0103-257 (CONR) Geotechnical Engineering ReportProject: Country Club of the Desert, Phase I
La Quinta, California
Subject: ADDENDUM TO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Dear Ms. Grana:
This addendum is in response to plan check correction that identified that the structural
calculations prepared by ESI/FME, Inc. indicated continuous footings for the clubhouse would
be about 4.4 kips per linear foot, exceeding the maximum wall loading of 3 kips per linear foot
criteria stated in our geotechnical report. This maximum criteria was stated to allow a review:of
the foundation or site grading recommendations for higher loads. Provided the grading
recommendations as stated in Section 5.1 of our report are implemented and verified by testing,
the maximum wall loads can be revised to 4.4 kips per linear foot without further modification.;
A proper interpretation of our report would allow a soil bearing pressure to be taken as 2100 psf
for a 2 -foot or wider footing embedded 18 inches; resulting in 27 -inch wide footing. This would
be a more efficient design than the 1500 psf soil bearing pressure used in the ESI/FME, Inc.
calculation for a resulting 39 -inch wide footing.
Please contact our office if there are any questions or comments concerning this letter.
Respectfizlly submitted,
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
Shelton L. Stringer
GE 2266
Letter/sls/dac
Distribution: 1/Country Club of the Desert
1/ESI/FME, Inc.
1/BBG Architects
1/VTA File
1/BD File
/PpFESSIONq�\
S Tq��Ftic
E5 z No. 2266 s
v7 CrEXP. 6-30 04 .
\cFOTECHN��PQ�'\�
l�TEOF CN\_
b o1 Ick
tems
Earth a Systems
Southwest
79-511 B Country Club Drive
7 (l
Bennuda Dunes, CA 92201
�( l�
(760)345-1538
(800) 924-7015
FAX (760) 345,-7315
May 3, 2001
Fi16No.: 07117-10
01-05-713
Country Club of the Desert
P.O. Box 980
La Quinta, California 92253
Attention: Ms. Aimee Grana
Project: Country Club of the Desert, Phase I
La Quinta, California
Subject: ADDENDUM TO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Dear Ms. Grana:
This addendum is in response to plan check correction that identified that the structural
calculations prepared by ESI/FME, Inc. indicated continuous footings for the clubhouse would
be about 4.4 kips per linear foot, exceeding the maximum wall loading of 3 kips per linear foot
criteria stated in our geotechnical report. This maximum criteria was stated to allow a review:of
the foundation or site grading recommendations for higher loads. Provided the grading
recommendations as stated in Section 5.1 of our report are implemented and verified by testing,
the maximum wall loads can be revised to 4.4 kips per linear foot without further modification.;
A proper interpretation of our report would allow a soil bearing pressure to be taken as 2100 psf
for a 2 -foot or wider footing embedded 18 inches; resulting in 27 -inch wide footing. This would
be a more efficient design than the 1500 psf soil bearing pressure used in the ESI/FME, Inc.
calculation for a resulting 39 -inch wide footing.
Please contact our office if there are any questions or comments concerning this letter.
Respectfizlly submitted,
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
Shelton L. Stringer
GE 2266
Letter/sls/dac
Distribution: 1/Country Club of the Desert
1/ESI/FME, Inc.
1/BBG Architects
1/VTA File
1/BD File
/PpFESSIONq�\
S Tq��Ftic
E5 z No. 2266 s
v7 CrEXP. 6-30 04 .
\cFOTECHN��PQ�'\�
l�TEOF CN\_
September 22, 2000
Country Club of the Desert
P.O. Box 980
La Quinta, California 92253
Attention: Ms. Aimee Grana
nts _
79-811 B Country Club Drive
Bermudz Dunes, CA 92201
(760) 345-1588
(800)924-7015
FAX (760)345-7315
4
Project: Country Club of the Desert, Phase I
La Quinta, California
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Grana:
Flle No.: 07117-10
00-09-772
We take pleasure to present this Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the proposed Phase I of
the Country Club of the Desert to be located between 52nd and 54th :Avenues, and Jefferson and
1\7adison Streets in the Cita- of La Quinta, California.
Phis report presents our findings and recommendations for site grading and foundation design,
incorporating the tentative information supplied to our office. This report should stand as a whole, and
no part of the report should be excerpted or used to the exclusion of any other part.
This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our agreement, dated August 22, 2000.
Other services that may be required, such as plan review and grading observation are additional services
and will be billed according to the Fee Schedule in effect at the time _services are provided. Unless
requested in writing, the client is responsible to distribute this report to the appropriate governing agency
or other members of the desim team.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact our office if there are
any questions or comments conceming this report or its recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS FpFESSi 1
Southwest ��� ON L. STy��F
i
/� ✓
No. 2266
d - Exp. 6-30-04 T
Shelton L. Stringer
GE 2266 seryl OTECHN��P�,��
FOF CAOF
SER/sls/dac
Distribution: 6/Country Club of the Desert
1./'VTA File
2/BD File .
�� 0
Section1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1
AL
1.1 Project Description .................................
1.2 Site Description........................................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose and Scope of �'orl:.....................................................................................,
Section 2
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
2.1
.....................................................................4
Field Exploration
2.2
.....................................................................................................4
Laboratory Testing.............................................................................._..........---.......5
Section3
DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................6
3.1
Soil Conditions...:....................................................................................................6
3.2
Groundwater.....................................................................................
6
3.3
Geologic Setting.......................................................
3.4
Geologic Hazards._.......
3.4.1 Seismic Hazards............................................................................................7
3.4.2 S-condary Hazards .......................... ..................-----.........8
.............................
3.4.3 Site Acceleration and UBC Seismic Coy.fficients........................................9
Section4
CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................11
Section :5
RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................:........
.........12
SITE
DEVELOPMENT AND GRADLNG......................................................................12
5.1
Site Development - Gradin;'.............................................................
...................... 12
5.2
Excavations and Utility Trenches ..........................................................................13
5.3
Slope Stability of Graded Slopes ...........................................................................14
STRUCTURES................................................................................................................14
5.4
Foundations...............................................................:............................................14
5.5
Slabs -on -Grade
15
5.6
Retaining Walls......................................................................................................16
5.8
Seismic Design Criteria.........................................................................................17
5.9
Pavements..............................................................................................................18
Section 6
LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES..........................................20
6.1
Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations.............................................................20
6.2
Additional Services................................................................................................21
REFERENCES.............................................................................................:.................22
APPENDIX A.
Site Location Map
Boring Location Map
Table 1 Fault Parameters
1997 Uniform Building Code Seismic Parameters
2000 International Building Code Seismic Parameters
Logs of Borings
APPENDIX
B
Laboratory Test Results
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
This Geotechnical l--rtgineering Repori has been prepared for the proposed Phase I of the Country
Club of the Desert to be located between 52nd and 54th Avenues, and Jefferson and Madison
Streets in the City of La Quinta, California.
The project will. ultimately consist of three, 18 -hole golf courses with about 766 residential units
built on prepared pads. A clubhouse with parking facilities, pool, spa and driving range is
proposed to be constructed at the northwestern portion. of the project site. A maintenance facility
will be constructed at the southwest corner of 52nd Avenue to 54th Avenue with three proposed
auto or golf cart under crossings.
Based on preliminary mass grading plans prepared by D_ve Designs of Denver, Colorado, dated
\-lay 12, 2000, e:,:tensive mass-gTading is proposed to constrict the golf courses and "super" pads
for the residential:. units. Fills as much as 20 feet are proposed at the ends ofcul-de-sacs. Cuts as
de?p as 20 to 26 '-,ei are proposed to construct several snnail lakes for the olf courses. Slopes as
high as 30 to 3 feet with 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slopes are proposed. Overall, in excess of
4,000,000 cubic yards of earthwork is anticipated.
The proposed clubhouse and residences are assumed to be one-story Su-uctureS. We anticipate
that the proposed structures will be of wood -frame construction Jand will be supported by
conventional shallow continuous or pad footings. Site development will include mass grading,
"super" building pad preparation, underground utility installation, street and parking lot
construction, and golf course development.
We used maximum column loads of 50 kips and a maximum wall loading of 3 kips per linear
foot as a basis for the foundation recommendations for residences and the clubhouse. All loading
is assumed to be dead plus actual live load. If actual structural loading is to exceed these
assumed values, we might need to reevaluate the given recommendations.
1.2 Site Description
The entire project site consists of approximately 900 acres of land consisting of most of Section
9, and the southern half and the Nvestem 80 -acres of the northern half Section 10, Township 6
South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino baseline and meridian (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The
site is irregular in shape, and generally bounded by Jefferson Street and the Coachella (All
American) Canal to the west, Avenue 52 to the north, agricultural properties and Monroe Street
to the east and Avenue 54 to the south.
The site is a mixture of undeveloped desert land,- agricultural land, and ranches. The topography
of the site was moderately undulating to flat. Artificial ponds are located in several portions of
the site. No other significant surface drainage features were observed. The elevation of the site
ranges from approximately 22 feet above Mean Sea Level (NISL) to 29 feet below NISL.
The project site consists primarily of formerly agricultural and undeveloped land associated vtth .
EARTH SYSTEMS COTISULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 2 -
00-09-772
former ranches on the property. The Fowler Packing Ranch and the. vineyards on the Majestic
Property are the only two areas currently in use for agriculture as of the date of this report.
r,; -A, -t, °
Debris was observed in several portions of the project site. The debris appeared to consist
primarily of green waste. Most of the debris appear`d to be quite old; except for the mate -13I in
the dry pond in the northeastern portion of the site, or the material actively being dumped b} Arid
Zone Farms Nursery in the western portion of the site.
The vicinity around the site consists primarily of a mix of undeveloped, residential, and
agricultural properties, with the All American Coachella Canal bordering the site to the
northwest. Residences were associated with some of the agricultural land.
There are underground and overhead utilities near and within the development area. These utility
lines include but are not limited to domestic water, electric, sewer, and irrigation lines. Evidence
of an underground Irrigation distribution system observed in several portions of the site,
including bo'n onsite and regional distribution pipelines.
1.3 Purpose and Scope of '�,V'or k
The purpose L.•: our services was to evaluate the site soil conditions an,, to provide professional
opinions and recommendations regarding the proposed development o f the site. The scope of
work included the following:
A general reconnaissance of the site.
Shallow subsurface exploration by drilling 24 explorator borings and four cone
penetrometer (CPT) soundings to depths ranging from 31.E to 50 feet.
➢ Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings.
➢ Review of selected published technical literature pertaining to the site and previous
geotechnical reports prepared for prior conceptual developments for the properties
conducted by Buena Engineers in 1989 and 1990.
Engineering analysis and evaluation of the acquired data from the exploration and testing
programs.
A summary of our findings and recommendations in this «fritter report.
This report contains the following:
Discussions on subsurface soil and groundwater conditions.
Discussions on regional and local geologic conditions.
➢ Discussions on geologic and seismic hazards.
Graphic and tabulated results of laboratory tests �.tnd field studies.
> Recommendations regarding:
• Site development and grading criteria,
• Excavation conditions and buried utility installations,
• Structure foundation type and design,
• Allowable foundation bearing capacity and expected total and differential settlements,
• Concrete slabs -on -grade,
• Lateral earth pressures and coefficients,
Mitigation of the potential corrosivity of site soils to concrete and steel reinforcement,
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22;:2000 ;:-
• Seismic design parameters,
• Pavement structural sections.
m 00=09 772
r„.
Not Contained In This Report: Although available through Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest, the current scope of our services does not include.-
;>
nclude:> A. corrosive study to determine cathodic protection of concrete or buried pipes.
An environmental assessment.
Investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the
soil, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property.
Separate Phase I and Phase H Environment Site Assessment reports have been prepared
by Earth Systems Consultants Southwest in 1998, 1999, and 2000.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUT}- IA EST
September 22, 2000 File`No 10 a_
00=09=772
Section 2
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
2.1 Field Exploration
Soil Borin<7S: Twenty-four exploratory borin-s ,vere drilled to depths of about 31.5 feet below
the existing ground surface to observe the soil profile and. to obtain samples for laboratory
testing. The borings were drilled on August 18 and 23, using 8 -inch outside diameter hollow -
stem augers, and powered by a Mobile B61 truck -mounted drillingrig. The boring locations are
shown on the boring location map, Figure 2, in Appendix A. The locations shown are
approximate, established by pacing and sighting from existing topographic features.
Samples were obtained within the test borings using a Standard Penetration (SPT) sampler
(ASTM D 1586) and a Modified California (MC) ring sampler (ASTM D 3550 with shoe similar
to ASTM D 1586). The SPT sampler has a 2 -inch outside diameter and a 1.38 -inch inside
diameter. The MC sampler has a 3 -inch outside. diameter and inside diameter. The
samples ,.ere obtained b,,- driving the sampler with a 140 -pound downhole hammer dropping
30 inches in general accordance with ASTNI D 1586. Recovered soil samples were sealed in
containers and returned to the laboratory. F3u11: samples were �iiso obtained from auger cuttings,
representing a mixture of soils encountered at ih-- depths noted.
The final logs of the borings represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and the
results of laboratory testing performed on the samples obtained during thee subsurface
investigation. The final logs are included in Appendix A of this report. The stratification lines
represent the approximate boundaries between soil types although the transitions, however, may
be gradational.
CPT Soundings: Subsurface exploration was supplemented on August 28, 2000, using Fugro,
Inc. of Santa Fe Springs, California to advance four electric cone penetrometer (CPT) soundings
to an approximate depth of 50 feet. The soundings were made at the approximate locations
shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Figure 2, in Appendix A.
CPT soundings provide a nearly continuous profile of the soil strati-raphy with readings every 5
cm (2 inch) in depth. Direct sampling for visual and physical confirmation of soil properties is
generally recommended with CPT exploration in large geographical. regions. The author of this
report has generally confirmed accuracy of CPT interpretations from extensive work at numerous
Imperial. and Coachella Valley sites.
The CPT exploration was conducted by hydraulically advancin an instrument 10 cm2 conical
probe into the ground at a ground rate of 2 cm per second using a -ton truck as a reaction mass.
An electronic data acquisition system recorded a nearly continuous log of the resistance of the
soil against.the cone tip (Qc) and soil friction against the cone sleeve (Fs) as the probe was
advanced. Empirical relationships (Robertson and Campanella 1989) were applied to the data to
give a nearly continuous profile of the soil stratigraphy. Interpretation of CPT data provides
correlations for SPT blow count, phi (a) anvlc (soil friction angle.), ultimate shear strength (Su)
of clays, and soil type.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHVITST
' September 2), 2000. 5 FileQNa
091 77,
Interpretive logs of the CPT soundings are presented in Appendix A of this report. The
stratification lines shown on the subsurface logs represent the approximate boundaries between
the various strath. However, the transition from one stratum to anothei may be gradational.
2.2 Laborator-N- Testinb
Samples were reviewed along with field logs to select those that would be analyzed further.
Those selected for laboratory testing include soils that would be exposed and used during
grading, and those deemed to be within the influence of the proposed structure. Test results are
presented in graphic and tabular form in Appendix B of this report. The tests were conducted in
general accordance with the procedures of the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) or other standardized methods as referenced below. Our testing program consisted of
the following:
> In-situ Moisture Content and Unit Dry Weight for the ring samples (ASTM D 2937).
Maximum density tests were perf!_.�,icd to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of
typical soils encountered (ASTM ,-) 1 557-91).
r Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D =2 2) to classify and e\-aluate soil composition. The
gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by hydrometer and sieve analysis
procedures_
Consolidation (Collapse Potential) (ASTM D ?435 and D5333) to evaluate the
compressibility and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential of the soil.
Liquid and Plastic Limits tests to evaluate the plasticity and expansive nature of clayey
soils.
i Chemical Analyses (Soluble Sulfates & Chlorides, pH, and Electrical Resistivity) to
evaluate the potential adverse effects of the soil on concrete and steel.
EARTH SYSTEMS COR'SUL7 _a\TS SOUTHWEST
i
September 1, 2000
Section 3
DISCUSSION
41.
3.1 Soil Conditions
77
6 File 1\ta 1 Q.
00=09 772
0
U
i h3 field exploration indicates that sits: soils consist pri;uarily of an upper layer of silty sand t(j
sandy silt soils (Unified Soil Classification Symbols of SM and ML). These soils are loose to
medium dense. At depths greater than 5 feet, layers of clayey silt soils and some layers of sand
were encountered.
The boring and CPT logs provided in Appendix A include more detailed descriptions of the soils
encountered. The upper soils are visually classified to be in the very low expansion category 1.11
accordance with Table 18A -I -B of the Uniform Building Code. Clayey silt soils are expected to
be. in the low expansion category.
ht arid climatic regions, granular soils may have a potential to collapse upon wetting. Collapse
(hydroconsotidation ) may occur when the soluble cements (carbonates) in the soil matri;,
dissolve, causing thl soil to densify from its loose configuration from deposition. Consolidation
tests indicate 1 to collapse upon inundation and is considered a slight to moderate site nislk.
The hvdroconsolida?ion potential is c.)nun,only mitigated b%, recompaction of a zone beneath
building pads.
The site lies within a recognized blo,.\ sand hazard area. Fine particulate matter (PM10) can
create an air quality hazard if dust is blowing. Watering the surface, planting grass or
landscaping, or hardscape normally mitigates this hazard.
3.2 Groundwater
Free groundwater was not encountered in the borings or CPT soundings during exploration. The
depth to groundwater in the area is believed to be about 69 feet based on 1999 water well data
obtained for the well near the former Colchest Ranch house from the Coachella Valley Water
District. Groundwater levels may fluctuate with, irrigation, drainage, regional pumping from
wells, and site grading. The development of perched groundwater is possible over clayey soil
layers with heavy irrigation.
3.3 Geologic Setting
Regional Geology: The site lies within the Coachella \alley, a part of the Colorado Desert
geomorphic province. A significant feature within the Colorado Desert geomoii hic province is
the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is a large northwest -trending structural depression that
extends from San Gorgonio Pass, approximately 180 miles to the Gulf of California. Much of
this depression in the area of the Salton Sea is below sea level.
The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton' Trough. The Coachella Valley
contains a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits that are Miocene to recent in age. Mountains
surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the northeast,
foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa
Mountains on the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and
EARTH STSTE.MS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
- S
Ft le`No ��-710
i 00- 9772
Mesozoic granitic rocks. The San Andreas Fault zone within the Coachella Valley consists of
the Garnet Hill Fault, the Banning Fault, and the Mission Creek Fault that traverse along the
northeast margin..of the valley.
Local Geology: The project site is located within the lower portion of the Coachella Valley. The
upper sediments v;lthin the lower valley consist of fine to coarse-grained sands with interbedded
clays and silts, of aeolian (wind-blown), and alluvial (water -laid) origin.
3.4 Geologic Hazards
Geologic hazards that may affect the region include seismic hazards (surface fault rupture.,
ground shaking, soil liquefaction, and other secondary earthquake -related hazards), slope
instability, flooding, ground subsidence, and erosion. A discussion follows on the specific
hazards to this site.
3.4.1 Seismic Hazards
Seismic Sources: Our research of re.,ional faulting indicates that several active faults or seismic
zones he within 6? miles (100 kilometers) of the project site as siIo\�,n on Table 1 in
_-appendix A. Tic primary seismic !:Lzard to the site i; strong groundshaking from earthquakes
along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. The \4aNimum Magnitude Earthquake (M,-,.,,,
listed is from published geologic information available for each fault (CDN, 4G, 1996). The MML1,
corresponds to the maximum earthquake believed to be tectonically possible.
Surface Fault Rupture: The project site does not lie within a currently delineated State of
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1994). Well -delineated fault lines cross
through this region as shown on California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) maps
(Jennings, 1994). Therefore, active fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site. While
fault rupture would most likely occur along previously established fault traces, future fault
rupture could occur at other locations.
Historic Seismicity: Six historic seismic events (5.9 M or greater) have signiftcantly,affected the
Coachella Valley this century. They are as follows:
• Desert Hot Springs Earthquake - On December 4, 1948, a magnitude 6.5 \qr (6.0M\,) earthquake
occurred east of Desert Hot Springs. This event was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area.
• Palm Springs Earthquake - A magnitude 5.9 ?N'tL (6.2M",) earthquake occurred on July 8, 1986 in the
Painted Hills causing minor surface creep of the Banning seggtnent of the San Andreas Fault. This
event was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area and caused structural damage, as well as injuries.
• Joshua Tree Earthquake - On April _12. 1992, a magnitude 6.1 Mc (6.1M1%) earthquake occurred in
the mountains 9 miles east of Desert Hot Springs. Structural damage and minor injuries occurred in
the Palm Springs area as a result of this earthquake.
• . Landers & Big Bear Earthquakes - Early on June 28, 1992, a magnitude. 7.5 Ms (7.3Mw) earthquake
occurred near Landers, the largest seismic event in Southern Cahifornia for 40 years. Surface rupture
occurred just south of the town of Yucca Valley and extended some 43 miles toward Barstow. About
three hours later, a magnitude 6.6 Ms (6.4Mti,) earthquake occurred near Big Bear Lake. No
significant structural damage from these earthquakes was reported in the Palm Springs area.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22; 2000
• Hector Mine Earthquake - On October 16, 1999. a magnitude 7.1MA, earthquake occurred.on the
Lavic Lake and Bullion Mountain Faults north of 29 Palms. This event while widely felt, no
signifigInt structural damage has been reported in�the Coachella Valley.
Seismic Risk: While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, various agencies have
conducted statistical risk analyses. In 1996, the California Division of Mines and Geology
(CDMG) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed the latest generation of
probabilistic seismic hazard maps for use in the 1997 UBC. We have used these maps in our
evaluation of the seismic risk at the site. The Working Group of California Earthquake
Probabilities (WGCEP, 1995) estimated a 22% conditional probability that a magnitude 7 or
greater earthquake may occur between 1994 to 2024 along the Coachella segment of the San
Andreas Fault.
The primary seismic risk at the site is a potential earthquake along the San Andreas Fault.
Geologists believe that the San Andreas Fault has characteristic earthquakes that result from
rupture of each fault segment. The estimated characteristic earthquake is magnitude 7.4 for the
Southern Segment of the fault. This segment has the longest elapsed time since rupture than any
other portion of the San Andreas Fault. The last rupture occurred about 1690 AD, based on
dating by the USGS near Indio (V'GCEP, 1995). This segment has also ruptured on about'1020,
1300, and 1450 AD, with an average recurrence interval of about 220 years. The San Andreas
Fault may rupture in multiple segments producing a higher magnitude earthquake. Recent
paleoseismic studies suggest that the San Bernardino Mountain Segment to the north and the
Coachella Segment may have both ruptured together in 1450 and 1690 AD (WGCEP, 1995).
3.4.2 Secondary Hazards
Secondary seismic hazards related to ground shaking include soil liquefaction, ground
deformation, areal subsidence, tsunamis, and seiches. The site is far inland so the hazard from
tsunamis is non-existent. At the present time, no water storage reservoirs are located in the
immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, hazards from seiches are considered negligible at this
time.
Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sudden shock (usually
earthquake shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. In general, for the effects of
liquefaction to be manifested at the surface, groundwater levels must be «within 50 feet of the
ground surface and the soils within the saturated zone must also be susceptible to liquefaction.
The potential for liquefaction to occur at this site is considered low because the depth of
groundwater beneath the site exceeds 50 feet. No free groundwater was encountered in our
exploratory borings or CPT Soundings. Only the extreme southeastern part of the Phase 1 area
lies within the Riverside County liquefaction study zone.
Ground Deformation and Subsidence: Non -tectonic ground deformation consists of cracking of
the ground with little to no displacement. This type of deformation is generally associated with
differential shaking of two or more geologic units with differing engineering characteristics:
Ground deformation may also be caused by liquefaction. As the site. is relatively flat with
consistent geologic material and has a low potential for liquefaction, the potential for ground
deformation is also considered to be low.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 9 - FileN O 71 1U
- 72
The potential for seismically induced ground subsidence is considered to be moderate at the site.
Dry sands tend to settle and densify when subjected to strong earthquake shaking. The amount of
subsidence is dependent on relative densittof the soil, groundshaking (cyclic shear strain), and
earthquake duration (number of strain cycles). Uncompacted fill areas may be susceptible to
seismically induced settlement.
Slope Instability: The site is currently relatively flat. Mass -grading will reshape the topography
so that slopes are as high as 20 to 30 feet with up to 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) inclination will
exist. Therefore, potential hazards .from slope instability, landslides, or debris flows are
considered negligible to low.
Flooding: The project site does not lie within a designated FEMA 100 -year flood plane. The
project site may be in an area where sheet flooding and erosion (especially on slopes) could
occur. Significant grade changes are proposed for the site. Appropriate project design,
construction, and maintenance can minimize the site sheet flooding potential.
3.4.3 Site Acceleration and U' -BC Seismic Coefficients
Site Acceleration: The potentia; intensity of ground motion may h estimated the t,crizontat
peak ground acceleration (PG.A), measured in "g" forces. hicluded i;, Table 1 are detern;inistic
estimates of site acceleration from possible earthquakes at nearby faults.. Ground motions are
dependent primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the setsmogenic (rupture) zone.
Accelerations also are dependent upon attenuation by rock and soil deposits, direction of rupture,
and type of fault. For these reasons, ground motions may vary considerably in the same general
area. This variability can be expressed statistically by a standard deviation about a mean
relationship.
The PGA is an inconsistent scaling factor to compare to the UBC Z factor and is generally a poor
indicator of potential structural damage during an earthquake. Important factors influencing the
structural performance are the duration and frequency of strong ground motion, local subsurface
conditions, soil -structure interaction, and structural details. Because of these factors, an effective
peak acceleration (EPA) is used in structural design.
The followin- table provides the probabilistic estimate of the PGA and EPA taken from the
1996 CDMG;LISGS seismic hazard maps.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000 - 10 -; FileNo -Mir;
1Q
_
Estimate of PGkA and EPA from 1996 CDMG/USGS
Probahilistie Seismic Hazard Mans
Risk
Equivalent Return
Period (years)
PGA (g) '
Approximate
EI'A (g) `'
10%, exceedance in 50 years
475
0.49
0.45
Notes:
1. Based on a soft rock site, SBic and soil amplification factor of 1.0 for Soil Profile Type Sp.
2. Spectral acceleration (SA) at period of 0.3 seconds divided by 2.5 for 5% damping, as defined by
the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 1996).
1997 UBC Seismic Coefficients: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design are based
on a Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) that has an earthquake ground motion with a
10% probability of occurrence in 50 years. The PGA and EPA estimates given above are
provided for information on the seismic risk Inherent in the UBC design. The folio« ing lists the
seismic and site coefficients ,riven in Chapter 16 of the 1997 Uninrm Building Code (UBC).
1997 UBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter- 16 Seismic Provisions
Seismic. Zoning-: The Seismic Safety Element of the 1984 Riverside County General Plan
establishes groundshaking hazard zones. The majority of the project area is mapped in Ground
Shaking Zone IlB. Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance from causative faults and
underlying soil types. The site does not lie within the Liquefaction Hazard area established by
this Seismic Safety Element. These groundshaking hazard zones are used in deciding suitability
of land use.
2000 IBC Seismic. Coefficients: For comparative purposes, the ne%vly released 2000
International Building Code (IBC) seismic and site coefficients are given in Appendix A. As of
the issuance of this report, we are unaware when governing jurisdictions may adopt or modify the
IBC provisions.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
Reference
Seismic Zone:
4
Figure 16-2
Seismic Zone Factor, Z:
0.4
Table 16-I
Soil Profile Type-.
So
Table 16-J
Seismic Source Type:
A
Table 16-U
Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source:
9.8 km = 6.1 miles
(San Andreas Fault)
Near Source Factor,, Na:
1.01
Table 16-S
Near Source Factor, Nv:
1.22
Table 16-T
Seismic Coefficient, Ca:
0.44 = 0.44Na
Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, Cv:
0.78 = 0.64Nv
Table 16-R
Seismic. Zoning-: The Seismic Safety Element of the 1984 Riverside County General Plan
establishes groundshaking hazard zones. The majority of the project area is mapped in Ground
Shaking Zone IlB. Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance from causative faults and
underlying soil types. The site does not lie within the Liquefaction Hazard area established by
this Seismic Safety Element. These groundshaking hazard zones are used in deciding suitability
of land use.
2000 IBC Seismic. Coefficients: For comparative purposes, the ne%vly released 2000
International Building Code (IBC) seismic and site coefficients are given in Appendix A. As of
the issuance of this report, we are unaware when governing jurisdictions may adopt or modify the
IBC provisions.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 20001
Section 4
CONCLUSIONS
The following is a summar}, of our conclusions and professional opinions based on the data
obtained from a review of selected technical literature and the site evaluation.
The primary geologic hazard relative to site development is severe ground shaking from
earthquakes originating on nearby faults. In our opinion, a major seismic event
originating on the local segment of the San Andreas Fault zone would be the most likely
cause of significant earthquake activity at the site within the estimated design life of the
proposed development.
The project site is in seismic Zone 4 as defined in the Uniform Building Code. A
qualified professional who is aware of the site seismic setting should design any
permanent structure constructed on the site.
Ground subsidence from seismic events or hydroconsolidaiion is a potential hazard in the
Coachella Valley area. Adherence to the following grading and structural
rcoommendations should reduce potential settlement l) oblcrns from seismic forces, heavy
rainfall or irrigation; flooding, and the weight of the int--nded structures.
The soils are susceptible to wind and water erosion. Preventative measures to minimize
seasonal flooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans. Dust
control should also be implemented during construction.
Other geologic hazards including ground rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced
flooding, and landslides are considered low or negligible on this site.
The upper soils were found to be relatively loose to medium dense silty sand to sandy silt
overlying layers of clayey soils. In our opinion, the soils within building and structural
areas will require over excavation and recompaction to improve bearing capacity and
reduce settlement from static loading. Soils should he readily cut by normal grading
equipment.
Earth Systems Consultants Southwest (ESCSR%) should provide geotechnical engineering
services during project design, site development excavation, grading, and foundation
construction phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts,
specifications, and recommendations, and to altodesign changes in the event that
subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
Plans and specifications should be provided to ESCSW prior to ;grading. Plans should
include the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation details. Preferably, structural
loads should be shown on the foundation plans.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTH\VEST
September, 22,2000 12 Frle
W72
Q
Section 5
ILECOMNIENDATI®NS
X
SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING
5.1 Site Development - Grading
A representative of ESCSW should observe site grading and the bottom of excavations prior to
placing fill. Local variations in soil conditions may warrant increasing the depth of recompaction
and over -excavation.
Clearing and Grubbing: Prior to site grading existing vegetation, trees, large roots, .old structure,
foundations, uncompacted fill, construction debris, trash, and abandoned underground utilities
should be removed from the proposed building, structural, and pavement areas. The surface
should be stripped of organic growth and removed from the construction area. Areas disturbed
during demolition and clearing should be properly backfilled and compacted as described below.
No: -structural (golf course) .areas ma_v he used as dis)osal areas for resulting debris as
designated clearly on grading plans and approved by project mvner, engineers and governing
jur-1,dictions.
Building Pad Preparation: Because of th non-uniform and under -compacted nature of the site
soils; we recommend recompaction of soils in the building and structural areas. The existing
surface. soils within the building pad and structural areas should be over -excavated to 30 inches
bel ,\v existing grade or a minimum of 24 inches below the footing level (whichever is lower).
The over -excavation should extend for 5 feet beyond the outer- edge of exterior footings. The
bottom of the sub -excavation should be scarified; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at
least 90 % relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) for an additional depth of 12 inches. Moisture
penetration to near optimum moisture should extend at least 5 feet below existing grade and be
verified by testing. These recommendations are intended to provide a minimum of 48 and 36
inches of moisture conditioned and compacted soil beneath the floor slabs and footings,
respectively.
Auxiliary Structure Sub -grade Preparation: Auxiliary structures such as garden or retaining walls
should have the subgrade prepared similar to the building pad preparation recommendation given
above. Except the lateral extent of the overexcavation need only to extend 2 feet beyond the face
of tile. footing.
Settlement Monitors: hi areas where fill depths are greater- than 10 feet above existing grade, we.
recommend the placement of settlement monitors (one for each general area) to monitor the post -
grading settlement of the fill and underlying soils. Compression of the deep seated clayey soil
may occur after grading, but is expected to stabilize relatively soon thereafter. Monitoring allows
the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the movement (if any) and its potential impact on
construction.
Subvrade Pr paration: In areas to receive non-structural fill. pavements, or hardscape, the
ground surface should be scarified; moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction (ASTM D .1557) for a depth of 24 inches below subgrade. Compaction should be
verified by testing..
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANT'S SOUTHWIST
Clayey silt soils where encountered at depths generally below 8 -foot depth are lsss desirable soils
and should not be placed within the upper 3 feet of .finished subgrades for building pads or
streets.
Imported fill soils (if required) should be non -expansive, granular soils meeting the
USCS classifications of SM, SP -SM, or SW -SM with a maximum rock size of 3 inches and
5 to 35% passing the No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the import fill
soils before -hauling to the site. However, because of the potential variations within the borrow
source, import soil will not prequalified by ESCSW. The imported fill should be placed in lifts
no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction
(_;STM D 1557) near optimum moisture content.
Shrinkage: The shrinkage factor for earth%vork is expected to variably range from 5 to 20 percent
for the majority w file excavated or scarified soils, but the clayey soils and upper 4 feet of
sonic areas it may range fromD _5 This estimate is based on compactive effort to achie� e
an average relative compaction of about 920ib and may vary with contractor methods. Subsidence
is estimated to range from 0.1 to 0.3 feet. Losses from site clearing and removal of existing site
improvements may affect earthwork quantity calculations and should be considered.
Site Drainage: Positive drainage should be maintained away from the structures (5% for 5 feet
minimum) to prevent ponding and subsequent saturation of the foundation soils. Gutters and
downspouts should be considered as a means to convey water away from foundations if adequate
drainage is not provided. Drainage should be maintained for paved areas. Water should not
pond on or near paved areas.
5.2 Excavations and Utility Trenches
Excavations should .be made in accordance with CaIOSHA requirements. Our site exploration
and knowledge of the general area indicates there is a potential for caving of site excavations
(utilities, footings, etc.). Excavations within sandy soil should be kept moist, but not saturated,
to reduce the potential of caving or sloughing. Where deep excavations over 4 feet .deep are
platuled, lateral bracing or appropriate cut slopes of 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) should be
provided. No surcharge loads from stockpiled soils or construction materials should be allowed
within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope, equal to the depth of
the excavation.
Utility Trenches: Backfill of utilities within road or public right-of-ways should be placed in
conformance with the requirements of the governing agency (water district, public works
department, etc_) Utility trench backfill within private property should be placed in conformance
with the provisions of this report. In general, service lines extending .inside of property may be
backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Backfill
operations should be observed and tested to monitor compliance with these. recommendations:
EARTH .'SYSTEMS CONSULTAkNTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, 2000
5.3 Slope Stability of Graded Slopes
Unprotected;npermanegt graded slopes should not be steeper tharP3:1 (horizontal: Vertical) to
reduce wind and rain erosion. Protected slopes with ground cover may be as steep as 2:1.
However, maintenance with motorized equipment may not be possible at this inclination. Fill
slopes should be overfilled and trimmed back to competent material. Where slopes heights
exceed 20 feet, with 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slopes, post -construction engineering calculations
should be performed to evaluate the stability using shear strength values obtained from soils
composing the slopes. Erosion control measures should be considered for slopes steeper than 3:1
until the final ground cover (i.e., grass turf) is established.
STRUCTURES
In our professional opinion, the structure foundation can be supported on shallow foundations
bearing on a zone of properly prepared and compacted soils placed as recommended in
Section 5.1. The recommendations that follow are based on very Iow expansion category soils
with the upper 3 feet of subgrade.
5.4 Foundations
Footing design, of widths, depths, and reinforcing are the responsibility of the Structural
Engineer, considering the structural loading and the geotechnical parameters given in this report.
A minimum footing depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade should be maintained. A
representative of ESCSW should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of
reinforcing steel or concrete. Any loose soil or construction debris should be removed from
footing excavations prior to placement of concrete.
Conventional Spread Foundations: Allowable soil bearing pressures are given below for
foundations bearing on recompacted soils as described in Section 5.1. Allowable bearing
pressures are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be neglected).
Continuous wall foundations, 12 -inch minimum width and 12 inches below grade:
1500 psf for dead plus design live loads
Allowable increases of 300 psf per each foot of additional footing width and 300 psf for each
additional 0.5 foot of footing depth may be used up to a maximum value of 3000 psf.
Isolated pad foundations, 2 x 2 foot minimum in plan and 18 inches below grade:
2000 psf for dead plus design live loads
Allowable increases of 200 psf per each foot of additional footing width and 400 psf for each
additional 0.5 foot of footing depth may be used up to a maximum value of 3000 psf.
A one-third (1/3) increase in the bearing pressure may be used when calculating resistance to
wind or seismic loads. The allowable bearing values indicated are based on the anticipated
maximum loads stated in Section 1.1 of this report. If the anticipated loads exceed these values,
the geotechnical engineer must reevaluate the allowable bearing values and the grading
requirements.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
Expected Settlement: Estimated total static settlement, based on footings founded on firm soils
as recommended, should be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement between exterior and
interior bearing members should be less than 1/2 -inch.
Frictional and Lateral Coefficients: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on the base of
foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation walls. An allowable
coefficient of friction of 0.35 of dead load may be used. An allowable passive equivalent fluid
pressure of 250 pcf may also be used. These values include a factor of safety of 1.5. Passive
resistance and frictional resistance may be used in combination if the friction coefficient is
reduced to 0.23 of dead load forces. A one-third (1/3) increase in the passive pressure may be
used when calculating resistance to wind or seismic loads. Lateral passive resistance is based on
the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations is properly compacted.
5.5 Slabs -on -Grade
Subgrade: Concrete slabs -on -grade and flatworl: should be supported by compacted soil placed
in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report.
Vapor Barrier: In areas of moisture sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor barrier should
be installed to reduce moisture transmission from the subgrade soil to the slab. For these areas
an impermeable membrane (10 -mil moisture barrier) should underlie the floor slabs. The
membrane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to help protect it during construction and to
aide in concrete curing. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete.
Low -slump concrete should be used to help reduce the potential for concrete shrinkage. The
effectiveness of the moisture barrier is dependent upon its quality, method of overlapping, its
protection during construction, and the successful sealing of the barrier around utility lines.
Slab thickness and reinforcement: Slab thickness and reinforcement of slab -on -grade are
contingent on the recommendations of the structural engineer or architect and the expansion
index of the supporting soil. Based upon our findings, a modulus of subgrade reaction of
approximately 200 pounds per cubic inch can be used in concrete slab design for the expected
very low expansion subgrade.
Concrete slabs and flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. We suggest that the
concrete slabs; be reinforced, as specified by the project structural engineer, to resist cracking.
Concrete floor slabs may either be monolithically placed with the foundations or doweled after
footing placement. The thickness and reinforcing given are not intended to supersede any
structural requirements provided by the structural engineer. The project architect or geotechnical
engineer should observe all reinforcing steel in slabs during placement -of concrete to check for
proper location within the slab.
Control Joints: Control joints should be provided in all concrete slabs -on -grade at a maximum
spacing of 36 times the slab thickness (12 feet maximum on -center, each way) as recommended
by American Concrete Institute (AGI) guidelines All �ornts should form ;approximately squaw
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
Curing and Quality Control: The contractor should. take precautions to reduce the potential of
Curling of slabs in this and desert region using proper batching, placement, and curing methods.
Curing is highly effected by temperature, wind, and humidity. Quality control procedures may be
used including trial batch mix designs, batch plant inspection, and on-site special inspection and
testing. Typically, for this type of construction and using 2500 -psi concrete, many of these
quality control procedures are not required.
5.6 Retaining Walls
The following table presents lateral earth pressures for use in retaining wail design. The values
are given as equivalent fluid pressures without surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressure.
Lateral Pressures and Sliding Resistance '
Granular Backfill
Passive Pressure
375 pcf - level a --round
Active Pressure (cantilever walls)
35 pcf -level ground
Able to rotate 0.1% of structure height
At -Rest Pressure (restrained walls)
55 pcf - level around
Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure Z
Acting at mid height of structure,
25H psf
Where H is height of backfill in feet
Base Lateral Sliding Resistance
Dead load x Coefficient of Friction:
0.50
Notes:
1. These values are ultimate values. A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used in stability analysis except
for dynamic earth pressure „•here a factor of safety of 1.2 is acceptable.
2. Dynamic pressures are based on the Mononobe-Okabe 1929 method, additive to active earth pressure.
Walls retaining less than 6 feet of soil need not consider this increased pressure.
Upward sloping backfill or surcharge loads from nearby footings. can create larger lateral
pressures. Should any walls be considered for retaining sloped backfill or placed next to
foundations, our office should be contacted for reconunended design parameters. Surcharge
loads should be considered if they exist within a zone between the face of the wall and a plane
projected 45 degrees upward from the base of the wall. The increase in lateral earth pressure
should be taken as 35% of the surcharge load within this zone. Retaining walls subjected.to
traffic loads should include a uniform surcharge load equivalent to at least 2 feet of native soil.
Drainage: A backdrain or an equivalent system of backfill drainage should be incorporated into
the retaining wall design. Our firm can provide construction details when the specific application
is determined. Backfill immediately behind :the retaining stntcture should be a free -draining
EARTH SYSTEMS CO7,TSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
Backfill Compaction: Compaction on the retained side of the wall within a horizontal distance
equal to onc: wall height should be performed by hand -operated or other light«+eight compaction
equipment. This is intended to reduce potential. locked -in lateral pressures caused by compaction
with heavy grading equipment.
Footing Sub!, -rade Preparation: The subgrade for footings should be prepared according to the
auxiliary structure subgrade preparation given in Section 5.1.
5.7 Nlitigation.of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete
Selected chemical analyses for corrosivity were conducted on samples at the low chloride ion
concentration. Sulfate ions can attack the cementitious material in concrete. causing ,veakening
of the cement matrix and eventual deterioration by ravelinC7. Chloride ions can cause corrosion
of reinforcing steel. The Uniform Building Code does not reauire any special provisions for
concrete fol- these low concentrations as.tested. However, cxcavatcd soils from mass -grading
mai have higher sulfate and chloride ion concentrations. Additional soil chemical testis« should
be conducted on the building pad soils after mass -grading.
A minimum concrete cover of three (3) inches should be provided around steel reinforcing or
embedded components exposed to native soil or landscape water (to 18 inches above g -rade).
Additionally, the concrete should be thoroughly vibrated during placement.
Electrical resistivity testing of the soil suggests that the site soils may present a moderately severe
potential for metal loss from electrochemical corrosion processes. Corrosion protection of steel
can be achieved by using epoxy corrosion inhibitors, asphalt coatings, cathodic protection, or
encapsulating with densely consolidated concrete. A qualified corrosion engineer should be
consulted regarding mitigation of the corrosive effects of site soils on metals.
5.8 Seismic Design Criteria
This site is subiect to strong ground shaking due to potential fault movements along the
San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. Engineered design and earthquake -resistant construction
increase safety and allow development of seismic areas. The mi unnrm seismic design should
comply with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 using the
seismic coefficients given in Section 3.4.3 of this report.
The UBC seismic coefficients are based on scientific knoNvledge, engineering judgment, and
compromise. Factors that play an important role in dynamic structural performance are:
(1) Effective peak acceleration (EPA),
(2) Duration and predominant frequency of strong 0TOUnd motion,
(3) Period of motion of the structure;
(4) Soil -stricture interaction;
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
.September 22, 2000
Filelo 10
0009-772 _
(5) Total resistance capacity of the system,
(6) Redundancies,
(7) Inelastic load -deformation behavor;4and —&
(8) Modification of damping and effective period as structures behave inelasticaliy.
Factors 5 to 8 are included in the structural ductility factor (R) that is used in deriving a reduced
value for design base shear. If further information on seismic design is needed; a site-specific
probabilistic seismic analysis should be conducted.
The intent of the UBC lateral force requirements is to provide a structural design that will resist
collapse to provide reasonable life safety from a major earthquake, but may experience some
structural and nonstructural damage. A fundamental tenet of seismic design is that inelastic
yielding is allowed to adapt to the seismic demand on the structure. In other words, damage is
allowed. The UBC lateral force requirements should be considered a minimum design. The
owner and the designer should evaluate the level of risk and performance that is acceptable.
Performance based criteria could be set in the design. The design engineer has the responsibility
to interpret and adapt the principles of seismic behavior and design to each structure using
experience and sound judgment. The design engineer should e\ercise special care so that all
componews of the design are all fully met with attention to providing a continuous load path. An
adequate quality assurance and control program is urged during pro; zct construction to verify that
the design plans and good construction practices are followed. This is especially important for
sites Lying close to the major seismic sources.
5.9 Pavements
Since no traffic loading were provided by the design engineer or owner, we have assumed traffic
loading for comparative evaluation. The design engineer or owner should decide the appropriate
traffic conditions for the pavements. Maintenance of proper drainage is necessary to prolong the
service life of the pavements. Water should not pond on or near paved areas. The following
table provides our recommendations for pavement sections.
EARTH SYSTENIS CONSULTANTS SOL'TMVEST
September4; 2000 - 19. FileNo���D
00-09 772-
RECOMMENDED PAVEMENTS SECTIONS
R -Value Sub --rade Soils - 40 (assumeM-
Desimn Method — (`AT.TR A -0 -el oqK
Traffic
Index
(Assumed)
Pavement Use
Flexible Pavements
Ri d Pavements
Asphaltic
Concrete
Thickness
(Inches)
Aggregate ,
BaseCement
Thickness
(Inches)
Portland
Concrete
(Inches)
Aggregate
Base
Thickness
(Inches)
4.0
Auto Parking Areas
2.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
Residential Streets
3.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
6.5
Collector Road
3.5
6.5
---
---
7.5
Secondary Road
4.5
7.0
---
---
tvotes:
1. Asphaltic concrete should be Caltrans, Type B; 1/2 -in. or 3/4 -in. maximum -medium grading and
compacted to a minimum of 95% of the 75 -blow Marshall density (ASTM D 1559) or equivalent.
2. Aggregate base should be Caltrans Class 2 (3/4 in. ma.Kimum) and compacted to a minimum of
95% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture.
3. Al pavements should bee placed on 12 inches of moisture -conditioned subgrade, compacted to a
minimum of 90°0 of ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture.
Portland cement concrete should have a minimum of ,250 psi compressive strength Vic;. 28 days.
5. Equivalent Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) may be used
instead of Caltrans specifications for asphaltic concrete and aggre<,ate base.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTFi\vEST
Section 6
LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
-. -A
6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations
Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field
exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, our
findings and recommendations are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary
significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. Variations in soil or
groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and
extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or
groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our
recommendations.
Findings of this reportare valid as of the issued date of the report_ However, changes in
conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they are from natural processes
or works of man on this or adjoining properties. In addition; changes in applicable standards
occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of
this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this
report is subject to review and should not he relied upon after a period of one year.
In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of structures are planned, the
conclusions and recotrunendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless
the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing.
This report is issued with the understanding that the owner, or the owner's representative, has the
responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of
the architect. and engineers for the project so that they are incorporated into the plans and
specifications for the project, The owner, or the owner's representative, also has the
responsibility to take the necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors
follow such recommendations. It is further understood that the owner or the owner's
representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate goveming agencies.
As the Geotechnical Engineer of Record foi- this project, Earth Systems Consultants Southwest
(ESCS«') has striven to provide our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices in this locality at this time. No warranty or guarantee is express or implied.
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and the Client's authorized agents.
ESCSW should be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and
specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly
interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. if ESCSW is not accorded the
privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibilityfor
misinterpretation of our recommendations.
Although available through ESCSW, the current scope of our services does not include an
environmental assessment, or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or
toxic matenals in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject
property. .
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 222 2000
6.2 Additional Services
21 - : -File hloQ 0
00=09 77?,
This report is bated orn the assumption that an adequate program` -6f client consultation,
construction monitoring, and testing will be. performed during the final design and construction
phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining ESCSW as the
geotechnical consultant from beginning to end of the project will provide continuity of services.
Die geotechnical engineering firm providing tests and observations shall assume ti c
responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer- of Record.
Construction monitoring and testing would be additional services provided by our firm. The
costs of these services are not included in our present fee arrangements, but can be obtained from
our office. The recommended review; tests, and observations include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:
• Consultation during the final design stages of the project.
Review of the building and grading plans to obsen-e that recommendations of our report
have been properly implemented into the design.
c Observation and testing during site preparation, grading and placemeni of engineered fill
as required by UBC Sections 1701 and 3317 or local grading ordinances.
• Consultation as required during constriction.
•1•
Appendices as cited are attached and complete this report.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
Blake, B.F., 1998b, Preliminary Fault-Data for EQFAULT and FRISKSP, 71 p.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1993, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak-
Accelerations
eakAccelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report; U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-509, 15 p.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1994, Estimation of Response. Spectra and Peak-
Acceleration
eakAcceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report, Pan 21,
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-127.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology: Guidelines for Evaluatin<).
and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 1 17, and WWW Version.
Envicom, Riverside County, 1976, Seismic Safety Element.
Ellsworth, W.L., 1990, "Earthquake History, 1769-1959" in: The San Andreas Fault System,
California: U.S. Geological Sun ey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p.
Hart, E.W., and 1994 rev., Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42, 34 p.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition.
International Conference of Building Officials, 2000, InEdition
.ID
Building Code, 2000 Editio.
Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activity 11ap of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of
Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000.
Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1994, Prediction of Ground Motion in North Ame'ca, in
Proceedings of ATC-35 Seminar on New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion
Estimation and Implications for Engineering Design Practice, Applied Technology Council.
1994.
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Leinkaemper,
J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwarz, D.P., .1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for
the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-08,
59 P.
Proctor, Prichard J. (1968), Geology of the Desert Hot Springs - Upper. Coachella Valley Area,
California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Special Report 94.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
September 22, ,2000. -23 -File No 10.
- 9 -77
Riverside County (1984), Seismic Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan, Amended.
Rogers, T -q,; 1966, Geologic Map of California --Santa Ana Sheet,,California Division of Mines
and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000.
Seed, H.B_ and Idriss, I 4., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes.
Sieh, K., Stuiver, M., and Brillinger, D., 1989, A More Precise Chronology of Earthquakes
Produced by the San Andreas Fault in Southern California: Journal of Geophysical
Research,'Vol. 94, No. BI,- January 10, 1989, pp. 603-623.
Sieh, Kerry, 1985, Earthquake Potentials Along The San Andreas Fault, Minutes of The National
Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, March 29-30, 1985, USGS Open File Report
8S-507.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 1996, Recommended Lateral Force
Requirements and Cornmentary.
Tokimatsu, K, and Seed; H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due To Earthquake
Shaking, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, August 1987.
Van de Kamp, P.C., 1973, Holocene Continental Sedimentation in the Salton Basin, California: A
Reconnaissance, Geological Society of America, Vol. 84, March 1973.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern
California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 379-439.
Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1515, 283 P.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
-.4
In
,a,
APPENDIX A
Site Location %MaD
Boring '
o na Location Map
Table I Fault Parameters
1997 Uniform Building Code Seismic Parameters
2000 International Building Cod-, S,-Ismic Parameters
Logs of Borings
L� F
v
• !l • SO
'Jell 1 � '- • • - A -,p - � ` � -# �. •..
Lu
i -
W ..
rz
n
—
Ncl, -17f
-i
—=— ---- JCre a
ok
�Se l
fo-
=: _V�
i J Goy Pr
..y7 .1 Vr Nilc
`•i`) ` r
o
15
EA
Reference: La Quinta & Indio USGS Topographic Quadrangles Maps
Figure 1 - Site Location
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
Project No-: 07117-10
Scale: 1" = 2,000' Earth Systems Consallt- s
0 21000 4,000. Southwest
4K
52nd Avenue
.r`
1. iiij
`xE
B5, -C.P,T-1
'-��' - .:.-: t1�-iF!1�L�1• iRfCS�cwA-� �....—_._.—���_ � t - '. �T`
Or
12
-B3 ' ;
i-
ril -
.y-822
1/ N FS.`�Ys�. -Yty� - 3 B 1 V I_ ..
='�!'B17 _�B24
- -' —7—Z_- --- -
- CPT�4 -521 --.-' —
cn
_-- --
Mu
B13
B1 2:.: B2.,..
:�B7 �- CPT -3 B8 y _ -B10 -
=� _ -
lh.
54th Avenue
LEGEND I Figure 2 - Exploration Locations
Approximate Boring or CPT Location
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
Project No.: 07117-10
®Scale.- 1" = 800 feet !Earth Systems Consultants
® .� ��� Southwest0 800 1:600. -'
Fault Name or
Seismic Zone
,pistance
from Site
(mil (km)
Fault
The
UBC
Maximum
Magnitude
Mmax
(Mw)
Avg
Slip
Rate
(mm/yr)
Avg
Return
Period
(yrs)
Fault
Length
(km)
Date of
Lasi;;,;
Rupture
(year)
Largest
Historic
Event
>5.5M (year)
Mean
Site
PGA
(g)
Reference Notes: (1)
2)
(3)
(4)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(5)
6)
i
San Andreas - Coachella Valley
6.1
9.8
SS
A
7.1
25
220
95
c. 1690
0.36
San Andreas - Southern (C V +S B M)
6.1
9.8
SS
A
7.4
24
220
203
c. 1690
0.41
San Andreas - Mission Crk. Branch
7.8
12.6
SS
A
7.1
25
220
95
6.5
1948
0.31
San Andreas - Banning Branch
7.8
12.6
SS
A
7.1
10
220
98
6.2
1986
0.31
San Jacinto (Hot Spgs - Buck Ridge)
16
26
SS
C
6.5
2
354
70
6.3
1937
0.12
Blue Cut
16
26
SS
C
6.8
1
760
30
-
0.14
San Jacinto -Anza
20
33
SS
A
7.2
12
250
90
1918
6.8
1918
0.15
Burnt Mountain
20
33
SS
B
6.4
0.6
5000
20
1992
7.3
1992
0.09
San Jacinto - Coyote Creek
21
34
SS
B
6.8
4
175
40
1968
6.5
1968
0.11
Eureka Peak
21
34
SS
B
6.4
0.6
5000
19
1992
6.1
1992
0.09
San Andreas - San Bernardino Mtn.
22
35
SS
A
7.3
24
433
107
1812
7.0
1812
0.15
Morongo
32
51
SS
C
6.5
0.6
1170
23
5.5
1947
0.06
San Jacinto - Borrego P.lountainI
33
53
SS
B
6.6
4
i 75
29
6.5
1942
0.06
Pinto Mountain
I3
53
SS
B !
7.0
2.5
500
73
0.08
i Emerson So. - Copper I'v'in.
34
54
SS
B
6.9
0.6
5000
54
-
0.07
Piscah-Bullion Mtn. -Mesquite Lk
35
57
SS
B
7.0
0.6
5000
88
1999
7.
1999
0.07
I Landers
I 25
57
SS
B
7.3
0.6
5000
83
1992
7.3
1992
0.09
San Jacinto -San Jac:: �;o Valiey
39
62
SS
B I
6.9
1 2
63
42
6.'
1899
0.06
1 Brawley Seismic Zone
39
62
SS
B i
6.4
25
42
„ ,
1981
0.05
Earthquake Valley
39
62
SS
B i
6.5
2
351
20
0.05
Elsinore - Julian
I
43
70
SS
A
7.1
5
340
75
0.06
Johnson Valley (Northern)
46
74
SS
B
6.7
0.6
5000
36
-
0.05
Eimore Ranch
47
75
SS
B
6.6
1
225
29
1987
5.9
1987
0.04
North Frontal Fault Zone (East)
47
75
DS
B
6.7
0.5
1730
27
0.05
Calico -Hidalgo
47
76
SS
B
7.1
0.6
5000
95
0.06
Elsinore - Temecula
48
78
SS
B
6.8
5
240
42
0.05
Eisinore -Coyote Mountain
49
79
SS
B
6.8
4
625
38
0.05
San Jacinto - Superstition Mountain
51
81
SS
B
6.6
5
500
23
c. 1440
-
0.04
San Jacinto - Superstition Hills
51
83
SS
B
6.6
4
250
22
1987
6.5
1987
0.04
Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman Spgs
52
84
SS
B
7.3
0.6
5000
149
0.06
North Frontal Fault Zone (West)
59
95
DS
B
7.0
1
1310
50
0.05
Helendale - S. Lockhardt
60
96
SS
B
7.1
0.6
5000
97
0.04
San Jacinto -San Bernardino
I
61
99
SS
B
6.7
12
100
35
6.0
1923
0.03
i. Jennings (1994) and CDMG (1996)
2. CDMG & USGS (1996), SS = Strike -Slip, DS = Dip Slip
3. ICBO (1997), where Type A faults: Mmax > 7 and slip rate >5 mmiyr &Type C faults: Mmax <6.5 and slip rate < 2 mm/yr
4. CDMG (1996) based on Wells & Coppersmith (1994), Mw = moment magnitude
5. Modified from Ellsworth Catalog (1990) in USGS Professional Paper 1515
6. The estimates of the mean Site PGA are based on the following attenuation relationships:
Average of: (1) 1997 Boore, Joyner& Fumal; (2) 1997 Sadigh et al; (3) 1997 Campbell
(mean plus sigma values are about 1.6 times higher)
Based. on Site Coordinates: 33.671 N Latitude, 116.252 W Longtude and Site Soil Type D
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
-: File No.: 07117-10
1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC) SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Seismic Zone:
Seismic Zone Factor:
Soil Profile Type:
Seismic Source Type:
Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source:
Near Source Factor:
Near Source Factor:
Seismic Coefficient:
Seismic Coefficient::
ClosesT Siarificant Seismic Fault Source:
To
Ts
Seismic Importance Factor, I:
0.14 sec
0.70 sec
1.00 Table 16-K
1997 UBC Equivalent Static Response Spectrum
1.2
1.0
a�
co
U) 0.8
C
0
M
0.6
U
U
Q
0.4
aD
0 -
co
02
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Period (sec)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANI'S SOUTHWEST
Period
Sa
Reference
(g)
4
Figure 16-2
Z
0.4
Table 167I
S D
0.20
Table 16-J
0.30
A
Table 16-U
1.11
9.8
l:nz = 6.1 miles
Na
1.01
Table 16-S
Nv
1.22
Table 16-T
Ca
0.44
= 0.4"Na Table 16-Q
_X
0.78
= 0.6-'. Nv Table 16-R
Sun Andreas - South-_rn (C V --S BIN -1.)
0.14 sec
0.70 sec
1.00 Table 16-K
1997 UBC Equivalent Static Response Spectrum
1.2
1.0
a�
co
U) 0.8
C
0
M
0.6
U
U
Q
0.4
aD
0 -
co
02
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Period (sec)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANI'S SOUTHWEST
Period
Sa
T (sec)
(g)
0.00
0.45
0.05
0.68
0.14
1.11
0.20
1.11
0.30
1.11
0.70
1.11
0.80
0.97
0.90
0.86
1.00
0.78
1.10
0.71
1.20
0.65
1.30
0.60
1.40
0.56
1.50
0.52
1.60
0.49
1.70
0.46
1.80
0.43
1.90
0.41
2.00
0.39
2000 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Seismic Category
Sa
(g)
D
0.40
Table 1613.3(l),ik =�
Site Class
0.12
D
0.20
Table 1615.1.1
Latitude:
1.00
3 x.671
N
0.70
Longitude:
0.80
-116.252
W
0.67
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)
0.60
Ground Motion
Short Period Spectral Reponse
Ss
1.50
g
Figure1615(3)
1 second Spectral Response
SI
0.60
g
Figure1615(4)
Site Coefficient
Fa
1.00
.1.80
Table 1615. 1.2(1)
Site Coefficient
FV
1.50
0.30
Table 1615.1.2(2)
0.27
SMs
1.50
g
= Fa
SMI
0.90
g
= F„*Sl
Desi -un Earthquake Ground Motion
Shod Period Spectral Reponse SDs 1.00 g=2/3*S�.;S
I second Spectral Response SDI 0.60 g = 2/3*S�t�
To `:11.12 sec = 0.2 * S„/S DS
Ts 0.60 sec = SDI/SDS
Seismic Importance Factor IE 1.00 Table 1604.5
2000 IBC Equivalent Elastic Static Response Spectrum
12
1.0
m
0.8
0
m
a�
a� 0.6
U
U
co
0.4
(D
Q
U)
WA
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Period (sec)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST.
Period
T (sec)
Sa
(g)
0.00
0.40
0.05
0.65
0.12
1.00
0.20
1.00
0.30
1.00
0.60
1.00
0.70
0.86
0.80
0.75
0.90
0.67
1.00
0.60
1.10
0.55
1.20
0.50
1.30
0.46
1.40
0.43
1.50
0.40
1.60
0.38
1.70
0.35
.1.80
0.33
1.90
0.32
2.00
0.30
2.20
0.27
�aah Systert�s Consult:
S� Southwest
T
79 81 IB Cowin- Club D'imc Bermuda Duns, CA 92201
Bor►ng No Bi_+ter
DnlltngDate .August 18, 2000'
Project Name Couritry.Club of the Desert
I
I Drilling Method: 8" Hol!rnv Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117=10
I
i Drill Type:: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 3
Logged By: Clifford W'. B3rien
Sample -g..
Type Peneti•afion
-
�'
�.
:1
Deseri�tion of Units !page I of 1�
I with minor fine grained sand II
L
10,10,10
`
r
u Resistance
' U
Q a
I
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
I IIS,
c
approximate boundarbetween soil and/or rock Graphic Tren;'
I I
and the transition m::_- be gradational. Blow Count [,,-., Density
5
!
1 �
1
L
I
il.i; ML
I
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp, I 'i
I with minor fine grained sand II
L
10,10,10
II�iII
2,1
I • j •
I !
�i
I
I IIS,
193.4
I I
5
!
1 �
5,6, t 0
�, i
�
85.6 1 8.4
e o
— 10
SILTY SAND: bro\cn, medium dense, d,-., tine to
'
4,5,6
�. L
I
1 93.2 i I.5
I
O o
medium Drained, st.b.r ound clasts
I
I
I
j
SP,NrDY SILT: bro,.��i, medium dense, dL,...-.
_ 1
iaminated, with minor ime ;rained sand
10,10
77.7 5.7
e a
20
•, i
7,10,12
iii,
iio�
j
I
!
i 86.8 ;`4.2
, 1
i
I • •
I
I 25
I I I
1
I
I
i is
i
I j i
I
i
I
i
30
I I
!
TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet !
r
I No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I
I
40
I I ! I
I
I I
I
— 45
I
j
i
I
I
I
; I
is
I
i
'i
ori%,, .9
- g ate .','-AUgtist:l '207
Prtijecf� iffi�-.It.oufitry Clbb of the Desert
r!
rilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number 07'117-1 0
T Mobile 61
i Drillype s
wes H -Cl
7
Logged By: Clifford NV. Batten
1 1� P-Frr"4.0"n"s, CA 9220-1.;--
79 -8 1 El Country
Sample
Type
Penetration
J
_
Ph -7
ori%,, .9
- g ate .','-AUgtist:l '207
Prtijecf� iffi�-.It.oufitry Clbb of the Desert
r!
rilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number 07'117-1 0
T Mobile 61
i Drillype s
Boring Location: See Figure 2
9 '10'10
Logged By: Clifford NV. Batten
Sample
Type
Penetration
Descri ption of Uh'lts Fag; I Of I
1�
(3
iE V)
Resistance -2 u
i
I �C-1 - 'E
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
, ::D
(Blows/6")' c�,
E
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic trend
In
and the transition may be gradational.)T
Blow COUT", -)T y Density
NIL
95.9 12.6
84.4 4.3
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp,
laminated, with minor fui e -grained sand
SILTY SAID: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
le
SANDY SILT: bro�i-n, medium dense, drvzo damp,
laminated, %vith minor fine grained ed sand
i
v
r!
II
9 '10'10
5
it
J
10
In
4,5,6 it
20
9,11,13 ki
5
L
7
f
1— 30
t
35
I
40
i
i +
I
45
A
NIL
95.9 12.6
84.4 4.3
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp,
laminated, with minor fui e -grained sand
SILTY SAID: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
le
SANDY SILT: bro�i-n, medium dense, drvzo damp,
laminated, %vith minor fine grained ed sand
i
r!
Boriing No B3 .'
11
1
Dnlitng ate. August `1 9� -2ib` 00
Project Name ountry Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem A6gcr
Project Numbed 07.117-10
118,12,12
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
r
10
;Logged By: Clifford W. Ba ten
Sample
Type Pe- I
n4,lration!
:t= I P ��
Description & Units I Page I of I
crj
Resistance E
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
25
U >
C- 0 (Blows/6") r"'
30
app.xiniatc boundary between soil and/or rock types Gmnhic Trend
the transition
and may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
v
11
1
5,5,5
5
L
118,12,12
L
I L
r
10
114,4,7
4,4,10
20
15,6,6
25
30
5,7,9
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
1 medium grained, subround clasts
Ii
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, moist,
laminated, with minor fine grained sand
is
SILTY SAND: bro,.,,-,n, medium dense, damp to dry,
fine to medium zrallri.-d, subround to subanz-uiar
clasts •
•
i.
J.
Boren W—4
J, :1
all
tes. h:t7 A
np ugu 2
a. c: August 18"; 000" -
z! I,
a
9ngItn
F
Q
1. k d
Boren W—4
all
tes. h:t7 A
np ugu 2
a. c: August 18"; 000" -
C
Project buntry Club of the Desert
Drilling Method" 8" Hollow Stem
Auger
Project Number- 07117- 10
11.2
Drill Type: Mobile 61
9,9,9
Boring Location: See Figure 2
p 1.2
4,5,6
I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
3,4,6
20
Sagip e
25
8,10,15
F
-Type
Penetration
30
Description of Units
LPagf I or �17
e I of I
C/)
Resistance
2
35
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
I
10,10,12
0
'
(Blokvs/6")i C/;"
45
approximate boundary between soi! rock types
and the trunsition may be
Graphic Trend
Bio%v
L
V3
:Z
gradational.
Count Dry Density
—7-1
717,11
189.5
11.2
9,9,9
10
p 1.2
4,5,6
15
3,4,6
20
MUCL
25
8,10,15
F
30
14,16,20
35
8,10,12
40
10,10,12
41i f
MUCL
45
i
15.4
L
—7-1
sm
189.5
11.2
.99.1
p 1.2
MUCL
15.3
A
SM
41i f
MUCL
73.5
15.4
MUCL
SM
I.
J.:
SM
,SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, [me to
medium uained, subround clasts
CLAYEY SILT: brown, stiff, moist, laminated, with
minor clay nodules
SILTY SAND: brow -n, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
p
SANDY CLAYEY SILT: brown, stiff, moist,
laminated, low plasticity
CLAYEY SILT: brown, very stiff, moist, medium
I plasticity, with minor silty sand lenses
a
SILTY SAN!): brown, medium dense, di -v, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
i medium grained, subround clasts, with minor silt
and clay nodules
:j
e s
`WSyst tants:
79-811 B'Countr
'F obtfiwest CountryClub Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA�,02201
Phone (760)345-1588 FAX .(7&6)1.34a-7315
V
5
L
10
15
20
7
15
L
I r
! L
30
i L
L
I r
35
L
40
45
j
i'1sm
BOiIk"640 B5
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
Dfillifig Date: August -18, 2000
Project e: Country Club of the Desert
DrillingMethod: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
medium grained, subround to subangular clasts
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
87.1
Sample
Type
Penetration
.5,5,7
-�beseription of Units
86.1
Resistance
0 1
':' I U
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
4,5,6
L)
(Blows/6")
E C)
0.9
approximate boundary between soil andior rock- types Graphic Trend
0
1 85.3
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
V
5
L
10
15
20
7
15
L
I r
! L
30
i L
L
I r
35
L
40
45
j
i'1sm
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround to subangular clasts
4,4,4
87.1
1.0
.5,5,7
86.1
1.2 i
4,5,6
89.6
0.9
7,11.14
1 85.3
1.3
85.1 1.5I I i I ,'II
TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
Ell
&LEarth Systems Consultants
"S
out west 79-811B Country Club Drive, Berm 136ii
Bermuda ,
_s�:CA 92201
- - - - -- Phonc (760) 345-1583 FAX�(7.0). 345-7315 -
XT ID
Boring o:
i
�—
rilling ate: August 18, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
3,4,5
F
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
5
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W- Batten
10
Sample
Type n
7,9,11
15
5, 8, 10
1 - T
Description of Units [Page Ir 6
Resistance
E
U
16)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
7 kBio S16")
1
1 r
0
2
approximate
proximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
Q
c3
35
0
U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry DensityC/)
1— v
i
�—
i
0
3,4,5
F
5
4,5,6
1
10
7,9,11
15
5, 8, 10
-)o
6,8,11
2) 5
30
7
1
1 r
35
L
—40
45
L
I 1
is
50
SM I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
1medium grained, subangular clasts
88.4 0.4
88.0 10.8
TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
0
1
ii
q
II
Boring No: B7
Drilling Date: August 18" 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
45
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number- 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
A
Type Penetration
—
Description of Units Page I of
uccResistance
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
u
:
G;(Blows/6");
V)
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
Q
L)
arid the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
F v J
J. -1 sm
3,4,6
5
5,5,6
J.
10
6,6,7
-5
8's,10
20
1567 i.1
1-4
25
6,7,8
30
FE 6,9,10
35
40 1
45
— so
I I SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to I (I I
medium grained, subangular clasts
95.2 10.7
95.4 1.2
87.8 12.1
95.2 1.3
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
O rtfi- Sysf e-lin'st
Consul a nts,--"
Southwest
79-811 B Country Club Drive.Berhuda Dunes, CA 92201
a
Phone (760) 345- -FAX
1598 MON 345
L
SM
Borin- No: B8
Project
brillirtg'Date: August 18, 2000 -77-
Tr�arne: Country Club of the Desert
87.9
Drilling Method- 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
L
Drill Type: Mobile 81
Boring Location: See Figure 2
4,5,6
!M
d M L
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
I L
10
Sample
617,8
ilii
Ii
1
90.7
Sim
Type
Penetration
Description of Units Page 1 of 1
Resistance
0
i
Q a-'5
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
01
(Blows/6")l
C/�
191.0
a
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types. Graphic Trend
n
CE -r,- 21
25
L
L
u I
and the transition may be Rradationzil. Blow Count Dry Density
L
SM
4,4,4
87.9
L
4,5,6
!M
d M L
90.2
I L
10
617,8
ilii
Ii
1
90.7
Sim
1.
15
7,9,11
191.0
20
1
L
14,4,5
25
L
L
3,4,6
3 0
I I
F1'
15,6,6
35
40
45
1 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, fossilifor-us, subangular clasts
2-5 SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry
1 SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry,, fine to 1 1
1.7
medium grained, subangular clasts;
i No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
- ----- Eiirth IS
yst6ms Consultants
e Southwest'
7
79411E 11 B Counav Club Driyc, Riftn4cia
9 Dunes, CA 92201
Boiing;No: 'B9
'Drilling Date: August 19, 1-006
Project Name. Country Club of the Desert
F
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
3,3,4
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
6,8,10
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
91.4
Sample
- =&
. I ---a
Type
Penetration
i
I
Description of Units Page 1 of 1
—.;=TResistance
__I
'tance
Resistance
1 90.3
F
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
U
(Blows/6")
15
5,9,8J.
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
187.7
01
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
ir— 30
! L
35
40
;L
45
-- lzn
4,4,-')
SM
-ML/CL
5,5,7
1.5
6.1
2.4
SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry
to damp, fine to medium grained, fossiliforus to five
feet, subround to subangular clasts
2.6 •
1 CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity, with minor silt
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
a
medium grained, subangular clasts
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
i sm
F
3,3,4
74.2
5
L
6,8,10
F
91.4
0
5,5,10
1 90.3
F
15
5,9,8J.
187.7
20
1 MUCL
4,6,6
J
ir— 30
! L
35
40
;L
45
-- lzn
4,4,-')
SM
-ML/CL
5,5,7
1.5
6.1
2.4
SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry
to damp, fine to medium grained, fossiliforus to five
feet, subround to subangular clasts
2.6 •
1 CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity, with minor silt
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
a
medium grained, subangular clasts
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
B oring- NO BTU
sm
Dulling
brini August 18 2000
Project game: Country Club of the Desert
SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry,
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project.Number: 07117-10
-JJ
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
fine to medium grained, subround clasts
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
72.2
1.2
Type
Penetration
n
Description of Units JPage I of
M
.Resistance -i' I L)
U
C-
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
1.6
UV.,
FC-_ 40'
(B lows/6
C]
— CJ
.2 =
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
6,8,8
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
v
5
M
- 30
- 35
-4
45
sm
SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry,
-JJ
fine to medium grained, subround clasts
4,5,5
72.2
1.2
M
5,6,7i
i•
92.7
1.6
6,8,8
91.7
6,8,9i
J
87.3
2.7
1 •
~'
*
'
`lsbultNi6sf 79-811 B Country. Club Drive. Benrnuda Dunes, CA 92201
'
Phone -(760) �45-1588 FAX (760)34 -.7315
B6rhik D161 B 11
Drilling: Date- August 18, 2000
Project Name:'Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Type
Penetration
Description of Units
95.5
Re istance
-0
�s 1
U L)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
'EL
44 -- a
(Blows/6")
>'
V)
:D 1
, 's—,
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
0
M L
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor
and the transition may be gradational. Biow Count Dry Density
-3O |
35 |
-40
! '
|
!
' TOTAL DEPTH: 3Bfeet
|
!
`
No Groundwater orBedrock Encountered
|
) / |
SM
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fme to
medium grained, subround clasts
95.5
10.7
M L
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor
1
clay nodules
MUCL
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
15,5,7
plasticity
7,11,10
! '
|
!
' TOTAL DEPTH: 3Bfeet
|
!
`
No Groundwater orBedrock Encountered
|
) / |
-Uilitfi Systems- Consulta nts
Southwest
79-811 B County Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes CA 92201
Born NO Bli -
Drilling Date: August 18, 2000
Project arrie. Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 017117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
Type
Penetration! . — I
v Z�
Description of Units
Resistant: 1 1
U
, :.-
Uti
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
:D
(Blows/6")' >1•
C'o
cc
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
Graphic Trend
0
;E
U
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
f1
sm
T , I
7,1111 93.0 j 0.4
9,10,10 97.2 i 0.7
'-F
30
35
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor dz
nodules
•
Ili i
CLAYEY SILT: dark- brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity
li
li
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
Earih Consultants
Z! SOlJtllWest .79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda 1junii, CA,92201
Phone (760) 345-1589: FAX ,(7
60) 345-7315
B b-�-H no- No: B13
Project Dame: Country Club Desert
ling Date: August 18, 2000
of the
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
Type
Penetration
Description of Units
Resistance
'5
!?
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
Z5.
: �- 1
:�' 0!
01
(Blows/6")
57,
v)
0
types
approximate boundary. between soil and/or rock t� Graphic Trend
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
to
U
iI SM
j -
I r
2,3,3 76.2
L
5
5,8,8
90.8
I.
10
14.4,4
15
4,5,5 j
MUCL
20 A
5,5,5
25
I L
30
35
40
45
SIM
5,6,6
MUCL
6,9,8
I SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry,
fine to medium graffied, subround clasts •
0.8
X11
1.2
SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist,
low plasticity
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist,
low plasticity
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
Me
. ...... .. No:
Drilling Date: August 18, 200 0
P170ject-game: Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
.- Drill
rill I Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
5
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
6,7,8
Sample
TypePage
Penetration
Description of Units I of I
0
Resistance E
L to
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
>1
c (13lows/6")l Cn
13,2,2
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
15
i
4,6,7
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
v
4,4,4
5
6,7,8
L to
i
L
13,2,2
F
15
i
4,6,7
L
l__ 20
5,6,7
L
L
25
6,6,5
F 30
F
6,7,9
L
!
35
40
F
I F_ 45
r
�i
SM
I'T-
.T.
J.
MUCL
V;'
SM
MUCL
75.1 10.7
86.8
1 1.4
SILTY SAND: brown, loose to medium dense, dry,
fine to medium grained, subround clasts•II
SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist,
low plasticity i
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
I medium grained, subround clasts
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity
5
M
15
F
0
25
30
35
40 1
45
SM
5,5,4
5,5,5
4,5,6
J S 1\4
J. J
6,6,7 1.1
6,5,6
H
Borinallo-B15
5,5,5
Drilling Date:, August J 8, 2000
Project Name : Country Club of the Desert
I I .I•.1
16 ,7,7
Drilling Method: 8" -Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number- 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
plasticity, with sand
------------------
Type Penetration
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround to subangular clasts
Description of Units Page 1 of I
ti Resistance
C/I
C-1
U .
:3
v
Note: The stratification lines shown representthe
(Biows/6")i
i:F
ate boundary
approximate between soil and/or rock, types Graphic Trend
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
5
M
15
F
0
25
30
35
40 1
45
SM
5,5,4
5,5,5
4,5,6
J S 1\4
J. J
6,6,7 1.1
98.1
81.3
I SILTY SAND: brown, medium, dense, dry, fine to
6,5,6
H
medium grained, subround clasts
5,5,5
'
iI
I I .I•.1
16 ,7,7
98.1
81.3
I SILTY SAND: brown, medium, dense, dry, fine to
H
medium grained, subround clasts
1
'
0.2
i
13.2
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity, with sand
it
it I
is
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround to subangular clasts
H
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
I.
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
r
7 i F
J.
ConsultantsEarth Systems
e Sodthwest
79-81113 Country Club Drne P&inwda Dunes, CA 92201
7PI:
bate:- kugust 18, 2000`"
..5
Project Name :l Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method' 8" Hollow Stem Auger.
Project Number' 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
Type
Penetration
Description of Units
Page 1 of I
e s L)
R istance
lu
17, 15
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
V)
(Blows/6")
M CL
.3 U
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types
Graphic Trend
V) ol
U
and the transition may be gradational.
Blow Count DDensity
Dry
sm
4,5,6
r
5,6,5
J
ML
10 1
4,4 ,4
LF
L
SM
15
6,7,8
J.1
20
5,6,7
25
8,9,10
30
1 7,7,7 1"4
35
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
86.4 0.3 i •
I.
72.6 12.7
SANDY SILT: dark brown, loose, dry,
SILTY SAND: brovvn, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround to subangular clasts
rmuda Dunes A 9220
Borin N04BIT":
9
Drilling Pzit� 'August 23, 2000 —
Project Name: Country Club of the Des . ert
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 0.71.17-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged. By: Clifford W. Batten .
Sample
Typ e Penetration
I
a)
Description of Units Page 1 of 1
Resistance
E
J
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
'E
-i4 U
G (Blows/6") i
En
>1
C/)
C) 'E�
'>1
LC]
;
i
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
0,
I c:
and the transition maybe gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
F v
F
L
L
, 5
6,5,10
7,10,10
- 10 1 i I
1 6,7,10
- 15
- 20
- 25
- 30
5,6,7
sm
ML
ML
90.1 10.4
I
87.1 3.1
103.3 5.3
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
SANDY SILT: brown,- medium dense, dry, minor
laminations
SAND: brown, medium dense, damp, fine to coarse
grained, with silt layers
II
it
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround to subangular clasts i
C, -- 10
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry
35
'TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
40
t No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
EarthsYst6ms'Consultant
Southwest
Drk�e, Bemi�&
79-811 B Councr., Club Dunes, CA 92201
Borin(y No: B18
Drilling Date: August 23, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
.
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
DrillType: Mobile6l
Boring Location: See Figure 2
I Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
Page 1
1
Type Penetration
Description of Units of
Resistance
,
-6
*3
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
(Blows/6"),
0
`2
i. approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
L - ILIi
M V-
and the transition maybe gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
U
5
10
7,9,11
15
3,4,6
LE
)0
4,5,5
r5
6,7,8
,0
6,6,7
- 35
40
F
45
F
L
sp-sm
M LIC L
r
A
r
SM
'41
89.0
87.1
115.7
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
1.1
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, minor
2.8 laminations
Ii
SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse
I I grained, round clasts, with silt
1.4
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity, with n-drior sand
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained, subround clasts
O
Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest,
79-81 J B Country Club Drive. Bermuda Dunes. CA 92201
Borifi,, No: B19
Drilling Date: August 2066
Project ame: Country Club of the Desert
1 Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number- 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
- ------ —9
Type �P
Penetration
Description of Units [Pa
U
Resistance
1-Z
I
0
'z
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
I
01
(Blows/6")i
0'
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
and the transition may be Blow Count
;E
gradational. Dry Density
F
5
i I1 ML SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry, laminate(
5,8,10 ilk 99.0 11.0
MUCL
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, damp to wet, clay
6.9,8
183.4 4.0 nodules
i ,I
6,6,7 182.1 j 18.2 1
SIM i SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dn,,, [in" to
15
medium grained, subround clasts
:4,4,5 •
')0
6,8,8
-A
L
IMUCL CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
25 plasticity
3,4,4
30
35
40
45
5n
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
h
ystems-Consu tants
Sou b est 79-811 B Country Club Drri�e, Bermuda Dunes, Cn 92201
Phone (760 ) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-7315
- 5
- 10
ML
Boring No -;B20-
4,6,7
04lin-lg* , Date:,A-ugust 23, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
185.1 i 4.1
Drilling Me . thod: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number. 07117-10
82.3 2.6 i
e: Mobile 61
Drill I Type:
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Il;
MUCL
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
MUCL
q
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, wet, low to
Type Penetration
Description of Units
Cn
istance 1 U
Res 1
v z 15
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
U I C/)
(Blows/6")
-E
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
CJ
C) ,
laminated
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
- 5
- 10
0
5
0
45
ML
1
SANDY SILT: brown, medium dense, dry to damp
4,6,7
I
5,5,6
185.1 i 4.1
5,5,7
j E i
82.3 2.6 i
I
i �
Il;
MUCL
SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist,
MUCL
q
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, wet, low to
7,8,9
83.9 19.5 medium plasticity
0
5
0
45
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
J No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
5,5,6
MUCL
SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist,
low plasticity
4,5,6
ML
SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry,
6,7,8
laminated
9,10,11
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
J No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered
OEar#h .Systet�s Consu9ta nts �. =-- _.
SOUt11W2St 79-8118 Country Club Drivc, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Lv
Boring No B21
Drilling- August 23, 2000
Project a : Country Club of the Desert
Ts,7 me
-te:
1 Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
-Sample
5,6,8
L
•: 10
L
Type
Penetration
-6
; 7-
15
L
12
5,5,5
Description of Units Page I of 1
4,4,4
Resistance
I F
I c/)
i
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
U
(Blows/6")'
30
f:
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types. Graphic Trend
6,7,8
01
1 1
F
L
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
Lv
II
4,6,6
F 5
5,6,8
L
•: 10
L
6,10,10
; 7-
15
L
5,5,5
20
4,4,4
21
4,4,5
30
6,7,8
351
1 1
F
L
F— 40
45
62.6 4.0
87.4 ! 3.5
fl I ML/CL
S bi
SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense, damp, I
laminated 10
CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, very stiff, wet, clay
nodules
20.0 1
SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry,
laminated, with sand
1 SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist,
medium plasticity, with sand
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained
•
TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5 feet
i
No Groundwater or Bedrock Encountered I
F
q
s-
Sy.-�terii Consultants
L
79-811 B Couny Club Drive,
trBermuda Dunes,
CA 92201
-B#ei6gNo: B22
6,7,8
1-1 VOV) J43-73 15
Prilling Date: August 23, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
15
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
I 13,4,5
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
45
30
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
TypePenetration
2:' .—
I g I
Description of Units FPage I of I
Resistancec
I
iNote:
c
The stratification lines shown represent the
(Blows/6")
0
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock- types Graphic Trend
41
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Densi ty
5
4,5,6
5,5,5
10
6,7,8
40
15
5,6,6
20 I
I 13,4,5
25
45
30
. 35 1
ML
SM
SP -SM
ML
sivi
SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense, dry
Z'
laminated
64.0 3.6 i je
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, Fine to
88.5
1.8
medium grained
I!
SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse I ii
I grained, subround clasts, with clayey silt layers
104.3 14.1
SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry,
laminated, with sand
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, Fine to
medium grained
40
45
ML
SM
SP -SM
ML
sivi
SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense, dry
Z'
laminated
64.0 3.6 i je
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, Fine to
88.5
1.8
medium grained
I!
SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse I ii
I grained, subround clasts, with clayey silt layers
104.3 14.1
SANDY SILT: light brown, medium dense, dry,
laminated, with sand
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, Fine to
medium grained
.A.
p t
1g ,Earth Syst
terns i0onsultzini s
Southwest
79-81 IBC
ountry Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345A588 FAX -7315.
. )345
5
L
10
15
— 20
25
i— 30
:L
35
40
45
ML
5,5,5 1111 1 � 66.8
5,8,8
7,8,7
4,5,5
3A 4
2,3,4
2,2,3
i�
85.2
SANDY SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense,
(hy, laminated, with sand
2.6
4.3
SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse
grained, with silt
1.4
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained
I!
SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist,
1 1 low to medium plasticity
Borin- No: B23
I Drillin- Date: August 23, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
I Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
Sample
Type
I I
I
i 'N
Page l
I
Penetration
B o
I Description of Units of
Resistance i -0
r-
C/)
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
(Blows/6")J
t
0
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
and the transition may be —adational. Blow Count Dry Density
L)
5
L
10
15
— 20
25
i— 30
:L
35
40
45
ML
5,5,5 1111 1 � 66.8
5,8,8
7,8,7
4,5,5
3A 4
2,3,4
2,2,3
i�
85.2
SANDY SILT: light brown, loose to medium dense,
(hy, laminated, with sand
2.6
4.3
SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to coarse
grained, with silt
1.4
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained
I!
SANDY CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist,
1 1 low to medium plasticity
Earth Systems Con su Ita
Southwest
79-81 16 Councry Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (7.6Q (760) 3457315
FAX X
v
L I
1
I H 4,5,5
Boring No: B24
04,4,5
Drilling Dater August 23, 2000
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert
Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07117-10
10
7,8,8
Drill Type: Mobile 61
Boring Location: See Figure 2
15
Logged By: Clifford W. Batten
20
L
Sample
Type
PenetTation[P
I
1
--A
-4
Description of Units a g e !Pagel f I
Resistance
30
14,4,5
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
7E 51
(Blows/6")
ZD
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
- 4u
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count D Density
v
ML I I SILT: brown, loose to medium dense, dry to damp,
laminated
71.9 3.3
85.7 1 2.1 •
I' SM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to li
I medium grained
100.2 12.9 •
ML/CL I j CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity,
I. SM
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained
L I
1
I H 4,5,5
15
04,4,5
10
7,8,8
15
4,4,4
20
L
15,6,6
27 5
4,5,6
30
14,4,5
- 35
IF
- 4u
L
45 i
i
i
CA
ML I I SILT: brown, loose to medium dense, dry to damp,
laminated
71.9 3.3
85.7 1 2.1 •
I' SM SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to li
I medium grained
100.2 12.9 •
ML/CL I j CLAYEY SILT: dark brown, stiff, moist, low
plasticity,
I. SM
SILTY SAND: brown, medium dense, dry, fine to
medium grained
i Ert�a Systems Consultants
�i out . west : ,
w
uv-
CPT Saundrng : CPT -1 ° ` Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO, Inca
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Cone
Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -ton reaction weight
Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000
d.
Lt.t
Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tst)
(Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400
Silty Sand to andy Silt very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very dense I I
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very dense, ;
Sand to Silty Sand verydense j --
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand, to Silty Sand dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense,
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense ; I
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense I
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense _
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense _
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense !
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense _
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense ;
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I
Sand dense I
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense !
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense _
Sand medium dense
Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
End of Sounding @ 50.1 feet,.
I I
I
;
-5-
10
15
i
20
i
25
_
!
30
35
i
_
40
45
50
Earth,SVstems :ConsWtzihts =
Southwest.
:
End of Sounding @,49.8 fee
U-1
CPT Sounding : CPT -2 - Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO, Inc.' --
Project Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted. Electric Cone
Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -ton reaction weiaht
Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000 V
W
Friction Ratio (%) Tip ResAance, Qc (tsf]
Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy
(Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400
Sand to Silty Sand very dense j
Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very dense I
_ 5 _
Sand to Silty Sand very dense I j
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense j
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense j I
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
10
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense i
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
15
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
20
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
25
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
30
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense !
_
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Overconsolidated Soil medium dense
35
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard !
j
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense j
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
40
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand dense
45
_
Sand to Silty Sand dense i
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense !
_
Sand dense
-- ;
50
End of Sounding @,49.8 fee
Eaq vstents ConSultaht5
,_
...,,out west .-_.
P
LLProject
CPT So'undin . CP -T-3 Cone Penetrometer: FUGRO, Inc.
Name: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Cone
Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -ton reaction weight
Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000
tl
W
Q
Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio `-`
( ) ``Tip Resistance, Qc (tst]
(Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400
Sand very dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense i
Sand to Silty Sand very dense ; i
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand very dense ; I
Sand very dense
Sand very dense 1 1
Sand very dense
SandI
very dense '
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt . loose
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose i !
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose
Clay stiff
Clay firm
Clay stiff
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense !
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 1
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense !
;
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I _
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 1
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose ,
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Clay very stiff !
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense _
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
End of Sounding @ 50.2 feet
- 5 -
10
i
! i
15
I
20
25
30
35
i
!
40
45
_
— I
_
50
far#h SYsiiems-C®ns�el$ants
•-.,�. _.out west . ' .
LU
�.
-CPT Sounding :CPT -4 Cone Penetrometer.- FUGRO, Inc.
Project Nacre: Country Club of the Desert Truck Mounted Electric Cone
Project No.: 07117-10 with 23 -ton reaction weight
Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 8/28/2000
a
W
„<
- Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (ts�
Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy
(Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400
and to Silty Sand very dense
Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very dense i
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand very. dense
Sand to Silty Sande dense i (
Sand to Silty Sand very dense i
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Sand very dense
Sand very dense
Sand very dense
Sand dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i
Sand dense
Sand dense i
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayev Silt loose
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense !
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt_ loose
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Sand dense
Sand dense
Sand medium dense
Sand medium dense
Sand dense j
Sand dense
Sand dense I _
Sand dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense i
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense i
Sand to Silty Sand medium dense
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Clay very stiff
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Clay very stiff —�— i
Clay very stiff i
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt loose _
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
i
End of Sounding @ 49.9 feet j 1
t
- 5 _
I I j
10
15
20
_
25
30
35
40
i
45
J
I
50
i
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
:_,2�
:._,_
Job Name: Country Club of the Desert
B l
2
Unit
Moisture
USCS
Sample
Depth
Dry
Content
Group
Location
(feet)
Density (pcf)
(%)
Symbol
B l
2
93.4
2.1
SM
B1
5
85.6
8.4
ML
Bl
10
93.2
1.5
SM
B 1
15
77.7
5.7
ML
BI
20
86.8
4.2
ML
B2
2
95.9
2.6
ML
B2
5
84.4
4.3
ML
B2
10
90.4
1.3
SM
B2
15
81.2
2.9
ML
B2
20
83.3
4.6
ML
B3
2
91.1
0.8
SM
B3
5
96.0
1.6
SM
B3
10
82.0
9.6
ML
B3
15
84.8
6.8
SM
B3
20
90.4
4.1
SM
B3
25
95.9
2.4
SM
B3
30
93.2
2.9
SM
B3
35
96.9
1.5
SM
B3
40
92.1
4.3
ML
B4
2
89.5
1.2
ML
B4
5
99.1
1.2
SM
B4
10
77.0
15.3
MUCL
B4
15
79.1
5.1
SM
B4
20
73.5
15.4
MUCL
Sample
Location
Depth
(feet)
Unit
Dry
Density (pco
Moisture
Content
(%)
USCS
Group
Symbol
B5
5
86.1
1.2
B5
2
87.1
1.0
SM
B5
5
86.1
1.2
SM
B5
10
89.6
0.9
SM
B5
15
85.3
1.3
SM
B5
20
85.1
1.5
SM
B6
2
88.4
0.4
SM
B6
5
88.0
0.8
SM
B6
10
91.2
0.9
SM
B6
15
91.9
1.5
SM
B6
20
96.8
2.6
SM
B7
2
95.2
0.7
SM
B7
5
95.4
1.2
SM
B7
10
87.8
2.1
SM
B7
15
952
1.3
SM
B8
2
87.9
0.7
SM
B8
5
90.2
2.5
ML
B8
10
90.7
1.7
SM
B8
15
91.0
1.1
SM
B9
2
74.2
1.5
SM
B9
5
91.4
6.1
SM
B9
10
90.3
2.4
SM
B9
15
87.7
2.6
SM
BIO
2
72.2
1.2
SM
B10
5
92.7
1.6
SM
B10
10
91.7
3.0
SM
B10
15
87.3
Unit
Moisture
USCS
2
---
Sample
Depth
Dry
Content
Group
0.7
SM
Location
(feet)
Density (pco
(%)
Symbol
B 12
B10
15
87.3
2.7
SM
B l l
2
---
0.5
SM
B l l
5
95.5
0.7
SM
Bll
10
91.6
1.2
SM
B 12
2
93.0
0.4
SM
B 12
5
97.2
0.7
SM
B 12
10
92.2
1.2
SM
B13
2
762
0.8
SM
B13
5
90.8
1.2
SM
B14
2
75.1
0.7
SM
B 14
5
86.8
1.4
SM
B.1 5
2
98.1
0.2
SM
B15
5
81.3
3.2
SM
B16
2
86.4
0.3
SM
B16
5
72.6
2.7
SM
B17
2
90.1
0.4
SM
B17
5
87.1
3.1
ML
B17
10
103.3
5.3
SP -SM
B18
2
89.0
1.1
SM
B18
5
87.1
2.8
ML
B 18
10
115.7
1.4
SP -SM
B 19
2
89.0
1.0
SM
B19
5
83.4
4.0
ML/CL
B 19
10
82.1
18.2
ML/CL
B20
B20
B20
B21
B21
B21
2
5
10
2
5
10
.85.1
82.3
83.9
62.6
87.4
83.3
Unit
Moisture
USCS
2
64.0
Sample
Depth
Dry
Content
Group
1.8
SM
Location
(feet)
Density (pcf)
(%)
Symbol
B23
B20
B20
B20
B21
B21
B21
2
5
10
2
5
10
.85.1
82.3
83.9
62.6
87.4
83.3
4.1
2.6
19.5
4.0
3.5
20.0
ML
ML
ML/CL
ML
ML
ML/CL
B22
2
64.0
3.6
ML
B22
5
88.5
1.8
SM
B22
10
104.3
4.1
SP -SM
B23
2
66.8
2.6
ML
B23
5
85.2
4.3
ML
B23
10
109.1
1.4
SP -SM
B24
2
71.9
3.3
ML
B24
5
85.7
2.1
ML
B24
10
100.2
2.9
SM
Sieve
Percent
Size
Passing
1-1/2"
100
100
3/411
100
1/211.
100
100
94
100
#8
100
416
100
#30
99
#50
96
9100
80
4200
55
% Gravel: 0
% Sand: 45
% silt: 47
% Clay (3 micron): 8
(Clay content by short hydrometer method)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
T71li� ! I '1!I 11
. — - -----
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size mm)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
Job Name: Country Club of the Desert
Sample -IDS B5 @ 5 Feet
Description: Silty Sand: Fine (SM)
Sieve
Percent
Size
Passing
1-1/2"
100
111
100
3/411
100
1/2"
100
100
44
100
#8
100
#16
100
% Gravel:
0
#30
100
% Sand:
76
#50
94
% Silt:
20
#100
62
% Clay (3 micron):
4
#200
24
(Clay content by short hydrometer
method)
100
iI j ;Ili � I � Ijl; i; ;Illi l ;�' I l j
11 I �� I' I ��ilj I � � lilt .I jii j
80
70
60
` I I ,iI ll I �!ijllj l Illl ij Ij jl
40 -
30
20
10 j
I ';jii I I iii I I I
0
100 10 t 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (.mm)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
File No..:. 071 0
'iT
September b ber 22, 2000
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
T
ASTM D-422
Job Name: Country Club of the Desert
!,
Sample TD: B6 @ 20 Feet
i
Description: Silty Sand: Fine w/ Silt Lenses (SM)
Ill
Sieve Size % Passing
By Hydrometer Method:
100
Particle Size % Passing
2" 100
59 Micron
20
1-1/2" 100
23 Micron
11
111 100
13 1 Micron
9
3/411 100
7 Micron
8
1/2" 100
5 Micron
6
3/8" 100
3.3 Micron
6
#4 100
2.7 Micron
5
48 100
1.4 Micron
1
916 100
I
430 100
% Gravel:
0
450 97
% Sand:
75
4100 67
% Silt:
20
4200 25
% Clay (3 micron):
5
100
90
80
70
60
so
40
30
20
10
0
l
'iT
TI
T
T , Tj T11
iT
I I
!
!,
I.
i
l
Ill
I i
I
�I
� il�lill
i
!II
III
!j
I
j !Ilii
,
� I
Ii
i'
I
I
'SII
I I i
jl1'�j
I
I I
!!.
;IIi
I �'!!
!'
I j
I
�
I
IIiI
Ilii
l j 1
! �
Ili��
III..
!
I�
I!
I
Ili!li;
,Ii
i
l l i
! I
��
►��
►!
j
i i
Al
I
j
IIi.
1 1
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
FARTR qNr(ZTPNAQ r-n,TT TT "r A I-,T-r(Z qC)T TFWA7r:Q-r
File No.: 07117-10
iii
September 22,.2000 L.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
� ;
ASTM D-422
i
� i
Job Name: Country Club of the Desert
Sample ID: B7 @ 0-5 Feet
� ' �
i'i i i i
Description: Silty Sand: Fine (SM)
Ili
Sieve Percent
�
ii!;
Size Passing
1-1/2" 100
lit 100
ill + i I
�!lil l
3/4 11
3 100
1/2t' 100
�
3/8" 100
!
44 100
�
iii
98 100
#16 100
% Gravel:
0
#30 99
% Sand:
76
950 90
% Silt:
19
P1100 58
% Clay (3 micron):
5
4200 24 (Clay
content by short hydrometer
method)
100
90
80
70
60
so
C_ 40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size ( ram)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
iii
i
� ;
j,ii
i
� i
.illi'
ii
� ' �
i'i i i i
Ili
i
�
ii!;
�
I
!
ill + i I
�!lil l
�'ii�
j
�
liii
!
�
iii
ili'�
I
i i
i i
i
t
i
l
ii
i
i
l
'',I
l
l
�i'I
I
I I
!I�il I I I
�
I
'I
i
i
l
Ill
i
i
'ISI
I
i l
l
iij! I l i i
�
III
l
�! I
���
(�
�iil
I
S I
�
iii I I
II i i
i
7i
I
I
i
ill
(
I
I
I i
I i
i t Ii
l'!�
�
i �
i
,I�
I I
I
Ilii i
�
�i!II i I I1
�I
Ii
I
I
�!� l'
I!
Iiii
i
!;;)I! l i
;; i I
:11HM I
:11
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size ( ram)
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size (mm)
EARTH SYRTF.MR (VONT TT TA NTC Cir JTHwFCT
0.001
Sieve Size % Passing By Hydrometer Method:
3"
100
Particle Size % Passing
2"
100
49 Micron 56
1-1/2"
100
22 Micron 19
lit
100
13 Micron 11
3/4"
100
7 Micron 7
1/2"
100
5 Micron 7
3/8"
100
3.4 Micron 5
94
100
2.7 Micron 4
#8
100
1.4 Micron 1
#16
100
#30
100
% Gravel: 0
#50
100
% Sand: 24
#100
97
% Silt: 72
#200
76
% Clay (3 micron): 4
too
I! �
j
90
!II• I i 111
! i
I
III
I
IIII
li! i I
so
I
70
60
11
I
!
li
N 50
.!li
I
!
I!i
40
II
IIII!
30
II
I
�I
II
!
! I
II
I
hili I
20
i
lii:i
;
10
T
0
10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size (mm)
EARTH SYRTF.MR (VONT TT TA NTC Cir JTHwFCT
0.001
100
90
80
70
60
bn
� 50
C-1
40
30
20
10
0
Sieve Size % Passing
311
100
211
100
1-1/2"
100
111
100
3/4"
100
1/211
100
3/8"
100
#4
100
#8
100
#16
99
#310
99
950
99
4100
97
9200
85
By Hydrometer Method:
Particle Sizc % Passing
42 Micron
81
19 Micron
50
12 Micron
39
6 Micron
27
4 Micron
23
3.2 Micron
19
2.6 Micron
17
1.4 Micron
6
% Gravel: 0
% Sand: is
% Silt: 68
% Clay (3 micron): 17
T I T T T
�� i � � I�� I I � i til � ii' �' I j �' !'
I I.i i !,I:; I I Iill!� I
111 l I I I VII i I i i i II!' (� I I II! I I I
II' !! I lil! j� I i t "il l I l l!� l
U
Ml':ll llil i Ill l 11111.1 1 iiia iI
:1
PH i ill( i IIi 'I�'� I',I
II I I i il�Ii I IL
IM i. ll� p
100 10 1 0.1
Particle Size (mm)
0.01 0.001
File No.: 07117-10 _
September 22 2000
PAR'T'ICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
ASTM D-42-2
Job Name:
Country Club of the Desert
Sample ID:
B20 @ 15 Feet
Description: Clayey Silt (CL/ML)
Sieve Size % Passing
By Hydrometer
Method:
3" 100
Particle Size
% Passing
2" 100
42 Micron
83
1-1/2" 100
16 Micron
75
1" 100
10 Micron
62
3/4" 100
6 Micron
46
1/2" 100
4 Micron
38
3/8" 100
3.0 Micron
32
44 100
2.5 Micron
29
#8 100
1.3 Micron
10
#16 100
430 99
% Gravel:
0
450 99
% Sand:
10
#100 96
% Silt:
61
#200 90
% Clay (2 micron):
29
loo
ii; j i,
Hiililj
90 II'
l Illl I I I ! Ili.
i t I. I !
lliill I l l
I
I
I
I
II!i!l
li
80
ii
i
I
i i ill)
i
70
!
i
Illi;
j l
l
I
li I l
i l
ji I I I I i
jll
l l
j I
I
it �;
60
ii
I
I
I
I
I
Hill l
lili! I!
ll!
i!
.N Sol
I
I
i
i l
Ijli; I
40
IIi
Ii!Ill
I
illi]
I
I
i !II':
I
l i
I i 1
i j
ii I
i i
i
I
I
II
20
i l I l
Ill I I
i t II!!'
I I I
lilt I
I
I
i t
i I
I i i
i Illi
l I
t i
III i I !
iII I
l i I
10
liI
i
I
iIiIII
!
I i j i
I Il11ij!
i I
Iliilll
I I
IIS
Hill
I I
itI
I illi I I ! lli
I ! IIII!I !
I
100
10 1
0.1
0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
LA DTLI CVCTcA XCI nom,. 11 TI -I I -.-n n�Ir T-rFr—
-8
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
O Before Saturation Hydrocollapse
R After Saturation Pin.hound
Trend
0.1 1.0 10.0
Vertical Effective Stress, ksf
CA D_rQ CV0-rch ♦ ITTC' V/ -%T TTLTXITUCIT
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
CONSOLIDA'T'ION T'ES'T' ASTM D 2435-90 a D5333
Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density: 79.3 pcf
B19 @ 5 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 4.0%
Clayey Silt (MUCL) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67
Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 1.102
Hydrocollapse: 2.5% @ 2.0 ksf
2
1
0
-i
oD -3
.7
_ -4
u
-5
U
-6
d
u
L
c. -7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
% Change in Height STs Normal Presssure Diagram
O Before Saturation Hydrocollapse
® After Saturation — W Pp.hnund
Trend
0.1 1.0
Vertical Effective Stress, ksf
F ARTP CVQ-rTiK40 /"n\T IT TT TA\TTG` On TTTS{T7cc"r
10.0
File No.: 07117-10
September 22, 2000
CONSOLIDA'T'ION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333
'k
Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Densit} . 74.6 pcf
B20 @ 10 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 19.5%
Clayey Silt (CL/ML) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67
Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 1.233
2
1
0
-t
-2
ac -3
Hydrocollapse: 0.9% @ 2.0 ksf
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
O Before Saturation Hydrocollapse
! ® After Saturation —W RPhnund i
Trend
-8
0.1 1.0
Vertical Effective Stress, ksf
F4RTT4 QVQ_rr-n,fQ (YITJC`T Ti T 4*T-rQ QnT TILT\d/C7QT
10.0
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90 & D5333
Country Club of the Desert Initial Dry Density: 85.3 pcf
B24 @ 5 Feet Initial Moisture, %: 2.1 %
Silty Sand: F w/ Silt Lenses Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67
Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 0.955
Hydrocollapse: 1.8% @ 2.0 ksf
2
1
0
-1
-2
En -3
-4
-5
U
-6
CU
-7
-8
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Dia -ram
0 Before Saturation ;Hydrocollapse
E After Saturation W P4z.hnund
-Trend
0-1 1.0
Vertical Effective Stress, ksf
10.0
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
PLASTICITY INDEX ASTM D-4318
Job Name: Country Club of the Desert
Sample ID: B20 @ 15 Feet
Soil Description: Clayey Silt (CL/ML)
DATA SUMMARY TEST RESULTS
Number of Blows: 32 28 22 LIQUID LIMIT 40
Water Content, % 39.0 39.4 40.5 PLASTIC LIMIT 27
Plastic Limit: 26.7 27.5 PLASTICITY INDEX 13
Flow Index
41.0 -
40.5
40.0
oU
39.5
39.0
38.5
10 Number of Blows 100
70
60
50
7
40
-z 30
C3
')0
10
0
Plasticity Chart
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
T- A DrLY
CH
CL
VH
ML
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
T- A DrLY
File No.: 07117-10 September 22, 2000
MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified)
Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Procedure Used: A
Sample. ID: B5 @ 5 Feet - Prep. Method: Moist
Location: Native Rammer Type: Mechanical
Description: Silty Sand: Gray Brown; Fine (SM)
Sieve Size % Retained
Maximum Density: 105.5 pcf 3/4" 0.0
Optimum Moisture: 15.5% 3/8" 0.0
#4 0.0
140 I I I ! I I I I! I I
I I iA V, I I I
135
I
I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I
I I l i l i I I<----- Zero Air Voids Lines, I
l i l i j lI I scr =2.65, 2,70, 2,75
130 I I I
125 ! I I I I ! I!
Gry
u
.7
120
a
A
115
110
105
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Moisture Content, percent
........ ...
File No.: -Q711.7-10 September 22, 2000
MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified)
Job Name: Country Club of the Desert Procedure Used: A
Sample ID: B7 @ 0-5 Feet<< Prep. Method: Moist
Location: Native Rammer Type: Mechanical
Description: Silty Sand: Gray Brown; Fine (SM)
Sieve Size % Retained
Maximum Density: 106 pef 3/411 0.0
Optimum Moisture: 15:5% 3/8" 0.0
94 0.0
140 1 1 1!
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100 +
0
<
----- Zero Air Voids Lines,
sc, =165, 2,70, 2,75
5 10 15 20 25 30
Moisture Content, percent
T A VI -TJ QVC'M;NAV rnXtCT TT -r A XT-rC QnT T-rT-TNXI':4Z-r
SOIL & PLANT LABORATORY
and CONSULTANTS, Inc.
79-607 Country Club Drive
Suite 7
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
760-772-7995
SOIL ANALYSIS
for: Earth Systems Consultants Southwest
report date: 9-8-00
inv./lab#: 489
No. Description Sat.%
pH
Ohms -cm ppm
---------------
Res NOON POOP
meq/L ppm
------------
K Ca + Mg Na Cl
mg/Kg
SO4
07866-01 Country Club of the Desert
B2 C 0-2'
8.4
2350
34
20
B6 C 0-2'
8.3
1700
72
40
B9 @ 0-2'
8.2
950
86
123
B11 @ 0-2'
8.4
1850
40
58