08-1602 (CSCS) Geotechnical Investigation Reportr
111�xaZan & ASSOCIATES, INC
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
October 31, 2008 KA No.: 126-08033
Regency Centers
Mr. Tom Middleton
36 Executive Park, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
RE: Response to City of La Quinta Request For information
Jefferson Square Retail Center
Proposed CVS Building
Fred Waring & Jefferson
La Quinta, CA
Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Jefferson Square (Phase I),
Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, La Quinta, California, dated May 25, 2007.
Mr. Middleton:
In accordance with a request by GKKWorks, Architects, we have prepared this letter to respond to a
request for information by the City of La Quinta. It is our understanding that the City of La Quinta has
requested confirmation that the recommended remedial grading is suitable for the proposed CVS retail
building to be constructed at the project site. In addition, it is our understanding that the city has
requested confirmation that the anticipated long term settlement of the proposed structures will be within
the anticipated tolerable limits.
Based on a review of the structural foundation plans for the proposed structures, a maximum bearing
capacity value of 3,000 pounds per square foot has been used: ao design the proposed building
foundations. This value is consistent with the recommendations presented in the referenced Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation report for the subject site. As aresult the recommended remedial grading
Inv e§#Vqtion ieport as'well)
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact our office at (951) 694-0601 for assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
KRA_7_AN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
James M. Kellogg, PE
Project Engineer
RCE 65092
Distribution: (1) Addressee
(1) DRC Engineering
JMK/dmw
Offices Serving The Western United States
43379 Business Park Drive, Suite 300 • Temecula, California 92590 (951) 694-0601 • Fax: (951) 694-0701
N.
a
�-2-13-^0e---
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING e ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
May 25, 2007 KA Project No. 112-07036
Mr.. Thomas Middleton
Regency Centers, Inc.
36 Executive Park, Suite 100 CENED
Irvine, CA 92614 JUL 112008
RE: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Proposed Jefferson Square (Phase )] LHA
Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive
La Quinta, California -
Dear Mr. Middleton:
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have completed our Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation for the above -referenced site. This report summarizes the results of our field
investigation, laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Based on the data obtained, our
understanding of the proposed project and our engineering analyses, it is our opinion that it is feasible to
develop the site as planned.
noted in our
priort, to tl� a start—of—consstructio_n, and to observe and test earthwork and foundation construction.
Observation and testing services should also be performed by our field staff during construction activities
which will allow us to compare conditions exposed during construction with those encountered during our
investigation and to present supplemental recommendations if warranted by different site conditions.
If you have any questions regarding the information or recommendations presented in our report, or if
we may be of further assistance, please contact our Ontario, California office at (909) 974-4400.
cc: Addressee (4)
Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN &c ASSOCIATES, INC.
t
James M. Kellogg, PE
Regional Manager
Offices Serving The Western United States
4221 Brickell Street a Ontario, California 91761 a (909) 974-4400 a Fax: (909) 974-4022
I�l SEP 19 2008
11207036.doc
r i
+e
• 1
J
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE
JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 112-07036
MAY 25, 2007
PREPARED FOR:
REGENCY CENTERS, INC.
36 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
ATTENTION: MR. THOMAS MIDDLETON
PREPARED BY:
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
4221 BR.ICKELL STREET
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761
(909)974-4400
Offices Serving the Western United States
1
�'L -
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINTEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES...............................................................................................1
PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION.............................................................................................................2
SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................2
SITEINVESTIGATION...........................................................................................................................3
GEOLOGICSETTING.................................................................................................................:................3
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS........:....................................................................................3
SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................4
GROUNDWATER.................................................... .................................................................................... 4
SEISMICITY, LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC INDUCED SETTLEMENT......................................5
SOILCORROSIVITY...................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMTAENDATIONS...................................................................................6
ADMINISTRATIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................................6
GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES/CONSTRUCTION..............................................................7
WEAKAND DISTURBED SOILS.................................................................................................................7
COLLAPSIBLESOILS.................................................................................................................................7
EARTHWORK............................................................................................................................................7
Site Preparation — Clearing and Stripping........................................................................................... 7
Overexcavation and Recompaction..................................................................................................... 8
FillPlacement ................................................................................................................................... 8
ENGWEEREDFILL....................................................................................................................................8
TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY....................................................................................................9
UTILITYTRENCH BACKFILL................................................................................................................
COMPACTED MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE....................................................................................................9
SURFACE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING.............................................................................................10
FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK.............................................................................................10
FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................................................................ I 1
RETAININGWALLS.................................................................................................................................1 I
PAVEMENTDESIGN................................................................................................................................12
SITE COEFFICIENT ............. .
.....................................................................................................................13
SOILCORROSIVITY.................................................................................................................................I 3
TESTINGAND INSPECTION......................................................................................................................13
LIMTTATIONS........................................................................................................................................14
VICINITYMAP........................................................................................................................... Figure 1
SITEPLAN................................................................................................................................... Figure 2
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS........................................................... Appendix A
GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS............................................................... Appendix B
GENERAL PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS S.................................................................... Appendix C
Offices Serving The Western United States
4221 Brickell Street a Ontario, California 91761 a (909) 974A400 a Fax: (909) 974-4022
11207036.doc
r
s• MAO-
—r,razanY
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPEC'T'ION
May 25, 2007
INTRODUCTION
KA Project No. 112-07036
GEOTECHMCAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE
JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WAR.ING DRIVE
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed Jefferson
Square shopping center (Phase I) in La Quinta, California. Discussions regarding site conditions are
presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, grading,
utility trench backfill, drainage and landscaping, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior concrete
flatwork, retaining walls, soil corrosivity, and pavement design.
A Vicinity Map showing the location of the site is presented on Figure 1. A Site Plan showing the
approximate boring locations is presented on Figure 2. Descriptions of the field and laboratory
investigations, boring log legend and boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Appendices B and C
contain guides for general earthwork and flexible pavement specifications. If conflicts in the text of the
report occur with the general specifications in the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the
report have precedence.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
This geotechnical investigation was conducted to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at
the project site. Engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data was performed for the purpose of
developing and providing geotechnical recommendations for use in the preliminary design and
construction of the earthwork, foundation and pavement aspects of the project.
Our scope of services`was outlined in our proposal dated May 1, 2007 (KA Proposal No. PI 12049-07)
and included the following:
D A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at
the project site.
6 Review of selected published geologic maps, reports and literature pertinent to the site and
surrounding area.
Offices Serving The Western United States
4221 Brickell Street u Ontario, California 91761 a (909) 974-4400 a Fax: (909) 974-4022
11207036.doc
v
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 2
® A field investigation consisting of drilling sixteen (16) borings to depths of 11 to 51 feet below
the existing ground surface for evaluation of the subsurface conditions at the project site.
o Performing Iaboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the borings to evaluate
the physical and index properties of the subsurface soils.
o Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and engineering analyses of the data with
respect to the geotechnical aspects of structural design, and site grading and paving.
a Preparation of this report summarizing the results, conclusions, recommendations, and findings
of our investigation.
Environmental services, such as chemical analyses of soil and b •oundwater for possible errvironnzental
contaminates, and geoloa c study were not in our scope of services.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand that design of the proposed development is currently underway; structural load
information and other final details pertaining to the structures are therefore unavailable. On a
preliminary basis, it is understood that the project will include construction of a retail shopping center
named Jefferson Square (Phase I). The shopping center will consist of a market, a drug store, two shops
and two pads ranging in footprints from 4,500 to 13,900 square feet. The buildings are planned to be of
one story wood frame/stucco or masonry construction with concrete slab -on -grade floors. Building loads
are anticipated to be relatively light. Onsite parking and landscaping are also planned for the
development:
Mass grading of the majority of the site is expected to entail minor to moderate cuts and fills from
existing grades to establish building pads and to provide for surface drainage of the site.
In the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the final design criteria, we should be
notified so that we can evaluate the potential impacts of the changes on the recommendations presented
in this report and provide an updated report as necessary.
SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is rectangular in shape and encompasses approximately 8.44 acres. The site is located on the
southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County,
California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The site is predominately surrounded by residential developments
and park/golf course lands.
Presently, the site is vacant with sparse weeds and shrubs. A scoured wash is located at the northeast corner
of the site with a relief of approximately 4 to 6 feet. The remaining site is relatively flat with no major
changes in grade. The average elevation of the site is approximately 60 feet above mean sea level.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The western United States
11207036.doe
v
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 3
SITE INVESTIGATION
GEOLOGIC SETTING
Regionally the proposed site is situated at the base of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains within
the northwest portion of the Coachella Valley of Southern California. Near -surface material consists of
alluvial fan deposits of sand, silt, gravel, and cobbles derived from erosion of the Mesozoic granitic and
metamorphic rocks of the adjacent San Jacinto Mountains. A significant feature within this geomorphic
province is the Salton Trough. The Salton Tnough'is a large northwest -trending structural depression that
extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California. A large portion of this depression in the
vicinity of the Salton Sea is below sea level. The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the
Salton Trough and contains a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits that are Miocene to Recent in age.
Mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the
northeast, foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa
Rosa Mountains to the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and
Mesozoic granitic rocks. Tectonism of the region is dominated by the interaction of the East Pacific
Plate and the North American Plate along a transform boundary.
The Coachella Valley has been filled with a variable thickness of relatively young, heterogeneous
alluvial deposits. The Coachella Valley in the vicinity of the project site is drained by minor tributaries
toward the Whitewater River, which is located approximately three miles southwest of the subject site.
This drainage system trends towards the southeast in the vicinity of the subject site. Depth to
groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site is reported to be approximately 100 feet below ground
surface with a general direction of flow towards the southeast.
Numerous moderate to large earthquakes have affected the area of the subject site within historic time.
Based on the proximity of several dorninant active faults and seismogenic structures, as well as the
historic seismic record, the area of the subject site is considered subject to relatively high seismicity.
The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is groundshaking due to a large earthquake on one of
the major active regional faults. The San Andreas — Southern fault is the nearest active fault to the site.
and located approximately 6.3 kilometers northeast of the project site. The Burnt Mountain, Eureka Peak
and San Jacinto — Ann faults are located approximately 26, 27.3, and 36.8 kilometers from the site,
respectively. The subject site is located in Seismic Zone 4 as defined by the California Building Code.
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Subsurface soil conditions were explored by drilling sixteen (16) borings, using a truck -mounted drill rig,
to depths ranging from approximately 11 to 51 feet below existing site grade. The approximate boring
locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These approximate boring locations were estimated in the
field based on pacing and measuring from the limits of existing site features. During drilling operations,
penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain
information regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Soil samples were retained for
laboratory testing. The soils encountered were continuously examined and visually classified in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. A more detailed description of the field
investigation is presented in Appendix A.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
l 1207036.doc
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 4
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and
engineering properties. The laboratory -testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation
of in-situ moisture and dry density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation, R -value, maximum dry
density, resistivity, sulfate and chloride of the materials encountered. Details of the laboratory -testing
program are discussed in Appendix A. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the boring logs
or on the test reports, which are also included in Appendix A. This information, along with the field
observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix A.
SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on our findings, the subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the
geologic region of the site. In general, the subsurface soils consisted of 1 to 3 feet of loose/died'
silty sands and sands underlain by denser alluvial deposits. Xl e_upper_soils are_dist&BF-, have -low
strength.characteristics,=anda glily compressible when saturated.
Below the loose/disturbed upper soils, denser silty sands, sands and silts were encountered. Field and?
Penetration resistance, measured by the number of blows required to drive a Modified California sampler
or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler, ranged from 7 to 54 blows per foot. Dry densities ranged
from 90.8 to 112.6 pounds per cubic feet (pcf). Representative soil samples had angles of internal
friction of 32 to 37 degrees. Representative soil samples consolidated approximately 0.7 to 1.7 percent
under a 2-ksf load when saturated. Reprehensive soil samples had R -values of 52 to 58, maximum dry
densities of 110 to 119 pcf and an Expansion Index of 0.
One boring, Boring B-1, was advanced to a depth of 50 feet to obtain additional information for use in
Liquefaction
quefaction potential evaluation. The profile'is consistent with the majority of the borings drilled during
this study.
The above is a general description of soil conditions encountered at the site in the borings drilled for this
investigation. For a more detailed description of the soil conditions encountered, please refer to the
boring logs in Appendix A.
GROUNDWATER
Test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and after the drilling
operations. Groundwater was not encountered at the time of this investigation.
It should be recognized that water table elevation might fluctuate with time. The depth to groundwater
can be expected to fluctuate both seasonally and from year to year. Fluctuations in the groundwater level
may occur due to variations in precipitation, irrigation practices at the site and in the surrounding areas,
climatic conditions, flow in adjacent or nearby canals, pumping from wells and possibly as the result of
other factors that were not evident at the time of our investigation. Therefore, water level observations at
the time of our field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the
project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. Long-term monitoring in
observation wells, sealed from the influence of surface water, is often required to more accurately define
the potential range of groundwater conditions on a site.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving ne Western United States
1 I207036.dos
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 5
SEISMICITY, LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC INDUCED SETTLEMENT
Seismicity is a general term relating to the abrupt release of accumulated strain energy in the rock
materials of the earth's crust in a given geographical area. The recurrence of accumulation and
subsequent release of strain have resulted in faults and fault systems. Fault patterns and density reflect
relative degrees of regional stress through time, but do not necessarily indicate recent seismic activity;
therefore, the degree of seismic risk must be determined or estimated by the seismic record in any given
region. Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particle suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when
the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such
as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than
clean sand. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic
events. To evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site, the following items were evaluated:
1) Soil type
2) Groundwater depth
3) Relative density
4) Initial confining pressure
5) Intensity and duration of ground shaking
The soils beneath the site consist predominately of dense and stiff materials.
considered to be
One of the most common phenomena during seismic shaking accompanyingan� earthquakes e is the
inducedsettlement of loose_uncousolidat'ed.soill Based on site subsurface conditions and the moderate
to high seismicity of the region, any loose granular materials at the site could be vulnerable to this
potential hazard. Gur analysis of dynamic densification of "dry" soil above the water table in the upper
50 feet of existing soil profile was performed. The seismic densification of dry to damp alluvial sandy
soils due to onsite seismic activity is calcul. ated.to,have-total-settlements of. approximately 2(TLoto 3 inches.
=reduce the effects andmagnitude of`the seismic--ffduced—settlements,—remedial b ading_is7
recommended; a: discussed-later-iff this report. Following completion of the recommended remedial
grading and foundation design, we_estimate that�di-fferential-settlements�of approximately %Z�inch-in 20
r -feet laterally may result- omseismic densification.
L --
SOIL
SOIL CORROSIVITY
Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil corrosivity to the buried structures. The results of the
tests are included as follows:
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Se ring The Westem United States
11207036.doc
e ij °
Resistivity
12,500 ohms -em
Caltrans
Sulfate
Less than 5 mg/kg
EPA 9038
Chloride
23.4 mg/kg
EPA 9253
pH
9.02
EPA 9045C
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Se ring The Westem United States
11207036.doc
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 6
CONCLFJSIONS AND RE.COM?4ENDA'IIONS
Based on the findings of our field and laboratory investigations, along with previous geotechnical
experience in the project area, the following is a summary of our evaluations, conclusions, and
recommendations.
ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY
Based on the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it
is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible as presently anticipated provided that the
recommendations presented in this report are considered in the design and construction of the project.
In brief, the subject site and soil conditions, with the exception of the upper loose/collapsible soils and
seismic induced settlement, appear to be conducive to the development of the project.
Undocumented fill materials may be present onsite between our exploratory borehole locations. In
general, these fill soils should be assumed uncompacted and unsuitable for support of foundations and
pavements. tThese fill soils if encountered—during grading should also be overexcavated and
recd om'pa tRI?
The upper loose soils within the project site are moderately compressible under saturated conditions.
Accordingly, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential excessive soil settlement.
Recommendations pertaining to the removal and recompaction of these moisture -sensitive soils are
presented herein. After completion of the recommended site preparation, the site should be suitable for
shallow footing support.
Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in
trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these loose
cohesionless soils.
Due to the lack of fines for the onsite cohesionless soils, it is recommended that the subgrade and fill
soils be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00
Test Method.
The shrinkage on recompacted soil and fill placement is estimated at 15 to 20 percent. This value is an
estimate and may vary significantly depending on several items including soil conditions, compaction
effort, weather, etc. Subsidence within building areas will be less than 0.02 foot, due to the
recommended over -excavation. Subsidence within parking areas, below the 12 -inch recompaction depth,
is estimated at 0.05 foot.
All grading and. earthwork should be performed in accordance with the Grading Ordinances of the City of
La Quinta and the applicable portions of the General Earthwork Specifications in Appendix B, except as
modified herein.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
11207036.doc
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 7
cGROUN� BWATER INFI:UENCE ON STRUCTURES/CONSTRUCTION
Based on our findings and historical records, it is not anticipated that groundwater will rise within the
zone of structural influence or affect the construction of foundations and pavements for the project.
However, if earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may
become saturated, "pump," or not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures
include discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing
and replacing the soil with an approved fill_materia%-or_mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement
product. Our firm should'be co� or-_to.implementing remedial measures to observ_e_the_unstable
WEAK AND DISTURBED SOILS
Of primary importance in the development of this site is the removal/recompaction of potentially
compressible soils from the, areas of the proposed structures. This is discussed in detail in the Earthwork
section of this report.
COLLAPSIBLE SOILS
The upper onsite native soils are moisture -sensitive and are moderately compressible under saturated
conditions. Structures within the project vicinity have experienced excessive post -construction
settlement, when the foundation soils become near saturated. As recommended in the site preparation
section of this report, the -collapsible soils_should'be_ e=moved andreco pacted-to-a-minimum of'95
EARTHWORK
Site Preparation — Clearing and Stripping
General site clearing should include removal of vegetation and existing utilities, structures, trees and
associated root systems rubble, rubbish, and any loose and/or saturated materials. Site stripping should
extend to a minimum depth of 2 to 4 inches, or until all organics in excess of 3 percent. by volume are
removed. Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. These materials will not be suitable for
reuse as Engineered Fill. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-
structural areas with the approval of the owner and landscaper.
Any excavations that result from clearing operations should be backfilled with engineered fill. Krazan &
Associates' field staff should be present during site clearing operations to enable us to locate areas where
depressions or disturbed soils are present and to allow our staff to observe and test the backfill as it is
placed. If site clearing and backfilling operations occur without appropriate observation and testing by a
qualified geotechnical consultant, there may be .the need to over -excavate the building area to identify
uncontrolled fills prior to mass grading of the building pad.
As with site clearing operations, any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly
removed and backfilled. The resulting excavations should be back-filled with engineered fill.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
l 1207036.doc
ECA No. 112-07036
Page No. 8
/overexcavation and Recomgact'on
�13uildinE Pad Areas
To minimize post -construction soil movement and provide uniform support for the proposed buildings,
overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building footprints should be performed to a
minimum depth of five (5) feet below existing grade or four (4) feet below bottom of the proposed
footings, whichever is deeper. The actual depth of overexcavation should be determined by our field
representative during grading. The_o�erexcavation_and_recompactioiashould'also-extend-laterally-5 feet
bevond-the�edaes of thetmonosed_footinlrs. Ani undocumented fill encountered during s3adinz should
Pavement Areas
Within the pavement areas, it is recommended that overexcavation and recompaction should be
performed to at least 12 inches below existing grade or finish grade, whichever is deeper. This
compaction effort should stabilize the surface soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found
during our field investigation. The actual depth of the overexcavation and-recompactioa should be
determined by our field representative during construction.
Fill Placement
Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 8 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture -
conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of
the maximum dry densitybased on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method.
Fill soils should be placed in loose lifts approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, moisture -conditioned to near -
optimum moisture content (t2%), and compacted to achieve at least 95 percent of the maximum dry
density as determined by ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. Additional lifts should not be placed if the '
previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable.
The upper soils, during wet winter months, may become very moist due to the absorptive characteristics of
the soil. Earthwork operations performed during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils,
which may require removal to grade a stable building foundation. Project site winterization consisting of
placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during the construction phase should be
performed.
ENGINEERED FILL
The upper organic -free, on-site, native soils are predominately silty sands and sands. These soils will be
suitable for reuse as non -expansive Engineered Fill, provided they are cleansed of excessive organics and
debris.
The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the
exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
11207036.doe
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 9
construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the contractor, since he has complete control of
the project site at that time.
Imported Fill material should be predominately non -expansive granular materials with a plasticity index
less than 10, an Expansion Index less than 20 and, 10 to 40 percent passing No. 200 sieve. Imported Fill
should be free from rocks and clods greater than 4 inches in diameter. All Imported Fill material should
be submitted to the Soils Engineer for approval at least 48 hours prior to delivery at the site.
TEMPOR_4RY EXCAVATION STABILITY
All excavations should comply with the current OSHA requirements. All cuts greater than 2 feet in depth
should be sloped or shored. Temporary excavations should be sloped at l'/z:l (horizontal to vertical) or
flatter up to a maximum depth of 8 feet below surrounding grade. Heavy construction equipment,
building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within five (5) feet of the
top (edge) of the excavation. Where sloped excavations are not feasible due to site constraints, the
excavations may require shoring. The design of the shoring system is normally the responsibility of the
contractor or shoring designer, and therefore, is outside the scope of this report. The design of the
temporary shoring should take into account lateral pressures exerted by the adjacent soil, and, where
anticipated, surcharge loads due to adjacent buildings and any construction equipment or traffic expected
to operate alongside the excavation.
The excavation/shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from our
test borings. within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the excavations.
Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide field review to evaluate the actual
conditions and account for field condition variations, not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this
recommendation.
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in
trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy
soils. Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density
based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. Pipe bedding should be placed in accordance with pipe
manufacturer recommendations.
Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, water flows into open excavations could
be experienced, especially during or following periods of precipitation. The contractor is responsible for
removing all water -sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction
requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the
utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction.
COMPACTED MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE
Compaction specifications are not the only criteria for acceptance of the site grading or other such
activities. However, the compaction test is the most universally recognized test method for assessing the
performance of the Grading Contractor. The numerical test results from the compaction test cannot be
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
I1207036.doc
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 10
solely used to predict the engineering performance of the compacted material. Therefore, the acceptance
of compacted materials will also be dependent on the moisture content and the stability of that material.
The Geotechnical Engineer has the option of rejecting any compacted material regardless of the degree of
compaction if that material is considered to be too dry or excessively wet, unstable or if future instability
is suspected. A specific example of rejection of fill material passing the required percent compaction is a
fill which has been compacted with in-situ moisture content significantly less than optimum moisture.
Where expansive soils are present, heaving of the soils may occur with the introduction of water. Where
the material is a lean clay or silt, this type of dry. fill (brittle fill) is susceptible to future settlement if it
becomes saturated or flooded.
SURFACE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING
The ground surface should slope away from building and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets
or other surface drainage devices. We recommended that adjacent paved exterior grades be sloped a
minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Ideally, asphalt concrete
pavement areas should be sloped at a minimum of 2 percent, with Portland cement concrete sloped at a
minimum of one percent toward drainage structures. These grades should be maintained for the life of
the project.
Roof drains should be designed to avoid discharging into landscape areas adjacent to the building.
Downspouts should be directed to discharge directly onto paved surfaces to allow for surface drainage
into the storm systems or should be connected directly to the on-site storm drain.
FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLAT: WORK
Concrete slab -on -grade floors should be underlain by a water vapor retarder. The water vapor retarder
should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification E 1643-98. 6-cc—ording to ASTM Guidelines,
the water vapor retarder_should.consist of a vapor retarder -sheeting underlain by a minimum of 3-ifiches
ofcompacted,, clean, gravel -of -.Y4 -inch -maximum size. To aide o crete.curing.2nto-4 cm hes of
�anulai-:fill-may-be.placed o"n_t_oppD of -die vapor retarder. The granular fill should consist of damp clean
sand with at least 10 to 30 percent of the sand passing the No. 100 sieve. The sand should be free of
clay, silt or organic material. Rock dust which is manufactured sand from rock crushing operations is
typically suitable for.the granular fill. This granular fill material should be compacted.
The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation
system. All fills required to bring the building pads to grade should be Engineered Fills.
Moisture within the structure may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the
moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor can travel through the vapor membrane and penetrate the
slab -on -grade. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew
in the structure. To minimize moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be
installed in accordance with ASTM guidelines.. It is recommended that the utility trenches within the
structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the
utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the building is
recommended. Positive drainage should be established away from the structure and should be
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
11207036.doc
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 11
maintained throughout the life of the structure. Ponding of water should not be all -owed adjacent to the
structure. Over -irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed. In
addition, ventilation of the structure (i.e. ventilation fans) is recommended to reduce the accumulation of
interior moisture.
(FOUNDATIONS
Provided that the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structures may be supported on a
shallow foundation system bearing on at least 4 feet of Engineered Fill. Spread and continuous footings
can be designed for the following maximum allowable soil bearing pressures:
'(
art'
OW.81b�
Dead Load Only
2,500 psf
Dead -Plus -Live Load
3,000 psf
Total Load, including wind or seismic loads
4,000 psf
The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent
exterior grade, whichever is deeper. Footings should have minimum widths of 15 inches for continuous
footings and 24 inches for isolated pad footings. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry
out any time prior to pouring concrete. It is recommended that footings be reinforced with at least one
No. 5 reinforcing rebar in both top and bottom.
Provided the site is prepared as recommended and that the foundations are designed and constructed in
.accordance with our recommendations, the to al settlement due to static founda`tia In oadg-is;n—Z-e pected
Ere anticipated to be less than_%_
d too dunnn-construct_ io as
settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or
. saturated. The seismic induced differential settlements are anticipated to. be less than 1/2 inch in 20 feet
due to a strong earthquake event.
Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.45
acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can
alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 400 pounds per cubic
foot acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil
may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. A one-third increase in
the above value may be used for short duration, wind, or seismic loads.
RETAINING WALLS
Walls retaining horizontal backfill and capable of deflecting a minimum of 0.1 percent of its height at the
top may be designed using an equivalent fluid active pressure of 32 pounds per square foot per foot of
depth. Walls that are incapable of this deflection or walls that are fully constrained against deflection
may be designed for an equivalent fluid at -rest pressure of 52 pounds per square foot per foot per depth.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The western United States
11207036.doc
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 12
Expansive soils should not be used for backfill against walls. The wedge of non -expansive backfill
material should extend from the bottom of each retaining wall outward and upward at a slope of 2:1
(horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The wall backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method.
The active and at -rest earth pressures do not include hydrostatic pressures. To reduce the build-up of
hydrostatic pressures, drainage should be provided behind the retaining walls. Wall drain should consist
of a minimum 12 -inch wide zone of drainage material, such as 3/4 -inch by 1/2 -inch drain rock wrapped
in a non -woven polypropylene geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Alternatively,
drainage may be provided by the placement of a commercially produced composite drainage blanket,
such as Miradrain, extending continuously up from the base of the wall. The drainage material should
extend from the base of the wall to finished subgrade in paved areas and to within about 12 inches below
the top of the wall in landscape areas. In landscape areas the top 12 inches should be backfilled with
compacted native soil. A 4 -inch minimum diameter, perforated, Schedule 40 PVC drain pipe should be
placed with holes facing down in the lower portion of the wall drainage material, surrounded with drain
rock wrapped in filter fabric. A solid drainpipe leading to a suitable discharge point should provide
drainage outlet. As an alternative, weep holes may be used to provide drainage. If weep holes are used
the weep holes should be 3 inches in diameter and spaced about 8 feet on centers. The backside of the
weep holes should be covered with a corrosion -resistant mesh to prevent loss of backfill and/or drainage
material.
PAVEMENT DESIGN
Based on our laboratory test results, an R -value of 52 is used for the pavement design. If site grading
exposes soil other than that assumed, we should perform additional tests to confirm or revise the
recommended pavement sections for actual field conditions. The following table shows the
recommended pavement sections for various traffic indices.
:;:;7L�raific:Indezr':°:;':As
hal>hc:Concrete.:.:::.Class2.
a ate;Base.:°::`:::Coffi
aeted�Suli"'�ade�::`.
5.0
2.5"
4.0"
12.0"
6.0
3.0"
4.0"
12.0"
7.0
4.0"
4.0"
12.0" 11
* 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method or CAL 216
If traffic indices are not available, an estimated (typical value) index of 5.0 may be used for automobile
parking and an index of 7.0 may be used for light truck traffic.
We recommend that the subgrade soil be prepared as discussed in this report. The compacted subgrade
should be non -yielding when proof -rolled with a loaded ten -wheel truck, such as a water truck or dump
truck, prior to pavement construction. Subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 2 feet laterally
behind the edge of pavement or back of curbs. Pavement areas should be sloped and drainage gradients
maintained to carry all surface water off the site. A cross slope of 2 percent is recommended in asphalt
concrete pavement areas to provide good surface drainage and to reduce the potential for water to
penetrate into the pavement structure. Unless otherwise required by local jurisdictions, paving materials
should comply with the materials specifications presented in the Caltrans Standard Specifications
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Sensing The Westem United States
l 1207036.doc
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 13
Section. Class 2 aggregate should comply with the materials requirements for Class 2 base found in
Section 26.
SITE COEFFICIENT
The site coefficient, per Table 16-J, California Building Code, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is
our opinion that a site coefficient of soil type Sp is appropriate for building design at this site. For
seismic design of the structures, in accordance with the seismic provisions of the California Building
Code, we recommend the following parameters:
S:eisnuctein'r' ---
-ale
Zone Factor
0.4
Table 16-I
Source Type
A
Table 16-U
Coefficient N.
1.1
Table 16-S
Coefficient N,
1.5
Table 16-T
Coefficient Ca
0.51
Table 16-Q
Coefficient C„
0.96
Table 16-R
SOI. ColutostvITY
Excessive sulfate or chloride in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between
the cement in concrete and the soil. California Building Code has developed criteria for evaluation of
sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water. The soil
samples from the subject site were tested to have a low sulfate and chloride concentrations. Therefore,
no special design requirements are necessary to compensate for sulfate or chloride reactivity with the
cement.
Electrical resistivity testing of the soil indicates that the onsite soils may have a mild potential for metal
loss from electrochemical corrosion process. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted
regarding the corrosion effects of the onsite sails on underground metal utilities.
Additional chemical testing should be performed for each building pad after grading to verify the soil
corrosivity condition and revised recommendations will be provided according.
TESTING AND INSPECTION
A representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork activities
to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory fieldwork. This activity
is an integral part of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction
testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of these
recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates, Inc.
will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The western United States
11207036.doc
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 14
LEWITATIONS
Geotechnical Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil
Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences advance.
Although your site was analyzed using appropriate and current techniques and methods, undoubtedly
there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to advancements
in the field of Geotechnical Engineering, physical changes in the site due to site clearing or grading
activities, new agency regulations, or possible'changes in the proposed structure or development after
issuance of this report will result in the need for professional review of this report. Updating or revisions
to the recommendations report, and possibly additional study of the site may be required at that time. In
light of this, the Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report
without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that
two years be considered a reasonable time -for the usefulness of this report.
Foundation and earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and
groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is
derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling
of the earth. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions
do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. The logs of the exploratory
borings do not provide a warranty as to the conditions that may exist beneath the entire site. The extent
and nature of subsurface soil and groundwater variations may not become evident until construction
begins. It is possible that variations in soil conditions and depth to groundwater could exist beyond the
points of exploration that may require additional studies, consultation, and possible design revisions. If
conditions are encountered in the field during construction, which differ from those described in this
report, our firm should be contacted immediately to provide any necessary revisions to these
recommendations.
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, which was conducted for
the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation and retaining wall design, and
grading and paving of the site. This report does not include reporting of any services related to
environmental studies conducted to assessment the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic
materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements in this
report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are
strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey professional judgment regarding the
presence of potential hazardous or toxics substances. Conversely, the absence of statements in this report
or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, does not
constitute our rendering professional judgment regarding the absence of potentially hazardous or toxics
substances.
The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed
construction. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project as described in the text of this report
and it should not be used for any other sites or projects. The geotechnical engineering information
presented herein is based upon our understanding of the proposed project and professional interpretation
of the data obtained in our studies of the site. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation
cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. The Geotechnical Engineer
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving Tle Western United States
11207036.doe
KA No. 112-07036
Page No. 15
should be notified of any changes to the proposed project so the recommendations may be reviewed and
re-evaluated. The work conducted through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of
this report, has been performed in accordance with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical
engineering practice, which existed in geographic area of the project at the time the report was written.
No other warranty, express or implied, is made. This report is issued with the understanding that the
owner chooses the risk they wish to bear by the expenditures involved with the construction alternatives
and scheduling that are chosen.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at (909) 9744400.
Respectfully submitted,
IK)1tAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jam KeUogW
Clarence Jiang, GE James M. Kellogg, PE
Project Manager Regional Manager
R.G.E. No. 2477 R.C.E. No. 65092
CJ/JMK:rm
,
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
11207036.doc
Bermuda Dunes
Airpor t
0
9
fl, IP n
°0
0
42
Lu
-a i; R�f' b A DUNES
0 Ltlq..T R CLUB :
51phon.
461
27
4
/Z:1(
fj
to.
.
B
fy
/*
-4.o
A I
f
r
T
Fa
011
Trailer
Well
J,
Park'
81
23
S
r
4'.
V, V
EO
; J;
HLL
V.
r
:::A
UE".' I. 46
I.J
A VEM
C14
Z
Q
By _72
r
.6
.-Traffer
n
ri-
P
TrailPah
31
Trailer
c«
Lis
tu
ni
_j
Scale,
PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE
1:24,000
DcLtv
MAY 2007
4MKra7_211
b),,
Approved by
LA Q=A,, CA Dmirn
RM
Cj
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Westem United States
Pr=ject
VICIN= NL4LP
Na
112-07036
Fig—e Na
I 1
LEGEND
0=0=(V --(U=0=0
4�:
CD
()RUG,
Coal
(ILL W-11— M,
-148 Ll
+ B-16 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
scatel Datel
PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE NTS MAY 2007
LA QUINTA, CA Drmwn layi Approved byi
RM 0 SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
ProjecT 'No. Figure No.
SITE PLAN 112-07036 2 Offices Serving the Western United States
APPENDIX A
QLD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Field Investieation
Our field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program
consisted of excavating, drilling, logging and sampling a total of 16 borings. Drilling was performed
using a Simco 2800 drill rig. The depths of exploration ranged from about 11 feet to 51 feet below the
existing site surface.
A member of our staff visually classified the soils in the field as the excavating and drilling progressed
and recorded a c ontinuous 1 og o f e ach b oring. V isuaI c lassification o f the s oils a ncountered i n o ur
exploratory borings was made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
(ASTM D2487).
During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil
consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils.
Samples were obtained from the borings by driving either a 2.5 -inch inside diameter Modified
California tube sampler fitted with brass sleeves or a 2 -inch outside diameter, 1 -318 -inch inside diameter
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler without sleeves. Soil samples were retained for possible
laboratory testing. The samplers were driven up to a depth of 18 inches into the underlying soil using a
140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler was recorded
for each 6 -inch penetration interval and the number of blows required driving the sampler the last 12
inches are shown as blows per foot on the boring logs.
The approximate locations of our borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These approximate
locations were estimated by our staff in the field based on pacing and the limits of existing site features.
Laboratory Investigation
The laboratory investigation was programmed to determine the physical and mechanical properties of
the soil underlying the site. The laboratory -testing program was formulated with emphasis on the
evaluation of in-situ moisture, density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation and expansion potential,
and R -value of the materials encountered. In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the
soil/cement reactivity and corrosivity. Test results ,were used in our engineering analysis with respect to'
site and building pad preparation through mass grading activities, foundation and retaining wall design
recommendations, pavement section design, evaluation of the materials as possible fill materials and for
possible exclusion of some soils from use at the structures as fill or backfill.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
l 1207036.dDC
�-KraZan ''
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.)
Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines)
'B Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand
GW
o mixtures, little or no fines
GRAVELS
More than 50% GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand
of coarse mixtures, little or no fines
fraction larger Gravels with fines (Mon: than 12% fines)
than No. 4
sieve size GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -sift mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay
mixtures
Very Soft
Clean Sands Less than 5% fines
Soft
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands,
6-10
Stiff
11-20
Very Stiff
little or no fines
SANDS
> 40
Sp
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands,
50% or more
of coarse
2.00 to 0.042
Fine -gained
little or no fines
fraction smaller
Sands with fines More than 12% fines
than No. 4
Below 0.074
sieve size
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
SC
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more of material Is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.)
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock
ML
flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey
SILTS
slits with slight plasticity
AND
Inorganic clays of low to medium
CLAYS
Liquid limit
CL
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
less than
silty clays, lean clays
50%
-
-
OL
Organic silts and organic silty clays of
low plasticity
Inorganic slits, micaceous or
MH
diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
SILTS
elastic slits
AND
CLAYS
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat
Liquid limit
clays
50%
OH
Organic clays of medium to high
or greater
plasticity, organic silts
HIGHLY
ORGANIC
PT
Peat and other highly organic soils
SOILS
CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION
Description Blows per Foot
Granular Soils
Very Loose
< 5
Loose
5-15
Medium Dense
16-40
Dense
41-65
Very Dense
> 65
Cohesive Soils
Very Soft
< 3
Soft
3-5
Firm
6-10
Stiff
11-20
Very Stiff
21-40
Hard
> 40
GRAIN SIZE CLASSMCATION.
Grain Type
Standard Sieve Size
Grain Size in
Millimeters
Boulders
Above 12 inches
Above 305
Cobbles
12 to 13 inches
305 to 76.2
Gravel
3 inches to No. 4
76.2 to 4.76
Coarse-grained
3 to'/ inches
76.2 to 19.1
Fine-grained
Y44 inches to No. 4
19.1 to 4.76
Sand
No. 4 to No. 200
4.76 to 0.074
Coarse-grained
No. 4 to No. 10
4.76 to 2.00
Medium -grained
No. 10 to No. 40
2.00 to 0.042
Fine -gained
No. 40 to No. 200
0.042 to 0.074
Silt and Clay
Below No. 200
Below 0.074
PLAS11CITY CHART
60
50
n; CH
40 A LINE;
30 el = 0.73(1_ -20)
r CL MHII<OH
Cj 20
W
g
10 =: MLaOL
D 0 10 20 3D 40 50 50 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT ILL) I%)
Log of ®rill Hole B-1
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers
Location: La Quinta, CA
Depth to Waterer
Figure No.: A-1
Logged By: SK
Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Water Content (%)
10 20 30 40
6
o co
Description
c
U
CL
2
ry
❑
o
m
w
C
~
3
m
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
2
medium dense
s
104.3
2.2
17
4
6
9
105.5
. 3.0
18
8
10-1
D
Same as above, loose to medium dense
3.3
11
12-
14-
16
Same as above, medium dense
s
2.6
14
18
20
4.1
18
22
24
26
3.9
16
28
30
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date: 5114107
Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Krazan and Associates Hole Size: 8"
Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 2
Log of Drill Hole B-1
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure Pio.: A-1
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
Water Content (%)
v
Description
o
i
N
a)CL
N
3
o Cn
o
m
10 20 30 40
SILTY SAND/SAND (SWUSP),
2.7
17
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
32
medium dense
34
SILTY SAND (SM),
fine grained, light brown, moist, medium dense
5.8
40
15
36-
38-......
SANDY SILT W/CLAY (ML),
.40—
fine grained, brown, very moist, very stiff
31.4
22
42
SILTY SAND (SM),
Fine grained, fight brown, slightly moist, medium
44
dense
46
9
4.9
22
48
CLAYEY SILT (ML),
i
fine grained, brown, very moist, stiff
j
50
e
31.9
16
End of Borehole
52
Total Depth = 51'
54
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5/14/07
56-
58-
60
1
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/14/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 2 of 2
Log of ®rill Hole B=2
Drill
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-2
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
a
Water Content {%)
Description
�,
o
.O
°2' E
O cn
Z
O
T
0]
110 20 t 30 i 40 t
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND/SAND (SMISP),
rine to medium grained, light brown, damp, -medium
2
dense
94.7
1.6
17
4
Same as above, loose to medium dense
101.3
1.2
10
6
8
10
-
2.7
10
12-
14-
V.
Same as above, medium dense
a
3.3
15
16
180
.
Same as above, slightly moist
3.7
20
End of Borehole
22
Total Depth = 21'
24
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
J
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5/14/07
26-
62830
28-
30-
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/14/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Drill foie B=3
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure Pio.: A-3
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Waterer Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
y
c
U
a
Water Content (%)
'
Description
�
o
O
>i
N
CD U)
(j
o
y
a
fx
�
3
—m°
10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND/SAND (SIVVSP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
2
dense
a
107.1
2.0
35
4
Same as above, dense
v
106.0
2.2
18
6
B-
10 -
10
Same as above, loose
Same
2.0
8
12-
14-
V. -
Same as above, loose to medium dense
2.0
11
16
18
20
End of Borehole
22
Total Depth = 20'
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
24
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
1
5/14/07
62830 26-
28-
301
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/14/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of ®rill Hole B-4Project
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-4
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
c
U
Water Content (%)
Description
= 90
CD
Q
L
)
WE
3
CL
m
10 20 3�0 40
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND/SAND (SMISP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
2
dense
o
108.2
1.9
40
4 ;
6
v
111.2
3.0
37
8
10 -....Same
as above, loose to medium dense
2.1
12
12-
21416
14-
16-
20-
2D
Same
Same as above, medium dense
m
2 1
15
End of Borehole
22
Total Depth = 21'
24
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
Hole backtllled with soil cuttings and tamped
5/14/07
26-
28-
......
30
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/14/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
•
Log ®f Drill foie B-5Projact
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers f=igure No.: A-5
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
Water Content (%)
v
Description
�
y
D
C
L
tq
N
p U)
CL
F-
m
10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
pSILTY
SAND (SM),
fine grained, light brown, damp
2 -SILTY
e
SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
111.5
2.8
45
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
4
dense
6
108.0
2.1
34
8
10
Same as above, loose
2.7
$
End of Borehole
12
Total Depth = 11'
14
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5/14107
16-
618202224262830
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-
28-
301
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/14107
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Lag of ®rill Hole Be6
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-6
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
n
0
Water Content (%}
Description
3
N
v o
c
d
0
�
d
o (n
o
CL
0
10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SIM,
fine grained, fight brown, damp
2
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
111.1
1.6
54
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
4
very dense
Same as above, medium dense
..
110.5
2.2
26
6
8
10-
1.3
15
12-
214Same
14-
Sameas above,
2.4
15
16-
61820
18-
20-L
End of Borehole
22
Total Depth = 20'
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
24
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5/14/07
62830 26-
28-
30-
Drill Method: Hallow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Krazan and ,Associates
Driller: Williams Drilling
Drill Date: 5/14/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Drift Hole B-7
Project Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-7
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
e
n
Water Content (%)
v
Description
t 6
a) E
Q
w
m
2
10 20 30 40
o cn
o
F-
in
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SM),
fine grained, light brown, damp
2
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
106.7
1.6
33
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
4
dense
SILTY SAND (SM),
fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, loose to
6-.
e
104.0
2.5
11
medium dense
8
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
10
2.2
15
End of Borehole
12
Total Depth = 11'
f
14
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
I
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5114107
16
18
'
20-
02224262830
22-
24-
26-
28-
30—.
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/14107
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Drill Hole B-8
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-8
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Death to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
c
Water Content (%}
Description
W
CU
03
o
10 20 30 40
m
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SNP),
fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, medium
2
dense
102.2
2.4
17
4
.. ..
_
96.8
2.6
11
6
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
8
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
loose to medium dense
10
10
End of Borehole
12
t
Total Depth = 11'
14 --No
groundwater was encountered during drilling
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5114/07
16-
618202224262630
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-
28-
301
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800.
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/14/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Drill foie B-9
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure leo.: A-9
Location: La Qulnta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
.
c
a
Water Content (%)
o
Description
U)
Z
s
m
o
Z
a
10 20 30 40
� � �
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, damp
2
SILTYSAND (SM),
105.6
1.3
24
fine to medium grained, light brown, damp, medium
4
dense
......... _.
97.3
3.0
17
6
13
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, damp, loose to
10
medium dense
1.7
11
12
...
14
Same as above, medium dense
2.2
17
16
18
'
20
:............ .. .
End of Borehole
,........`.. ....
22
Total Depth = 20'
No groundwater was encountered during.drilling
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
24
5115/07
26-
6
28
28
30
'
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/15107
Hale Size: 8" .
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of ®rill bole B-10
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-10
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Drill
SAMPLE
U
a
Water Content (%)
Description
r jj
c
N
ro
7
W
CL E
o U)
Z'
o
°CL
�-
°
m
10 20 30 40
_� . . J.
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
2
medium dense
_
107.7
4.8
20
4-
6--
f
11
105.4
2.0
15
e
10
Same as above, loose
e
2.4
9
12-
14—
Same as above, medium dense
_
2.9
16
16
18
20
End of Borehole
22
total Depth = 20'
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
24
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5/15/07
26
28-
830
30—
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/15/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of i
Log of Drill Hole B-1 I
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07035
Client: Regency Centers f=igure No.: A-11
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: .
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
Water Content (%)
Description
o
Q
N
m
N
o U)
o
CL
10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SM),
Fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
2
medium dense l
o
105.7
3.5
24
4
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
_
106.7
2.7
18
6
medium dense
8
10
_
1.9
15
of Borehole
12 --End
Ij
Total Depth = 11'
14 --No
groundwater was encountered during drilling
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5/15/07
16-
6202224262830
20-
22-
24-
26-
28-
30-
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/15/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Drell Hole B-12
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07035
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-12
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
a
Water Content (°!a)
Description
o
v
w
�
3
o
o
m
1 D 20 30 40
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SND,
tine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
2
dense
s
112.6
2,4
44
4
Same as above, medium dense
109.6
2.9
22
6
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
8
medium dense
SILTY SAND (SM),
10
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
5.4
7
l
.,loose
12
End of Borehole
Total Depth = 1.1'
14 --No
groundwater was encountered during drilling
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5115/07
18-
82022..24262830
20-
22—
..24-
26-
28-
30
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5115/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Drill Hole B-13
Drill
Project: Proposed Jeferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-13
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
Water Content (%)
Description
v
t
Q
N
QI
)
2�
a) �
o C/)o
it,
`;:
�-
0
m
10 20 30 40
....,
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SM),
—10
fine grained, light brown, damp
2
a
SILTY SAND/SAND (SW/SP),
107.7
2.7
21
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
4
medium dense
107.0
2.0
17
6
8 -
lo
Same as above, loose to medium dense
a
4.1
12
End of Borehole
12
Total Depth= 11'
14
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5115107
16-
61820
18-
20-
22
22-
24-
24262630
26-
28-
30-
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/15/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of ®rill Hole B-14
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-14
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
o
Water Content (%)
Description
v
.c n
C
m
a�
L%
p to
o
m
10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND/SAND (SWSP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, damp
2
SILTY SAND (SM),
102.6
1.9
16
fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, medium
4
dense
SILTY SAND/SAND (SWSP),
105.9
2.5
17
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
6
medium dense
8
'
SILTY SAND (SM),
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
10A.loose
s
3.8
9
12
SILTY SAND/SAND (SMISP),
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,'
14
medium dense
16
3.3
19
18-
20
.
End of Borehole
22 -Total
Depth = 20'
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
24
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5/15/07
62830 26-
28-
301
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/15/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
dog of Drill Hole B-15
Drill
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-15
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
°
Water Content {%)
Description
L Q
G
C
d
c
y
0
o
CL
;n
10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SM),
fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, loose to
.2—
medium dense
v
95.6
2.5
13
4
6
e
90.8
3.5
10
SILTY SAND/SANO (SM/SP),
8
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,
loose to medium dense
10
_
4.9
11
12
14
Same as above, medium dense
e
3.7
19
16
Ij
18
2Q .
End
of Borehole
22
Total Depth '= 20'
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
24
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
5115(07
26-
630
30-
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/15/07
Hale Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Drill Hole Balli
Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036
Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-16
Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
CL
Water Content (%)
Description
En
o
L M
N >.
0
Z'
3
o
CL
>>1
3:
10 20 30 40
O WF-
m
.
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (S"I
fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, loose to
2-.
J.
medium dense
-
94.6
4.1
11
4
6
98.2
4.2
13
SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP),
$
fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist,.
dense
10
_
3.1
21
12
14
Same as above, damp
1.2
23
16
18
.. . .
20
End of Borehole
22
Total Depth = 20'
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
24
5/15/07
26
2$
30
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: Simco 2800
Driller: Williams Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 5/15/07
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear)
ASTM D - 3080 / AASHTO T - 236
Project Number
Boring No. & Depth
Soil Type
Date
112-07036
B-1 @ 5'
(SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
5/18/07
m
Cohesion: 0.0 -Ksf
SOMENNINNIN Angle of Internal Friction: 37
MINNIE NIEMEN
MENNEN MENNEN
MENNEN
MONIES
�����
ISOMEN NEMESIS
100000� NIEMEN SOONER
MENNEN SIONNE MENNEN INNININ
INEENIS MENNEN 1000010 OSMOSIS
MENNEN 1000003
IMENSIN
��C �l
MENNEN
MENNEN WOMEN
ISONNIN����=
MENNEN MENNEN
MENNEN
■�'�
INEENIS SOONER
=c. - INENNIN
MENNEN
ININEIR SNEERS
MENNEN MENNEN ININNIN
-�
INNOMIN
INNENIN MENNEN NEMESIS
1000010 MENNEN SENSESSOMMEN
MENNEN
MENNEN
=' ��"
SIONNIN INNNEIN
NINIPFIA MENNEN INEENE
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear)
ASTM D - 3080 1 AASHTO T - 236
Project Number
Boring No. & Depth
Soil Type
Date
112-07036
B-2 2' 1
(SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
5/18/07
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear)
ASTM D - 3080 / AASHTO T - 236
Project Number
Boring No. & Depth
Soil Type
Date
112-07036
B-9 @ 5'
{SM), Silty Sand
5/18/07
Cohesion: 0.0 Ksf
Angle of Internal Friction: 32
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear)
ASTM ® - 3060 / AASHT® T - 236
Project Number
Boring No. & Depth
Soil Type Date
112-07036
B-15 2'
(SM), Silty Sand 5/18/07
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Consolidation Tact
Project No
Boring No. & Depth
Date
I Soil Classification
112-07036
B-1 @ 2-
5118107
1 (SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
Load in Kips per Square Foot
0.1 1 10 100
0.00
I
-
% Consolidation @ 2Ksf: 0.9%
1.00
2.00
e
A
ee
3.00
--
-
---
4.00
— -
-
-
— —
--
e
0
m
v
o
m
c 5.00
U
e
m
m
Q
8.00
8.00
— -
-
—
-
--
9.00
-
-
10.00
KPazan Fasting Laboratory
Consolidation Test
Project No
Boring No. & Depth
Date
Soil Classification
112-07036
B-3 S
511 BI07
(SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
Load in Kips per Square Foot
0.1 1 10 100
0.00
% Consolidation @ 2Ksf: 0.7%
I
1.00
2.00
17-1
IT
3.00
-----
—
—
4.00
e
0
0
m
o 5.00
—...
--
c
m
a
a
6.00
7.00
—•—
_
—_..
B.OD
--
{
9.00
1
__-
10.00
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Consolidation Test
Project No
Boring No. & Depth
Date
Soil Classification
112-07036
B-15 @ 5'
5/18/07
(SM), Silty Sand
Load in Kips per Square Foot
0.1 1 10 100
0.00
%
Consolidation
2Ksf:
1.7%
1.00
2.00-
3.00
4.00
--
----
—
-
—....
--
c
0
-
0
N
c 5.00.
C
N
-
61
(L
'
6.00
7.00
8.00
•—
-
-
_—._.
_
9.00
10.00
Krrazan Testing Laboratory
Consolidation Test
Project No
Boring filo. & Depth
DateI
Soil Classification
112-07036 _
B-16 @ 2'
1 5/18/07
(SM), Silty Sand
Load in Kips per Square Foot
0.1 1 10 100
0.00
I
°% Consolidation @ 2Ksf:
F -
1.00 I 1
2.00
3.00
— — --
0
4.00
e
0
--
-
--
—
—._
0
N
c 5.00
0
e
v
2
6.00
7.00
---
6.00
-
—
9.00 ---
—;
---
—
—_...
10.00
KPazan Testing Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings In Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3
1-1/2 3/4 3/8 1 1/2 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #20D
IN I I
100.0
90.0
IN I
i I
l 80.0
i
70.0
f (Q
I I I I 60.0 !n
� S
l I
150.0 H0.
X
W
40.0 2
W
ta,
! ! I I 30.0
20.0
!I
( 10.0
I I
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
(Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name Prop. Jefferson Square
Project Number 112-07036
Soil Classification (SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
Sample Number B-1 @ 5' ,
Krazan 'Testing Laboratory
Gravel
I Sand
Slit or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name Prop. Jefferson Square
Project Number 112-07036
Soil Classification (SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
Sample Number B-1 @ 5' ,
Krazan 'Testing Laboratory
I 11
Crain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings In Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1 1/2 #4 Its 91f, #30 iirn ' Winn 'i nn
iu
1 0.1
Grain Size In Millimeters
0.01
Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
MUJULA ivaine Nrop. Jefferson Square
Project Number 112-07036
Soil Classification (SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
Sample Number B-1 Q 15'
100,0
90,0
80.0
70.0
U
60.0
rn
50.0 -
F-
r'2:
W
40.0 X
LU
LL
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.001
Krazan Testing Laboratory
I 1i
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings In Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1 1/2 #4 ata air, -,4n
1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
(Unified Solis Classification)
0rni�n4
.---........w
Project Number
Soil Classification
Sample Number
r-1 up. oerrerson 7quare
112-07036
(SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
B-1 @ 251
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
U'
60.0
50.0
b
2�
W
40.0. �
W
LL
30.0
20.0
10.0
10
0.001
Krazan Testing Laboratory
1
" 0.1 0.01
Grain Size In Millimeters
Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings In Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 _ . _ 1 1/2 #4 #a VIS 030 Nc;n
Project Number
Soil Classification
Sample Number
r-wp. jerrerson Square
112-07036
(SM -ML), Silty Sand - Sandy Silt
B-1 @ 35'
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
C7
60.0
07
50.0 Q
Fa
2"
LU
40.0 w
w
(L
30.0
20.0
10.0
).0
0.001
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings In Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1-1/2 3/4 3/8 1 1/2 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100.0
90.0
,
130.0
I ! I I I 70.0
60.0
130.0
I I LU
LU
40.0
i I I I I I 30.0
i 20.0
I I I 10.0
►{ I i
inn 0.0
Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
rrvJeL;>; Name
Project Number
Soll Classification
Sample Number
(Unified Soils Classification)
Prop. Jefferson Square
112-07036
(ML), Sandy Silt w/ Clay
B-1 @ 40'
Krazan 'Testing Laboratory
11
1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size In Millimeters
Gravel Sand
Slit or Clay
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings In Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Number; Hydrometer
3 _ — 1 _._ 1/2 #4 #8 916 #30 Agn 4mnn u�nn
...J.....
Project Number
Soil Classification
Sample Number
riup. jerrerson Square
112-07036
(SM), Silty Sand
B-1 @ 45'
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
fa
60.0
V7
50.0
h—
uA
40.0
UJI
30.0
20.0
10.0
1.0
0.001
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1. 112 #4 #8 #16 #30 iFn !uinn 'Yann
1-1/L J/4
7-T
lu
1 0.1
Grain Size In Millimeters
0.01 0.00'
Gravel Sand Sift or Clay
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
rroject lvame Prop. Jefferson Square
Project Number 112-07036
Soil Classification (ML), Clayey Silt
Sample Number 8-1 @ 501
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
C`)
60.0
g
50.0 F,
Z
bbl
40.0.
W
30.0
20.0
10.0
).0
Krazan 'Testing Laboratory
R A VALUE TEST
ASTM ® - 2844 1 CAL 301
Project Number 112-07036
Project Name Prop. Jefferson Square
Date 5/18/07
Sample Location/Curve Number RV# 1 (B-1 @ 0-21)
Soil Classification (SM -SP), Silty Sand -Sand
TEST
q
B
C
Percent Moisture @ Com action, %
Dry Density, ibm/cu.ft.
12.6
107.8
13.5
108.1
14.4
109.0
Exudation Pressure, psi
740
330
160
Expansion Pressure, Dial Reading)
0
0
0
Expansion Pressure, psf
0
0
0
0
Resistance Value R
63
59
IinU11UIIn n11I
Krazan Testing Laboratory
gin nOnll_n '
IIuNi111111ppnI1
UN
IIn 11111
�
IIIIi d
Ilnnn
nno°nnlln�nnn
nnn nnU
.,
IIII�IIUI
i�,IUlippnllIIIII�1F
IN ,
�I U
III
�
nllnnnnl�
nil Ban nlln
IE I
11 IUI
VIII:
n1In11U1111�Unn
.
IIU
111111
IinU11UIIn n11I
1111.
.t1U11I1
n11.._,!1II;HIIU
L nIIUIIUn
nIII1n
nllUnnnir
.,
inn
1111nnn11n16-in:
;
. ' ri;11/11/1V1111U11
Up P 1111111111
1
ME
IIUIIIII�U
nN11
.
nI1UI1
n111111111n111111n
.,
U U1►Up
III
UUUnn nnil
11��I ►
I�IIIIIII
1111 ii.
11n11 Un Unl
IIUF Un1111UNp
UUnnnn1111U11
UININE 1111111111
/1P IIUUIIIIp
1.
II
onn111111n;IIN
IIUU111II1UuU1n1
'
. IIIIIINEIIII/1
UIIUI IIU11
�1 i
II 1
Ilnnn1111 11 nU
n1111nnil 111111,
'
_ II III�111111p
n11n11a /1110
Krazan Testing Laboratory
R e VALUE TEST
ASTM D m 2844 / CAL 301
Project Number 112-07036
Project Name Prop. Jefferson Square
Date 5/18/07
Sample Locabon/Curve Number RV# 2 (B-12 @ 0-21)
Soil Classification (SM), Silty Sand
TEST
A
B
C
Percent`Moisture @ Compaction, %
11.3
12.2
10.3
Dry Density, lbm/cu.ft.
116.3
116.9
115.7
Exudation Pressure, psi
350
140
700
Expansion Pressure, Dial Reading)
0
0
0
Expansion Pressure, psf
0
0
0
Resistance Value R
54
43
59
R Value at 300 PSI Exudation Pressure 52
R Value by Expansion Pressure (TI =): 5 Expansion Pressure nil
Krazan Testing Laboratory
II��I/IIlIII� �llln
,a�iii,NUNNn��
I,Inn,,
n,,,,nnn��n'
„
-nnnnnnl1n1111.,
nllnnnnl11n1111
iii111IRWIN n,,,,,l�,n
1
nnl,nnnn,llln
nllllllnnllnnn
:,
„ in
. 'IInn,I,InFA11,,,
� lllnnnlll� nnn_
,
-
nnll11n1111,In11
. II,,,In,111M,,,1�
IIIInIIn nn nlln
.,
nl,Iln,iM i,,,
,,, l
ll nl, nnll�. �lnll
HE „In,
nnnnnlln�►ln
�„
n„nit IF ,n,ll
In nlinnl� n nIN:
,
.
.,
„ ,� „l
,nit,FIG
n�iI
,,,�„i„
n, ,,,,nn„ �
111111MINlll�UM[
In nnlinn
IlllmnlI In/1111
Nil
,
11, :%1,11111,1,1„�
n
nn11n111111�nnn
nnnlinnn non;
,
1 IMMUNEnn
,,,,1,n
nnIN ME„11,1;
11111 In1l:11n11
nnllnilllllnilll
.
nunn--
,
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Project Number
Project Name
Date
Sample location
Sample/Curve Number
Soil Classification
Test Method
Laboratory Compaction Curve
ASTM - D15571 ®698
112-07036
Prop. Jefferson Square
05/18/07
B-1 @ 0-2'
:1
: (SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
: 1557 A
aximum Dry Density: 111.0 lbs/cu.ft
=Ibptimurn Moisture Content: 13.0%
!!rv!!!!li�l�SILJlO7i!
RM���liis
Krazan Testing Laboratory
i
2
3
4
Weight of Moist Specimen & Mold, gm
Weight of Compaction Mold, gm
Weight of Moist Specimen, gm
3854.9
1988.8
1866.1
3881.2
1988.8
1892.4
3884.5
1988.8
1895.7
3797.7
1988.8
1808.9
Volume of mold, cu. ft.
Wet Density, Ibslcu.ft.
0.0332
123.9
0.0332
125.7
0.0332
125.9
0.0332
120.1
Weight of Wet (Moisture) Sample, gm
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
Weight of Dry (Moisture) Sample, gm
178.5
175.7
172.9
181.6
Moisture Content, %
12.0%
13.8%
15.7%
10.1%
Dry Density, lbs/cu.ft.
110.6
110.4
108.8
109.1
aximum Dry Density: 111.0 lbs/cu.ft
=Ibptimurn Moisture Content: 13.0%
!!rv!!!!li�l�SILJlO7i!
RM���liis
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Project Number
Project Name
Date
Sample location
Sample/Curve Number
Soil Classification
Test Method
Laboratory Compaction Curve
ASTM a ®I 557, ®698
112-07036
Prop. Jefferson Square
05/18/07
B-12 @ 0-2'
:2
(SM), Silty Sand
1557 A
Krazan Testing Laboratory
1
2
3
4
Weight of Moist Specimen & Mold, gm
3942.8
3954.3
3911.1
3842.1
Weight of Compaction Mold, gm
1988.8
1988.8
1988.8
1988.8
Weight of Moist Specimen, gm
1954.0
.1965.5
1922.3
1853.3
Volume of mold, cu. ft.
0.0332
0.0332
0.0332
0.0332
Wet Density, lbs/cu.ft.
129.8
130.5
127.6
123.1
Weight of Wet (Moisture) Sample, gm
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
Weight of Dry (Moisture) Sample, gm
182.4
179.4
185.7
188.9
Moisture Content, %
9.6%
11.5%
7.7%
5.9%
Dry Density, lbs/cu.ft.
1 118.3
117.1
118.5
116.2
Krazan Testing Laboratory
um Dry Density: 119.0 IbsIcu.ft
�=[Optimum Moisture Content: 8.5%
��C.
I
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Project Number.
Project Name
Date
Sample location/ Depth
Sample Number
Soil Classification
Ex anon Index Test
AST D - 4929/ UBC Std. 18-2
112-07036
Prop. Jefferson Square
5/18/07
B-1 @ 0-2'
:1
(SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
Trial #
1
2
3
Weight of Soil & Mold, ms
12 hrs
Dial Readin
51-90
560.3
91-130
High
Weight of Mold, gms
170 7
Weight of Soil, gms
389.6
Wet Density, Lbs/cu.ft.
117.5
Weight of Moisture Sample (Wet), gms
300.0
Wei ht of Moisture Sample D ms
270.1
Moisture Content, %
11.1
Dry Density, Lbs/cu.ft.
105.8
Specific Gravity of Soil
2.7
Degree of Saturation, %
50.4.
Time
Inital
30 min
1 hr
6hrs
12 hrs
Dial Readin
51-90
Medium
91-130
High
>130 I
Expansion Index measured = . 0
Expansion Index 50 - 0.0
Expansion Index 0
24 hrs
0
Expansion Potential Table
Exp. Index
Potential Exp.
0-20
Very Low
21-50
Low
51-90
Medium
91-130
High
>130 I
Very High
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Expansion Index Test
AS`s D e 48291 UBC Std. 18-2
Project Number
Project Name
Date
Sample location/ Depth
Sample Number
Soil Classification
112-07036
Prop. Jefferson Square
5/18/07
B-12 @ 0-2'
:2
(SM), Silty Sand
Trial ##
1
2
3
Weight of Soil & Mold, gms
592.3
Low
51 -90
Weight of Mold, ms-
185.0
High
>130 1
Weight of Soil, gms
407.3
Wet Density, Lbs/cu.ft.
122.8
Weight of Moisture Sample (Wet), gms
300.0
Weight of Moisture Sample (Dry), gms
275.6
Moisture Content, %
8.9
Dry Density, Lbs/cu.ft.
112.8
Specific Gravity of Soil
2.7
Degree of Saturation, %
48.5
Time Inital 30 min 1 hr 6hrs 12 hrs 24 hrs
Dial Reading I -- -- — -- -- 1 0
Expansion Index measured
Expansion Index 5n
Expansion Index =
= 0
0.0
0
. =
Expansion Potential Table
Exp. Index
Potential Exp.
0-20
Very Low
21-50
Low
51 -90
Medium
91-130
High
>130 1
Very High
' Krazan Testing Laboratory
MAY -21-2007 10:12 ENUIRO-CHEM INC 9095905905 P.02iO3
Enviro - Chem, Inc.
12$4 E, Lexington Avenue, Pomona, CA 91766 Tel (909) 560-5905 Fax (909) 590-5907
+UMORATORY REPORT
CUSTOMER: Kra.ran & Associates, Inc.
4221 Brickell St.
Ontario, CA 91761
Tel(909)974-4400 FaX(909)974-4022
PROJECT: La Quinta
MATRIX:SOIL DATE RECEMD:_05/18/07
SAMPLING DATE:—D5/14107 DATE ANALYZED:05/18-19/07
REPORT TO:MR. CLARENCE JIA1N'G DATE REPORTED:05/21/07
-----------
SAMPLE I.D.; 112 -07036/3 -ISO -21 LAB I.D_: 070518-62
--- - ----------------------------------------------------------------
PARAMETSR. SAMPLE RESULT TMIT. PQL ZT METHOD
RESISTIVITY 12500 OHMS -CM 100000* -- CALTRANS
SULFATE ND MG/KG 10 5^ EPA 9038
CHLORIDE 23.4 MG/KG 10 1' EPA 9253
PH _ 9.02 Ax/Unit -- -- EPA -9045C
CO1S
DF = DILUTION FACTOR
PQL = PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT
ACTUAL DETECTION LIMIT = DF X PQL
= ACTUAL DETECTION LIMIT RAISED DUE TO MATRIX INTERFERENCE
MG/KG = MILLIGRAM PER KILOGRAM = PPM
OHMS -CM = OHMS -CENTIMETER
RESISTIVITY = 1/CONDVCTIVITY
= HIGH LIMIT
DATA REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
CAL -DHS ELAP CERTIFICATE No.: 1555
APPENDIX B
GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL
Appendix B
Page B. 1
When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the
recommendations in the report have precedence.
SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork
associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and
equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, slipping, preparation of foundation materials for
receiving f ill, a xcavation, p recessing, p lacement a nd c ompaction o f f ill a nd b ackfill materials t o t he
lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials.
PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all
earthworks in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and
tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Soils
Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved shall be certified by the
project Civil Engineer. Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives.
If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document
and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed
satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. 'No deviation from these
specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer, or
project Architect.
No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The
Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any
aspect of the site earthwork.
The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions
during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this
requirement shall -apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the
Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all
liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability
arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers.
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to no less that 95
percent of relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method, UBC or CAL -216, as specified
in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests
shall be as determined b y the S oils E ngineer. T he r esults o f these tests and c ompliance w ith these
specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils
Engineer.
SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site
and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in
the Geotechnical Engineering Report.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Westem United States
11207036.doc
Appendix B
Page B. 2
The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering
Report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the Contractor for any loss sustained as
a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual
conditions encountered during the progress of the work.
DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any
dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation
either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor
leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all
claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work
4"W40 1Y(ilz
Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and preparation of foundation materials for
receiving fill.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and
shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface
and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Soils
Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be
removed from the site.
Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to
such an extent, which would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots
removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1'/� feet of the ground surface. Backfill or tree
root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils
Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas,
which are to receive fill materials, shall not be permitted.
SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered i;ilI, shall be prepared as outlined
above, excavated/scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture -conditioned as necessary, and
recompacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be moisture -conditioned as necessary and
recompacted to 95 percent relative compaction. All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features
shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas, which are to
receive fill materials, shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill
material.
EXCAVA'T'ION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil
Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over -excavation below the grades specified shall
be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable
technical requirements.
FELL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the
presence of the Soils Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for
construction site fills, provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for
constructing site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils
Engineer.
iCrazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
11207036.doc
Appendix B
Page B. 3
PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill
materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the
responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting
shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer.
Both cut and fill shall be surface -compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final
acceptance.
SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing,
or. during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill
operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density
of previously placed fill is as specified.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
11207036.doc
Appendix C
Page C. 1
APPENDIX C
GENERAL PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
1. DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" shall include asphalt concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate
base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base,
or subbase is to be placed.
The term "Standard Specifications": hereinafter referred to is the January 1999 Standard Specifications
of the State of California, Department of Transportation, and the "Materials Manual" is the Materials
Manual of Testing and Control Procedures, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division
of Highways. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of
the maximum laboratory density as defined in the ASTM D1557-00.
2. SCOPE OF WORK - This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools, and
equipment necessary for, and reasonably incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the
plans and as herein specified, except work specifically notes as "Work Not Included,"
3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various
subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the
plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by
the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses.
4. UNTREATED AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted
on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The
aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications
for Class 2 material, 3/4 -inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The aggregate base material shall be spread and
compacted in accordance with Section 26 of the Standard Specifications. The aggregate base material
shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be
tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.
5. AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared
subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate
subbase m aterial s hall c onform t o t he r equirements o f S ection 2 5 o f t he S tandard Specifications for
CIass II material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction
of 95 percent, and it shall be spread and c ompacted i n a ccordance w ith S ection 2 5 o f t he S tandard
Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical
Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
11207036.doc
Appendix C
Page C. 2
6. ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphalt concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of
mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted
on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The
viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be AR -8000. The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, %Z -inch or 3/4 -
inch maximum, medium grading, for the wearing course and 3/4 -inch maximum, medium grading for the
base course, and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications.
The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section 39.
The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall
conform to the applicable. chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be
placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a
combination steel -wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in Section 39-6. The surface course shall be
placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine.
7. FOG SEAL COAT - The fog seal (mixing type asphalt emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in
accordance with the requirements of Section 37.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving, The Western United States
11207036.doc