
Third Edition Design Parameters
Foundation Category
II
III
Thornthwaite Index
-20
-20
Equilibrium Suction
3.9
3.9
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet)
5.1
4.9
Edge Lift, yM (inches)
1.10
1.58
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet)
9.0
9.0
Center Lift, yM (inches)
0.47
0.66
Representative samples of the finish grade soil have been taken for laboratory testing of the expansion
index. Laboratory test results are provided in Table 3.
Project No. T2572-22-01 -2- June 17, 2013
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D4829
Sample No.
Moisture Content
Dry Density
(p c �
Expansion
Index
Before Test (%)
After Test (%)
Lot 2
9.6
16.7
111.9
3
Lot 3
10.3
20.2
109.2
33
Lot 58
9.6
20.7
109.4
24
Lot 59
9.7
18.6
110.0
13
Bldg.28 1
9.2
17.7
114.1
7
Rec. Bldg.
9.4
17.5
111.3
7
Overexcavation of the building pads was performed to provide a uniform bearing surface for the planned
structures. Where encountered in the excavations, unsuitable soil was removed to expose competent
material prior to fill placement. A summary of the building pad conditions with the recommended
foundation categories is presented in Table 4
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF AS -GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS AND
RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORIES
Lot/
Building No.
Pad Condition
Approx Max
Depth of Fill (feet)
Expansion Index
Foundation
Category
Lot 2
Undercut
5
3
II
Lot 3
Undercut
5
33
II
Lot 58
Undercut
7
24
II
Lot 59
Undercut
5
13
II
Bldg. 28
Undercut
8
7
II
Rec. Bldg.
Undercut
1 5
1 7
II
Slabs that may receive moisture -sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture -sensitive
materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the
guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute's (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive
Moisture -Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). In addition, the membrane should be installed in
accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and ASTM requirements and installed in a manner that
prevents puncture. The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based
on the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity -controlled
environment.
Project No. T2572-22-01 -3 - June 17, 2013
The bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer, architect, and/or
developer. However, we should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker
than 6 inches. Placement of 3 inches and 4 inches of sand is common practice in Southern California for
5-inch and 4-inch thick slabs, respectively. The foundation engineer should provide appropriate concrete
mix design criteria and curing measures that may be utilized to assure proper curing of the slab to reduce
the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that the
foundation engineer present concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is
critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations presented on the
foundation plans.
The foundations for the post -tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural engineer. A wall/column footing dimension detail is provided on
Figure 1. If a post -tensioned mat foundation system is planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge
with a minimum width of 12 inches and extend below the clean sand or crushed rock layer.
If the structural engineer proposes a post -tensioned foundation design method other than the PTI:
• The criteria presented in Table 2 are still applicable.
• Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories II and III.
• The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches.
• The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches, 18 inches and
24 inches for foundation categories I, 1I, and III, respectively. The embedment depths
should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
Our experience indicates post -tensioned slabs are susceptible to excessive edge lift, regardless of the
underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the perimeter footings and the
interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. Because of the placement of the reinforcing tendons
in the top of the slab, the resulting eccentricity after tensioning reduces the ability of the system to
mitigate edge lift. The structural engineer should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of
edge lift occurring for the proposed structures.
During the construction of the post -tension foundation system, the concrete should be placed
monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the footings/grade beams and
the slab during the construction of the post -tension foundation system.
Category 11, or III foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds
per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for
transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. We estimate the total settlements under the imposed
Project No. T2572-22-01 - 4 - June 17, 2013
allowable loads to be about 1 inch with differential settlements on the order of %2 inch over a horizontal
distance of 40 feet.
Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width recommended for
conventional foundations for a particular foundation category. The use of isolated footings, which are
located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building,
are not recommended for Category 1II. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings
should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams.
For Foundation Category III, consideration should be given to using interior stiffening beams and
connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, consideration should be
given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the
potential for future separation to occur.
Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed
foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to maintain a moist
condition as would be expected in such concrete placement.
The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to
expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying thicknesses.
However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco
walls, and slabs -on -grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil
movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the
supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump
of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at
periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
Geocon should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural
engineer.
Project No. T2572-22-01 - 5 - June 17, 2013
Representative samples of the finish grade soil have been taken for laboratory testing of the expansion
index, potential of hydrogen (pH), resistivity, water-soluble sulfate content, and water-soluble chloride
content. Laboratory test results are provided in the tables below.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS
Sample No.
Chloride Content (ppm)
Sulfate Content
p H
Resisitivity
(%)
(ohm centimeters)
Lot 2
Not Tested
0.052
8.4
1,000
Lot 3
516
0.165
8.2
5,700
Lots 58/59
Not Tested
0.092
8.1
820
Bldg. 28/Rec
Center
Not Tested
0.065
8.4
1,100
Kesistivity and ptt determined by Cal Trans Test 532.
Chloride content determined by California Test 422 when sulfate content is greater than 0.1%.
Water-soluable sulfate determined by California Test 417.
Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content tests indicate that the on -site materials at the
locations tested possess sulfate contents equating to a SO or S1 sulfate exposure to concrete structures as
defined by 2013 CBC Section 1904.3 and ACI 318. Table 8.2.2 presents a summary of concrete
requirements set forth by 2013 CBC Section 1904.3 and ACI 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates
is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different
concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil
nutrients) may affect the concentration.
TABLE 8.2.3
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE
EXPOSED TO SULFATE -CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
Water -Soluble
Maximum
Sulfate
Exposure
Sulfate
Cement
Water to
Minimum
Exposure
Class
Percent
Type
Cement Ratio
Compressive
by Weight
by Weight
Strength (psi)
Not Applicable
SO
0.00-0.10
--
--
2,500
Moderate
S 1
0.10-0.20
II
0.50
4,000
Severe
S2
0.20-2.00
V
0.45
4,500
Very Severe
S3
> 2.00
V+ Pozzolan
0.45
4,500
or Slag
Laboratory testing indicates the site soils would be classified as "corrosive" to metal improvements, in
accordance with the Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Caltrans, 2012), which classified a site as corrosive
where the soils have more than 500 ppm chlorides, more than 0.20 percent sulfates, a pH of 5.5 or less, or
a restivity of 1,000 ohm -cm or less. Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering.
Project No. T2572-22-01 - 6 - June 17, 2013
Therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements that could be
susceptible to corrosion are planned.
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to grading at
the locations indicated, and represent conditions at the date of our observations. Any subsequent grading
or backfill should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used herein, the
term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we agreed to be
involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential presence of
hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially
complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience, and test results.
Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary greatly at any
time. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance
with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location.
We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the
uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the
uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated wholly
or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this letter is subject to review and should not be
relied upon after a period of one year.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON WEST, INC.
INAL G,
O
usn w �O
Oln�iar _�
Chet E. Robinson
GE 2890
OQRpFESSjQ,,
- Roati��
No.28gp 2 rrnn
Attachments: References
Table I — Summary of Field Density Test Results
Table II — Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Test Results
Figure 1 — Wall/Column Footing Detail
Project No. T2572-22-01 - 7 - June 17, 2013
REFERENCES
1) Geotechnical Update and Grading Plan Review, PGA West Tract 36537, La Quinta, California, by
Geocon West, Inc., dated December 20, 2013.
2) Addendum Geotechnical Recommendations, Conventional Foundations for Guardhouse and Tower,
PGA West, Tract 36537, La Quinta, California, by Geocon West, Inc., dated February 7, 2014.
3) Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation, PGA West, Tract 36537, La Quinta, California, by Geocon
West, Inc., dated October 31, 2013.
4) Corrosion Guidelines, Version 2.0, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of
Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, dated November, 2012.
5) Structural Plans, The Signature at PGA West, Tract No. 36537, Community Bldg PGA West, Project
Number 63241, by Gouvis Engineering, dated April 8, 2014.
6) Structural Plans, The Signature at PGA West, Tract No. 36537, The Signature Villas at PGA West,
Project Number 63245, by Gouvis Engineering, dated April 8, 2014.
7) Structural Plans, The Signature at PGA West, Tract No. 36537, Community Bldg PGA West, Project
Number 63241, by Gouvis Engineering, dated April 8, 2014.
8) Structural Plans, The Signature at PGA West, Tract No. 36537, The Haciendas at PGA West, Project
Number 63242, by Gouvis Engineering, dated April 14, 2014.
9) Structural Plans, The Signature at PGA West, Tract No. 36537, The Estates at PGA West, Project
Number 63244, by Gouvis Engineering, dated April 16, 2014.
Project No. T2572-22-01 -8- June 17, 2013
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test No.
Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(ft)
Curve
No
Plus
3/4"
Rock
(%)
Field
Dry
Dens.
(pcf)
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
Field
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
Req'd.
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
1
05/15/14 Lot 2; TR 36537-1
485
1
0
115.1
9.8
90
90
2
05/15/14 Lot 3; TR 36537-1
484
3
0
111.3
9.8
93
90
5
05/15/14 Lot 2; TR 36537-1
485
4
0
100.1
23.4
87
90
5 A
05/16/14 Lot 2; TR 36537-1
485
4
0
108.2
114.3
94
90
-----------
8
05/16/14 Lot 3; TR 36537-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
485
4
0
107.9
13.6
93
90
17
05/19/14 Lot 2; TR 36537-1
486
8
0
113.6
16.1
92
----------
90
18
05/19/14 Lot 2; TR 36537-1
487
4
0
107.8
18.1
93
90
26
05/20/14 Lot 59; TR 36537-1
485
8
0
110.4
15.8
90
90
27
05/20/14 Lot 58; TR 36537-1
483
8
0
110.7
16.8
90
90
35
05/20/14 Lot 59; TR 36537-1
486
3
0
107.2
16.9
90
90
36
05/20/14 Lot 59; TR 36537-1
486
3
0
108.3
13.7
91
90
38
05/20/14 Lot 58; TR 36537-1
484
8
0
116.8
11.9
95
90
47
05/21/14 Lot 58; TR 36537-1
487
1
0
116.1
8.7
91
90
60
05/22/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg. (Aban Sewer)
479
9
0
111.8
14.5
92
90
62
------------------------------------------------------------------
05/22/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg. (Aban Sewer)
481
8
0
114.4
148.0
93
90
63
----------------------------------------------------
05/22/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg. (Aban Sewer)
481
8
0
114.4
12.9
------------
93
90
64
05/22/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg. (Aban Sewer)
481
7
0
101.1
22.0
90
90
65
05/23/14 TR 36537-1 Bldg. 28
483
3
0
106.7
16.1
90
90
66
05/23/14 TR 36537-1 Bldg. 28
484
8
0
113.0
11.3
92
90
- --
69
--------
05/23/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
----------- -- - -- ---- ----------------
483
1
0
120.5
10.3
95
90
70
- - - - --
05/23/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
-----------------------
484
8
0
---------
112.6
----- --
13.1
--
91
......
90
71
05/23/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
483
8
0
113.1
15.6
92
90
72
05/23/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
484
1
0"
119.2
11.9
93
90
FG
74
05/23/14 Lot 2; TR 36537-1
489
8
0
114.5
13.9
93
90
FG
75
-- ------------------
05/23/14 Lot 3; TR 36537-1
------ --------
488
8
0
114.0
16.3
93
90
78
---- -- ----------------------- -------------
05/23/14 Lot 59; TR 36537-1
487
-----------------------------
10
0
109.6
-----...
9.9
-----------
90
--- - ---
90
FG
81
05/23/14 Lot 3; TR 36537-1
488
8
0
114.7
13.6
93
90
85
05/27/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
486
8
0
112.2
12.9
91
90
86
05/27/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
485
8
0
114.0
4.6
93
90
-------------
87
05/27/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
------------ -- -------------------
484
9
0
109.1
15.5
90
90
91
------------------------
05/27/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
491
10
-------------------------------------------
0
110.7
11.9
91
90
95
05/28/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
487
5
0
102.4
17.6
91
90
96
05/28/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
488
9
0
110.3
13.1
91
90
97
05/28/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
487
9
0
109.7
12.9
91
90
---------------
98
--------
05/28/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
------------------------------
488
5
0
104.9
16.1
93
90
103
-------------------------------------------------
05/28/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
489
10
----------------------------------------
0
113.4
12.1
93
-------- --
90
104
05/28/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
490
9
0
110.9
10.9
92
90
105
05/28/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
489
5
0
105.4
18.4
93
90
106
05/28/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
490
9
0
109.3
12.9
90
90
FG
------ -----
108
- ----
05/28/14 Lot 59; TR 36537-1
- ----------------------------------------
489
10
0
112.0
91.0
92
90
I l l
05/29/14 TR 36537-1 Bldg. 28
- ------
489
-- --------
10
------
0
-----------
109.3
11.3
--------------
90
90
112
05/29/14 TR 36537-1 Bldg. 28
490
10
0
110.2
11.9
90
90
113
05/29/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
491
10
0
113.6
13.8
93
90
114
05/29/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
491
10
0
112.1
12.1
92
90
115
05/29/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
491
10
0
111.9
11.9
92
90
Project No. T2572-22-03 June 18, 2014
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev.
Plus
Field
Field
Field
Req'd.
or
3/4"
Dry
Moist.
Rel.
Rel.
Depth
Curve
Rock
Dens.
Cont.
Comp.
Comp.
Test
No.
Date Location
(R)
No.
(%)
(pcf)
(%)
(%)
(%)
116
05/29/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
491
10
0
116.3
10.9
95
90
FG
117
05/29/14 Lot 58; TR 36537-1
489
9
0
108.5
10.9
90
90
FG
133
05/30/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
493
8
0
120.4
10.1
98
90
FG
134
05/30/14 Lot 135; TR 36537-1 Rec. Bldg.
493
8
0
116.3
10.6
94
90
FG
135
-----
05/30/14 Lot TR Bldg.
------------135; -------36537-1 I.Rec-.-Bld-g -----------
493
0
11.3
91
90------
FG
150
06/02/11 TR 36537-1 Bldg. 28
---------------10
492
--------
10
-----------111.2
0
-
115.2
10.5
---------------
94
90
Project No. T2572-22-03 June 18, 2014
TABLE I
EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
- TEST SUFFIX
A, B, C, ...: Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction.
Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil.
- PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS
FG - Finish Grade OG - Original Ground
- CURVE NO.
Corresponds to curve numbers listed in the summary of laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content test results table for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation.
- ROCK CORRECTION
For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values are unadjusted.
- TYPE OF TEST
SC: Sand Cone Test (ASTM D 1556)
NU: Nuclear Density Test (ASTM D 6938)
OT: Other
- ELEVATION/DEPTH
Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot.
- LOCATION DESCRIPTION
(IP): Indicates in -place tests. Where (IP) appears in the location description, the compaction procedures
were not observed by a representative of Geocon. Tests were taken at the surface or in test pits after
placement of the fill. The results of these tests are indicative of the relative compaction at the location of
the test only and may not be extrapolated to adjacent areas. Geocon has no opinion regarding the relative
compaction of fill in adjacent areas.
Project No. T2572-22-03 June 18, 2014
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
Maximum
Optimum
Dry
Moisture
Density
Content
Sample No.
Description
(pcf)
(% Dry Wt.)
1
Silty Sand (SM), olive brown
127.5
10.3
3
SAND with Silt (SP-SM), light olive brown
119.1
12.0
4
SILT (ML), light olive brown
115.5
13.8
5
Sandy SILT with trace gravel s(ML), gray
113.1
14.7
7
SILT with few sand (ML), dark olive brown
111.9
16.6
8
SILT with sand and trace gravel (ML)s, olive brown
123.1
12.0
9
SILT with sand and trace gravel (ML)s, olive brown
121.0
13.0
10
Silty SAND (F/G) with trace gravel (SM), dark grayish brown
122.1
10.3
Project No. T2572-22-03 June 17, 2014
WALL FOOTING
CONCRETE SLAB
4.' ' 0.' .'o .0.' .'o .4,
SAND
VISQUEEN O
°o o
ennnnir_�
COLUMN FOOTING
PAD GRADE
a
0
CONCRETE SLAB
O .. O
..0.. O ..
.. • O '. • ...O
O 0 0
.0
.. .. .. ..
SAND
'.o.'..d. '.°.'..b. ':°
�..0.-•°.'.'.b..'°..'.O.
':°- ..b. - ° ��
VISQUEEN'..d.
a0.o.� a0.o'.'O=o.Qo.'O
a0. O'POQ.
O PO
:°.'.'.b.
O O..0
oO0 •O 0�.0•.�
FOOTING WIDTH *
.....SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION
GpEjOcO
W E S T, I N C.
ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS
40-004 COOK STREET — SUITE 4 — PALM DESERT, CA 92211
PHONE (760) 569-9926 FAX (951) 304-2392
CER
NO SCALE
WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DETAIL
THE SIGNATURE AT PGA WEST
TRACT 36537
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
JUNE, 2014 PROJECT NO. T2572-22-03 FIG. 1