9912-202 (CSCS) Geotechnical Engineering ReportGEOTECHNICAL: ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
HIGHWAY 111 & DUNE PALMS ROAD
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
LAPIS ENERGY CORPORATION
SS -6032-P1
MAY 22, 1996
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
Earth Systems Consultants
Southern California
May 22, 1996
Lapis Energy Corporation
4401 Manchester Avenue, Suite 207
Encinitas, California 92024
Attention: John Gabbard
Project: Proposed Fueling Site and Mixed Use Commercial Project
Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road
La Quinta, California
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
euem Engineers DtvWon
79-811 B Country Club Drive
Bermuda Dunes, CA. 92201
(619) 345-1588
(619) 328-9131
FAX (619) 345-7315
SS -6032-P1
96-05-76`1
Presented herewith is our Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the proposed fueling site
and mixed use commercial development to be located on the southeast corner of Highway 111
and Dune Palms Road in the City of La Quinta, California.
This report incorporates the tentative information supplied to our office and in accordance with
the request, recommendations for general site development and foundation design are provided..
This report was prepared to stand as a whole, and no part of the report should be excerpted or
used to exclusion of any other part.
This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our agreement. Other services
which 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
.Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions concerning this report or the
recommendations included herein.
Sincerely,
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
Southern California
cN C,, z 7.
��:/ �� � may•=�•=�
Hogan R. Wright Brett L. Anderson,
Civil -
Staff Engineer _
Clayton R. Masters - A
CEG 1636
pc/SER
Copies: 6/1-apis Energy Corporation
1/VTA File
1
y
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................... 1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OFWORK............................................ 1
SITE DESCRIPTION..............................................................2'
FIELDEXPLORATION ......................... ....................,...... 2
LABORATORY TESTING .... .............. ....................,...........I.... 2
SOIL CONDITIONS..........................................................-...3
GROUNDWATER................................................................ 3
REGIONAL GEOLOGY....................................................... 4
LOCALGEOLOGY............................................................ 4
GEOLOGICHAZARDS...........................................................4
Primary............ .............................:....... -** ....... 4
Secondary. ........................................... 0 ............. ....... 5
.Non-Seismic................................................................. 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................. 6
SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING..............-- ...................6
SiteDevelopment - Grading ................................. ................... 6
Site Development - General......................:.... .......................... 7
Excavations . ...................... —e ......................................... 8
UtilityTrenches....... ................................................. 8
STRUCTURES...............................................0 ..............•.... 8
Foundations . .................... ....................................... 8
Slabson Grade.................................,...............:................. 9
SettlementConsiderations................................................... 9
Frictionaland Lateral Coefficients.............................................10
Retaining Walls.... ...... ........... ..................................1 0
SlopeStability.................................................................1 0
Expansion. ..... , ............................................................1 0
Additional Services.......... ....... ......... ................ .................1 1.
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS.................... 11
REFERENCES...................................................................13
APPENDIX A
Site and Vicinity Map
Logs of'Borings
APPENDIX B
Summary of Test Results
Table 2
APPENDIX C
Infiltration. Test, Results
EARTH SYSTW,S CONSULTANT'S
May 22, 1996 -1- SS -6032-P1
96-05-761
II`ITRODLICTION
This Geotechnical Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed fueling site and
mixed use commercial development to be located on the southeast corner of Highway 111
and Dune Palms Road in the City of La Quinta, California.
A. It is our understanding that the proposed project will include a fueling site, a mini
storage and several other mixed use commercial structures.
B . It is assumed that the proposed structures will be of relatively lightweight steel -f =e,
masonry or wood -frame construction and will be supported by conventional shallow
continuous or pad footings.
I
S
S
C. Structural considerations for building column loads of up to 30 kips and a maximum
wall loading of 2.0 k ps per linear foot were used as a basis for recommendations
related to the construction of the proposed structures.
D. These values were assumed based on expected loading for similar structures. If
design loading is to exceed these values, it may be necessary to reevaluate the given
recommendations.
E. All loading is assumed to be dead plus reasonable live load.
The purpose of our services was to evaluate the site soil conditions, and to provide
conclusions and recommendations relative to the site and the proposed development. The
scope of work includes the following:
A. A general reconnaissance of the site.
B. Shallow subsurface exploration by drilling five borings.
C. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings.
D. Review of selected technical literature pertaining to the site.
E. Evaluation of field and laboratory data relative to soil conditions.
F. Engineering analysis of the data obtained from the exploration and testing programs.
G . A summary of our findings and recommendations in written report
Contained In This Report Are:
A. Discussions on regional and local geologic and soil conditions.
B. Graphic and/or tabulated results of laboratory tests and field studies.
C. Discussions and recommendations relative to allowable foundation bearing capacity,
recommendations for foundation design, estimated total and differential settlements,
lateral earth pressures, site grading criteria, geologic and seismic hazards.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
so
May 22, 1996 -2- SS -6032-P 1
96-05-761
Not Contained In This Report:
A. Our scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation
to determine the presence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water,
groundwater or air, on, below or around this site.
SITE DESCRIPT OLN
The project site is located on the southeast comer of Highway 1.11 and Dune Palms Road in
the City of La Quinta, California.
A. The site is presently vacant and covered with scattered desert brush, short grass,
weeds and debris.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
B . The site is generally level overall but dunes provide topographic relief of up to twenty
feet
C. There are existing utilities along Highway 11.1 and Dune Palms Road.
J
D. The adjacent properties include vacant land to the east, the Desert Sands Unified
School District Administration complex to the south and a date grove to the west.
J
FIELD EXPLORATION
Exploratory borings were drilled to observe the soil profile and to obtain samples for
further analysis.
A. Five borings were excavated for soil profiling and sampling to a maximum depth of.
J
25 feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were excavated on May 8,
1996, using eight inch diameter hollow -stem augers powered by a CME 45B drilling
rig. The approximate locations of the borings, as indicated on the attached plan in
Appendix A, were determined by pacing and sighting from existing streets and
property corners. The locations should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the method used to locate the borings.
B . Samples were secured within the borings with a 2.5 inch inside diameter ring sampler
(ASTM D 3550, shoe similar to ASTM D 1586). The samples were obtained by
driving the sampler with a 140 pound hammer, dropping 30 inches. The number of
blows required to drive the sampler one foot was recorded. Recovered soil samples
were sealed in containers and returned to the laboratory for further classification and
possible testing.
C. Bulk disturbed samples of the soils were obtained from cuttings developed during
excavation of the test borings. The bulls samples were secured for classification
purposes and represent a mixture of soils within the noted depths.
D. The final logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs, and the
results of the laboratory observations and tests of the field samples. The final logs are
included in Appendix. A of this report. The stratification lines represent the
approximate boundaries between soil types although the transitions may be gradual.
LABORATORY TESTING
Aftera visual and tactile classification in the field, samples were returned to the laboratory,
classifications were checked, and a testing program was established.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
May 22, 1996 -3- SS -6032=P1.
96-05-761
A. Samples were .reviewed along with field logs to determine which would be further
analyzed. Those chosen were considered as representative of soil which would be
exposed and/or used during grading and those deemed within the area of building
influence.
B. In situ moisture content and unit dry weights for the core samples were developed in
accordance with ASTM D 2937.
C. The relative strength characteristics of the subsurface soils were determined from the
results of direct shear tests. Specimens were placed in contact with water at least
twenty. -four (24) hours before testing, and were then sheared under normal loads
ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 kips per square foot in general accordance with ASTM' D,
3080.
D. Settlement and. hydroconsolidation potential was evaluated from the results of
consolidation tests performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2435.
E. Classification tests consisted of:. Expansion Index (UBC Standard No. 29-2),
Maximum Density -Optimum Moisture (ASTM D 1557) and Hydrometer Analysis
(California Test Method 203).
a
F. Refer to Appendix B for tabular and graphic representation of the test results.
SOIL. CONDITIONS
As determined by the borings, site soils were found to consist primarily of fine grained.
windblown sands with scattered thin silt layers. The boring.logs to Appendix A contain a
a more detailed description of the soils encountered.
A. The soils were found to be loose near the surface but sampler driving resistance
indicate that density generally increases with depth. The soils were generally found
to be dry throughout.
B. Clay and silt contents of the soils exhibit low plasticity. Expansion tests indicate soils
to be in the "verylow" expansion category in accordance with Table 2 in Appendix B
of this report. Refer to Section G of the structures section for specific explanations
and requirements dealing with expansive soil.
C. Scattered thin. silt layers were encountered in several of the borings.
D. Consolidation testing indicates that the; soils may be susceptible to hydroconsolidation
and compression related settlements.
E. Soils should be readily cut by normal grading equipment.
GROUNDWATER
Free groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. The depth to groundwater in
the area is generally in excess of 50 feet. Fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur due
to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors. Groundwater should not be a factor
in design or construction.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
A ,
it
Ll
it
it
y
y
y
ri
May 22, 1996 -4- SS -6032-P1
96-05-761
The site is located in the Coachella Valley, which is part of the Colorado Desert geomorphic
province. A significant feature of the Colorado Desert province is the Salton Trough,
which 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 at an elevation below sea level.
The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton Trough and contains a thick
sequence of sedimentary rocks and 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 Mesozoic granitic rocks. The San Andreas fault zone in the
upper portion of the Coachella Valley consists of the Garnet Hill fault, the Banning fault
and the Mission Creek fault, which traverse along the northeast,margin of the valley.
WMIEFID536111tig
The site is located in the northeasterly portion of the City of La Quinta within the Coachella
Valley. The site is located approximately one-eighth of a mile south of the present
Whitewater River Channel and within an active sand dune complex. The primary
sediments observed on the site were alluvial and/or aeolian deposited sands.
The site is approximately 5.5 miles southwest of the active San Andreas fault zone. No
faults are known to exist on or adjacent to the site.
A. Prim= Seismic Hazards:
Primary seismic geologic hazards that may affect any property in the seismically
active southern California area include:
1. Fault Rupture:
The project site is not located in a State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault: Zone. Nor are any faults mapped through or adjacent to the project area.
Fault rupture will most likely occur along previously established fault traces.
However, fault rupture may also occur at locations where faults have not been
previously mapped.
2. Ground Shaking:
Strong ground motion generated by nearby earthquakes can be expected to
occur during the design life of the proposed development. Based upon the
historical and prehistorical' record, the Coachella Valley segment of the San
Andreas fault is likely to generate an approximate magnitude eight (8.0) or
greater earthquake within the next 50 years. The highest magnitude are
anticipated if the Coachella Valley segment ruptures concurrently with the
adjacent San Bernardino segment. This earthquake represents the strongest
ground shaking potential for the site. Peak accelerations are estimated to range
from 0.37g to 0.65g, based on attenuation curves prepared by Campbell, 1990,
and Boore, Joyner and Fumal 1994.
FARTN :' Ye�Tp.1S C NJM R TANTS
May 22, 1996 -5- SS -6032-P1
96-05-761
The project area is mapped. in Ground Shaking Zone IV B as designated by the
County of Riverside, California. Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance
from causative faults (San Andreas fault) and underlying soil types (alluvium of
intermediate thickness, 200-2000 feet).
JB. Secondary Seismic Hazards:
Secondary seismic hazards include settlement, liquefaction, ground lurching, and
seismically induced flooding.
1. Settlement, seismically and non -seismically induced, is considered a potential
hazard in the Coachella Valley area. Historic records report significant episodes
Jof settlement in the Coachella Valley area due to seismic forces and/or heavy
rain fall and flooding.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
2. Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength as a result of an increase in pore water
pressure due to cyclic seismic loading. Conditions for liquefaction include
relatively high water table (within 40 feet of surface), low relative densities of
the saturated' soils and susceptibility of the soil to liquefy based on grain size
distribution. No free groundwater was encountered in our exploratory borings
and groundwater in the area of the site is generally in excess of 50 feet deep.
3. Ground lurching is cracking of the ground without significant displacement
generally caused by violent shaking and/or differential movement. Due to the
distance of the site from any known active faults and the relatively flat
topography of the site, the possibility of ground lurching affecting the site is
considered low.
4. Seismically induced flooding may result from tsunamis (tidal waves), seiches
(waves oscillating in an enclosed body of water) and reservoir failure. Based
on the location and topography of the project site, it is our opinion that the
probability of the above hazards affecting the property are negligible.
C. Non -Seismic. Hazards:
Non -seismic geologic hazards include landslides, subsidence, flooding acid erosion.
1. The subject property is located on. level ground and is not adjacent to any steep
hills. No evidence of past landsliding was observed at the site nor are any
known landslides mapped in or around the project site.
2. At this time there is no evidence of subsidence due to groundwater depletion in
1
this portion of the Coachella Valley.
3. Flooding and erosion are always a:consideration in and regions. Increased
1
erosion may occur as a result of construction activity.
4. Aeolian erosion and deposition could impact the site during and after
construction. The owner may wish to sequence construction and/or provide
1
wind breaks to minimize this hazard.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
f
0
t
May 22, 1996
SS -6032-P 1
96-05-761
��r�USIONS AND ECOMMENDATIONS
The following is u sutnm
data obtained from a revic of'selected technical litsions elratupre and the site rofessional pinvlestiga onons s. on the
A. The Primary geologic hazard relative to site development is strong ground shaking
from mi,l lu
California nkcx originating on nearby faults. The site is located in southern
originating which Is an active seismic area. In our opinion, a major seismic event
on the San Andreas fault would be, the most likely cause of significant
earthquake activity at the site within the estimated' design life of the proposed
development.
B. Settlement duc 10 seismic factors or flooding is a potential hazard in the Coachella
Valley arca. Adherence to the following grading recommendations should limit
Potential rcttlemctat problems due to seismic forces, heavy rainfall, flooding and the
weight of the intended structures.
C. Area% of alluvial turd acolian soils may be susceptible to erosion. Fluvial and aeolian
erosion rn;ty 11ffcc;t the site during and after construction. Preventative measures to
minimize scason�tl
pasflooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading
plan.
D. Other hnrards Ittcluding ground rupture, liquefaction, lurching, landslides,
subsidence and scitimically induced flooding are considered negligible..
E. The prr j t site i:,
in scisnuc Zone 4 as defined in Section 2312 (d) 2. of the Uniform
Building Cod - It is recommended that any permanent structure constructed on the
site be dcaignccl by a qualified professional who is aware of the project's seismic
setting,
' F. Itis our opinion that the site soils should provide adequate and uniform support for
the propr,gcd buildings provided the building areas are prepared as recommended
herein.
G. It is reu)mtncttcicd that Earth Systems Consultants be retained to provide
Geotechnical Cngineering services during project design, site development,
excavation, gratil tb, and foundation construction phases of the work. This is to
' observe complitu
and 'cc with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations,
� 'w desiKn changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ* from those
anuciPWal prior to the start of construction.
' H. Plans and specifications should be provided to Earth Systems Consultants prior to
grading. Plan-, should include the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation
details: Prefenthly, structural loads should be shown on the foundation plans.
'hhr DEVELOPM NT AND CRADIN�
'
11,-�or to any u,nstructlt)ll operations., areas to be graded should be cleaned ofvegetation and
cdcr deleteri .,lx matcrinis.
in
Site gr-eding and the bottom of all excavations should be observed by a representative
of E Systems Consultants prior to placement of fill. Local variations in soil
' C° '. 3 may warrant increasing the depth of overexcavation.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
� I
y
y
y
y
i
May 22, 1996 -7- SS -6032-P1
96-05-761
1. Prior to site grading the surface should be stripped of all organic growth and
non -complying fill which, along with other.debris, should be removed from the
site.
2. Depressions resulting from these removals should have debris and loose soil
removed and be filled with suitable fill soils compacted as recommended herein.
No compacted fill should be placed unless the underlying soil has been
observed by Earth Systems Consultants
3. In order to help minimize potential settlement problems associated with
structures supported on a non-uniform thickness of compacted fill, Earth
Systems Consultants should be consulted for site grading recommendations
relative to backfilling large and/or deep depressions resulting from removal
under item one above. In general, all proposed construction should be
supported by a uniform thickness of compacted soil.
4. Building areas should be overexcavated to a depth of two feet below original
grade or two feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. The
exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture
conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density.
The previously .removed soils should be placed in thin layers at near optimum
moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density. The
intent is to have building foundations supported by at least three feet of soil
compacted to at least 90 percent reladve compaction.
5. These grading recommendations apply to building areas and to areas at least five
feet beyond building limits.
6. Auxiliary structures including freestanding or retaining walls should have the
existing soils beneath the structure processed as per item four above. The
grading recommendations apply to three feet beyond the footings. If plans for
auxiliary structures and walls are provided for our review, these
recommendations may be revised.
7. Potential grading losses include shrinkage and subsidence along with clearing
losses. Based upon the information obtained during the investigation
summarized in this report, we would expect shrinkage losses on the order of 20
to 25 percent for the. upper five feet. This is based on compactive effort needed
to produce an average degree of compaction of approximately 93 to 94 percent
and will vary depending upon contractor methods. Subsidence is estimated at
two tenth (0.1) to three tenths (0.3) of a foot.
B. Site Development - General
1. The following general recommendations listed in this section are in addition to
those listed in the "Grading" section A above.
2. All rocks larger than eight (8) inches in greatest dimension should be removed
from fill or backfill material.
3. Import soil used to raise site grades should be equal to or better than on-site soil
in strength, expansion, and compressibility characteristics. Import soil will not
be prequalified by Earth Systems Consultants Comments on the characteristics
of import will be given after the material is on the project, either in-place or in
stockpiles of adequate quantity to complete the project.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
May 22, 1996 -8- SS -6032-P1
96-05-761
4. Areas around the structures should be graded so that drainage is positive and
away from the structures. Gutters and down spouts should be considered as a
way to convey water out of the foundation area. Water should not be allowed
to pond on or near pavement sections.
C. Excavations
J 1. All excavations should be made in accordance with applicable regulations.
From our site exploration and knowledge of the general area, we feel there is a
potential for construction problems involving caving of relatively deep site
excavations (i.e. utilities, etc.). Where such situations are encountered, lateral
bracing or appropriate cut slopes should be provided.
2. No surcharge loads should be allowed within a horizontal distance measured
from the top of the excavation slope, equal to the depth of the excavation.
D. Utility Trenches
J 1. Utility trench backfill within building areas should be placed in strict
conformance with the provisions of this report relating to minimum compaction
standards. In general, service lines may be backfilled with native soils
1
J
1
J
compacted to a minimum of ninety (90), percent of maximum density.
2. Backfill operations should be observed and tested by Earth Systems
Consultants, to monitor compliance with these recommendations.
STRUCTURES
Based upon the results of this evaluation, it is our opinion that the structure foundation can
be supported by compacted soils placed as recommended above. The recommendations
that follow are based on "very low" expansion category soils.
A. Foundations
It is anticipated that foundations will be placed on firm compacted soils as
recommended elsewhere in this report. The recommendations that follow are based
on "very low" expansion category soils.
1. Table 2 gives specific recommendations for width, depth and reinforcing.
Other structural consideration may be more stringent and would govern in any
case. A minimum footing depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade for
one story structures and 18 inches for two story structures should be
maintained.
X. Conventional Foundations:
Estimated bearing values are given below for foundations on recompacted soils,
assuming import fill (if required) to be equal to or better than site soils:
a. Continuous foundations of one foot wide and 12 inches below grade:
i. 1500 psf for dead plus reasonable live loads.
ii. 2000 psf for wind and seismic considerations.
b. Isolated pad foundations 2' x 2' and bottomed, twelve (12) inches below
grade:
i. 1800 psf for dead plus reasonable live loads.
ii. 2400 psf for wind and seismic -considerations.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
May 22, 1996 -9- SS -6032=p1
96-05-761
3. Allowable increases of 200 psf per one (1) foot of additional footing width and
300 psf for each additional six (6) inches of footing depth may be used. The
maximum allowable bearing pressure should be 3000 psf.
4. Soils beneath .footings and slabs should be premoistened prior to placing
concrete.
I5.
Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on floor slabs and foundations and
by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation stem walls. Lateral
capacity is based partially on the assumption that any required backfill adjacent
to foundations and grade beams is properly compacted
®
6. Foundation excavations should be visually observed by the soil engineer during
excavation and to of reinforcing steel or concrete. Local
prior placement
variations in conditions may warrant deepening of footings.
I
7. Allowable bearing values are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be
neglected) and are applicable for dead plus reasonable live loads.
B. Slabs -on -Grade
1. Concrete slabs -on -grade should be supported by compacted structural fill placed
in accordance with applicable sections of this report.
—
2. In areas of moisture sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor barrier
should be installed in order to minimize vapor transmission from the subgrade
soil to the slab. We would suggest that the floor slabs be underlain by an
impermeable membrane. The membrane should be covered with two (2) inches
of sand to help protect it during construction. The sand should be. lightly
moistened just prior to placing the concrete. A low -slump concrete should be
used to help minimize shrinkage.
3. Reinforcement of slab -on -grade is contingent upon 'the structural engineers
Jrecommendations
and the expansion index of the supporting soil. Since the
mixing of fill soil with native soil could change the expansion index, additional
tests should be conducted during rough grading to determine the expansion
index of the subgrade soil. Additional reinforcement due to the expansion index
of the site soil should be provided as recommended in section' G below.
Additional reinforcement may also be required by the structural engineer.
4. It is recommended that the proposed perimeter slabs (sidewalks, patios, etc.) be
designed relatively independent of foundation stems (free-floating) to help
mitigate cracking due to foundation settlement and/or expansion.
C. Settlement Considem ions
J
1. Estimated settlement, based on footings founded on firm soils as recommended,
should be less than one ('1) inch. Differential settlement between exterior and
interior bearing members should be less than one-half (1/2) inch.
2. The majority of settlement should occur during construction.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
J
it
7
y
y
May 22, 1996 -10- SS -6032-P1
96-05-761
i REff Uff Its M..Vol MVIT -,r.
1. Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting on the base of
foundations, a coefficient of friction of 0.45 may be used for dead load forces.
2. Passive resistance acting on the sides of foundation stems equal to 300 pcf of
equivalent fluid weight, may be included for resistance to lateral loading.
3. Passive resistance of soils against grade beams and the frictional resistance
between the floor slabs and the supporting soils may be combined in
determining the total lateral resistance, however the fiction factor should be
reduced to 0.30 of dead load forces.
4. A one-third (1/3) increase in the quoted passive value may be used for wind or
seismic loads:
E. Retaining Walls
1. For cantilever retaining walls backfilled with compacted native soils, it is
recommended that an equivalent fluid pressure of thirty-five (35) pcf be used
for well drained level backfill conditions. An equivalent fluid pressure of fifty-
five (55) pcf should be used for restrained walls with level well drained
backfill.
2. The lateral earth pressure to be resisted by the retaining walls or similar
structures should be increased to allow for surcharge loads. The surcharge
considered should include the loads from any structures or temporary loads that
would influence the wall design.
3. 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 walls
should be a free -draining granular material.
4. Compaction on the retained side of the wall within a horizontal distance equal to
one (1) wall height should be performed by hand -operated or other light weight
compaction equipment. This is intended to reduce potential "locked -in" lateral
pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading equipment. .
5. Water should not be allowed to pond near the top of the wall. To accomplish
this the final backfill grade should be such that all water is diverted away from
the retaining wall.
1, F. Slope Stability
Slope stability calculations were not performed due to the anticipated minimal slope
height (less that 5 feet). If slopes exceed five (5) feet, in height, engineering
calculations should be performed to substantiate the stability of slopes steeper than 2
to 1. Fill slopes should be overfilled and trimmed back to competent material.
The design of foundations should be based on the weighted expansion index (UBC
Standard No. 29-2) of the soil. As stated in the soil properties section, the expansion
index of the surface soil is in the "very low" (0-20) classification. However, during
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
May 22, 1996
-11-
SS-6032-P1
96-05-761
site preparation, if the soil is thoroughly mixed and additional fill is added, the
expansion index may change. Therefore, the expansion index should be evaluated
after the site preparation has been completed, and the fatal foundation design adjusted
accordingly.
169�xe I . ( .
This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program of client
consultation, construction monitoring and testing will be performed during the final
design and construction phases to check compliance with these recommendations.
Maintaining Earth Systems Consultants, as the soil engineering firm from beginning
to end of the project will help assure continuity of services. 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. The recommended tests
and observations. include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
1. Consultation during the final design stages of the project.
2. Review of the building plans to observe that recommendations of our report
have been properly implemented into the design.
3. Observation and testing during site preparation, grading and placement of
engineered fill.
4. Consultation as required during construction.
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data
obtained from the five borings excavated on the site. The natureand extent o f
variations between the borings may not become evident until construction.
If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to reevaluate the
recommendations of this report.
Findings of this report are valid as of this date. However, changes in conditions of a
property can occur with passage of time whether they be due to natural processes or works
of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate
standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge.
Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes
outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not
be relied upon after a period of eighteen (18) months.
In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the building are planned,
the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid
unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in
writing.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of
■ his representative, to insure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
called to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project and are incorporated into
the plans and specifications for the project. It is also the owners responsibility, or his
representative, to insure that the necessary steps arc taken to see that the general contractor
and all subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. It is further
understood that the owner or his representative is responsible for submittal
of this report to the appropriate governing agencies.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
May 22, 1996 -12- SS -6032-P1
96-05-761
Earth Systems Consultants, has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the client and
authorized agents. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil
and foundation engineering practices. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are
M made as the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement, and included
in the report.
It is recommended that Earth Systems Consultants, be provided the opportunity for a
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 Earth Systems Consultants, is not accorded the privilege of making this
recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our
recommendations.
Our scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation to
determine the presence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water,
groundwater or air, on, below or around this site. Prior to purchase or development of this
site, we suggest that an environmental assessment be conducted which addresses
J environmental concerns.
FARM SYSTLMS rONS1)t. TANTS
May 22, 1996 -13- SS -6032-P1
96-05-761
REFERENCES
1. Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Furcal, T. E., 1994 Estimation of Response
Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: An
Interim Report, Part 2,: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 94-127.
2. California Division of mines and Geology, 1966, Geologic Map of California Santa
Ana Sheet, Scale 1:250,00, (Fifth printing, 1986), compiled by Thomas H. Rogers.
3. Campbell, K. W., 1990, Empirical Prediction of Near -Source Soil and Soft Rock
Ground Motion for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site, San Luis Obispo County,
California; Consultant Report Prepared by Dames & Moore for the Texas Low Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, Dated September 1990.
4. Envicom, Riverside County, 1976, Seismic Safety Element.
5. Greensfelder, Roger W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Accelerations from
Earthquakes in California, CDMG Map Sheet 23.
J 6. Krinitzsky, E.L., Chang, F.K., Magnitude -Related Earthquake Ground Motions,
Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists Vol. XXV, No. 4, 1.988, Pgs.
399-423.
J
7. Ploessel, M. R. and, Slosson, J. E., 'Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from
Earthquakes", 1974 California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, Pgs. 195-199.
J
8. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During
Earthquakes.
J
9. Seih, 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 85-507.
1,0. Van de Kamp, P. C., "Holocene Continental Sedimentation in the Salton Basin,
California: A Reconnaissance". Geological Society of America, Vol 84, March 1973
J
11. The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1988, Probabilities of
Large Earthquakes Occurring in California on the San Andreas Fault; U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 88-398.
J
J
J
J
J
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
M
0
0
_.0
M
M
0
■
■
Stormwater Percolation Test
Proposed Fueling Site
Performed: 5-22-96 Test #1- Continued SS -6032-P1
Inner Ring
Outer Ring
Infiltration Rate.
Elapsed
Time
Time
Reading
Change
Reading
Change
Conyers.
InnerFQn)
(in.)
(in.)
(in.)
(in.)
Factor
Ring
(in.)
(inJhr.)
2:30
255
23.40
3.80
27.20
3.90
4.49
15.2
17.9
2:45
19.60
23.30
2:45
19.60
23.30
270
3.80
4.00
4.60
15.2 I 18.4
3:00
15.80
19.30
3:00
15.80
19.30
I
285
3.70
3.90
4.49
14.8
17.9
3:15
12.10
15.40
3:15
12.10
15.40.
300
3.80
4.00
4.60
15.2
18.4
3:30
8.30
11.40
3:30
23.80
11.40 I
I
I 3.15
3 80
4.00
4.60
I .15.2 18.3
3:45
'
20.00
7.40 I
I
3.45
20.00
28.30
I
330
3.80
3.80
4.37
15.2
17.5
4:00
16.20
24.50 I
l
4:00
16.20
24.50
345
3.70
3.80
4.37
14.8
17.5
4:15
.12.50
,20.70
4:15
12.50
20.70
I
3fi0
3.80
3.90
4.49
I 15.2 17.9
4:30
8.70
16.80
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
A
I %-
I %
y
y
�1
r
14
APPENDIX A
Site and Vicinity Map
Logs of Borings
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSl1LTANTS
ID
N:
T.: Tom• �' a�-[.+, ry•
. .� �• . ' :. .•. lel �ca:�... ;�►� S � - +•. � {rliilie :'�T `�'
}� (Undeveloped)
Nk
QTS w
q.
•- 1 � i / _ � �J 1 �_ —_ fly _ —... - �.�.�.�T` .�7 `a��-'-•T — �r _ r �• . '�' I �J
` 1 il. �• 1. �• fid .•1:•/R+; - •1. _ .. �i '1 'r a;i'• •. 1.:4.i �.:•' .'�' Vii_
1 ^*. r . ♦. .J..'=�:�J'�:r•�• •J:�• .'1; GJ ;•t ':J^•• •y''f:
1" -l' �_' •:s K':T7' • .r. ti" ?i s,-`..'�•�r: :Yt„••,r •L•i�r + f: �v�7`
1 i _ / i _ � 1 • •a , 1 s _ :'. - fi.' i .+:� , t� Jy.c l ' - - -... • � _ T1 � : • •4. ?,. f•' ♦ - a w:�
' r. _ / — ` t _ N' - •'�:...•• t�,atc,e.- ���?`• a?r ,vlrt. \.i���.• -;�r �-. �- _ -._ _ -_.- _ ----_ —_ �f-r'• !�^ � ,'i .J: �r: Y�. �'\s`.
:ti' - _ - - _ .._. _- -- - _ L•t��� ;f�.'i�l � ,' .rC:i •�] - .. -.. ___ ..-_s._-�« -��" -sas •. ��• �t'a•'�'
1 i — •� .I •ha,.F ;l..Cc .- - \. • 'i t i
' I' � �. •F, _ = t^` 1 . t i ) J .. - . _ ,,{{'r�.r.� `-r!_ �. ' _ . t� _v .? .�\.. 3 r,ti,t r� '+• � „�:; : ►�• .
r1
_ ' - � . _ f, •a' S —_ —•� f _ y •'•��� .f. .I r ' t. r +` t.r •� r f l,. =%tj N.• •� i
1 a : - - ' • f7 _ I - a=.iSt A `' f _!' • fJ i..�" • : T j... e. ti s ° :':.�•.
/••� 1. :- �f I a ,•r /s .. •t •_ -, �[r�•- i 't.` - .r. r•..r� -'Y- a. ii.••N.� f►ya'
,�., ....(` �� _+ /` _ ..` • •' `• i„tib • . ~ r t '• ..� r '• ! � . �� s .+`=�4Q `• ' A1•���
1}11 J _ r+!�a� :- C•' G• •� . , 1r � ��'. Fl•
• a Y _I
Q t 1 .'' 1 r � - �• -' .y r.if _1-.t �, 1 1 i ', 1 , - 1 i 1 tet' ,_ .�• �••-•�' •f
' +:� a..•i•
�a`.lf ! ..;1
L , I + ' i J. , °. , %� - - _ .. , . . ,.; J.' : —;' . , •:: Dui
;T. _ -�., ter=” j �.:�,4-�-=.t'••,:----�-- _ _ - -� �' S: :�:'t._s�:�'tit_y' ..�-,: — •�•}},� �)! ;.:
• • T .f f T � '' 1"a•�•
•.Rt��i,i��. •K.:.:•: �., ����a_.— ._tea_-__. _ ---:1-'�s'- f. ii—*a..tR�• 't' 'it'.'}F. :r ��.Ai.'�•?.�., D: Lim
�-� •Y J. <-��_3lt: - - - T• - r. .;: ,-:�
I J , I _ Dune Palms Road
• .h. 1 � _ ..:r �',�qI`���T �r�1�•:.i �J . • f.�_.a•. a ,I:^r� rr ;t.. ..�.�•1.. T ,��.V
. _ - �2. - :. :7 � - •�• •t'i A_'G�►' + •' ... -�. •ray'•••- r �•' �. 1,1w.:�a�-j���..
r' , - 1. ; 'r .� � 1•a i:.' ryC _ _ �� . a _ - _s•'. JIl1 f3�1C_ +.r d'Lr,.l:.r. a � .w•�f
- � r V'"• 1.. _v � -!. ai .�Yt.��:t�"�'r,:�.:.w:�•rA'r• - I.3• h a. R...r.$ x' o� �..4.. 7
'ice 1 ••�►r��'=3~a�. .av:: s .,.. _ (+. + X`'••'7a�1'•..•r'rt-
• ! � � � ; .r� f�r-+:,x'�•: -'• - - 1 .,.�.•' i ,t• Jiseooutotis >z1� *'•�'~ +i :=�.1-'A
. � j y tr: ' _�� � '' - -ier �,�'' ate= � ,'.^ f • � =• •Y
Approximate Boring Locations
Approximate Percolation Test Location
Proposed Fueling Site and
Mixed Use Commercial Project
La Quinta, California
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
GATE: 6/7/96 1 JOB No. SS=6032-P1
r
1
F
M
0
Proposed Fueling Site I Commercial Development
Date: 5/8/96 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 1 File No. SS -6032-P1
m
°
m
DESCRIPTION
a
o
y
d a
REMARKS
p ;-
cn
o
o
Cn
o
oC E
CL
o U
0
Al: Gray brown silty fine
SM
grained sand
5
u n
u
A2: Gray brown slightly
SM/SP
_
silty fine grained sand
10
A.
4.
11 11
p
15
-
Total Depth = 15'
-
No Free Water
•
No Bedrock
20
25
30
35
40
45
Note: The stratification
lines represent the
_
approximate boundaries
-
between the soil types; the
50
transitions may be gradual.
Proposed Fueling Site / Commercial Development
Date: 5/8/96 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 2 File No. SS -6032-P1
z o
E
v
DESCRIPTION
o
c
m a
REMARKS
o�
�Q
°mac
o
U
0
A 1 : Gray brown silty fine
SM
'
grained sand
-
11 11
y
5
A2: Gray brown slightly
SM/SP
10
-
silty fine grained sand
u u
u
15
_
Total Depth = 15'
-
No Free Water
-
No Bedrock
20
25
30
35
40
45
Note: The stratification
_
lines represent the
_
approximate boundaries
_
between the soil types; the
50
transitions may be gradual.
Pro ozed FueUng Site / Commercial Development
Date: 5/8/96 Location! Per Plan BORING NO. 3 File No. SS -6032-P1
r m
a_
o
a
DESCRIPTION
z
y
c,
REMARKS
CD
N
U
_
D U
E
5.9
;
d� U
0
Al: Gray brown silty fine
SM
grained sand
20
5
19
Brown fine grained sandy
ML
88.2
2.6.3
... --
cla a silt
Al: Gray brown silty fine
SM
_U.
-
grained sand
10
2:2
„
"
85.6
2.0
84
Silt layer 3 inches thick
23
- Relatively undisturbed
Total Depth = 16'
ring sample
No Free Water
-
No Bedrock
20
No recovery
25
30
35
40
45
-
Note: The stratification
_
lines represent the
_
approximate boundaries
-
between the soil types; the
50
transitions may be gradual.
M
5
5
1
' Proposed Fueling Site / Commercial, Development
Date: 5/8/96 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 4 File No. SS -6032-P1
E
m
0
DESCRIPTION
m
a
3
o
m
m o
0
REMARKS
0.2 m
O-
N
a
c
o
CL
c
0
A 1; Gray brown silty fine.
SM
-
grained sand
17
fin
5
T.
22
"
A3: Gray brown silty fine
sM
Dry silt layer, 1 inch thick
-
grained sand
10
26
„
IS
15
25
20
45
89.0
2.1
77
25
40
® Relatively undisturbed
Total Depth = 26'
ring sample
No Free Water
-
No Bedrock
30
® No recovery
35
40
45
_.
Note: The stratification
_
lines represent the
_
approximate boundaries
_
between the soil types; the
5'0
transitions may be gradual.
' Proposed Fueling Site / Commercial Development
I
I
1
u
Date: 5/8/96 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 5 File No. SS -6032-P1
m
-o
E
0
DESCRIPTION
a
3
o
m a
REMARKS
o
5
0
A 1: Gray brown silty fine
Sm
-
grained sand
22
95.4
0.9
93
5
1894.1
n .r
n
3.4
92
10
4.24
_
A3: Gray brown silty fine
SM
J._
grained sand
15
26
„
„
87.6
1.2
76
A 1 : Gray brown silty fine
SM
20
30
grained sand
Scattered thin silt layers
14*
a u
u
25
42
-
Relatively undisturbed
Total Depth = 26'
-
ring sample
No Free Water
-
No Bedrock
30
® No recovery
35
40
45
_
Note: The stratification
_
lines represent the
_
approximate boundaries
_
between the soil types; the
&0
transitions may be gradual.
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX B
Summary of Test Results
Table 2
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
May 22, 1996
BORING/DEPTH
USCS
SOIL DESIGNATION
!
MAXRVIUM
DENSITY (pcfl
OPTIMUM. MOISTURE (%)
ANGLE OF INT. FRI
COHESION (ps f)
EXPANSION INDEX
B-1
SS -6032-P1
96-05-761
1 @ 0-5'
1 @ 6-10' 4 @ 5-10'
SM
SM/SP SM
Al
A2 A3
102.4
-- 115.6
14.9
--- 12.2
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (%)
GRAVEL. 0.0 0.0
SAND 80.5 87.2
SILT 15.1 9.8
CLAY 4.4 3.0
SOIL DESCRIP'T'IONS:
A1: Gray brown silty fine grained sand (SM)
A2: Gray brown slightly silty fine grained sand (SM/SP)
A3: Gray brown slightly clayey silty fine grained sand (SM)
EART}i SYSTEMS roNsm-TANT's
0.0
61.7
27.4
10.9
U 102
m
D
0
Q
w
a
En
0
:z 101
O
a
z
z
w
100
cc
0
13 1.5 17
MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
METHOD OF COMPACTION
ASTM D-1557-78, METHOD A or C
SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY
Al 102.4 pcf
Boring 1 0 0 - 5'
OPTIMUM MOISTURE
14.9 %
SS -6032 -PI
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM -MOISTURE -CURVE
11
May 22, 1996
BORING & DEPTH
3 @ 5.0
10.0
4 @ 20.0
5 @ 2.0
5.0
15.0
B-2
DRY DENSITY
88.2
85.6
89.0
95.4
94.1
87.6
9b MOISTURE
26.3
2.0
2.1
0.9
3.4
1.2
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
SS -6032-P1
96-05-761
1
J
J
t.
U 116
m
D
U
Q
W
a
cn
a
Z: 115
a
z_
U)
z
w
y� 114
0
10 12 14
MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
METHOD OF COMPACTION
ASTM D-1557-78, METHOD A or C
SOIL TYPE
A3
Boring 4 ® 5 - 10'
MAXIMUM DENSITY
1.15.6 pcf
OPTIMUM MOISTURE
12.2 %
S°S-6032-P t
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVE
SS -6032-P 1
4.0
3.5
N
I-
p 3.0
LL
CL
Y 2.5
cn
c.
w
cc
2.0
t!.
z
a 1.5
w
cn
1.0
0.5
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
NORMAL LOAD {KIPS / FOOT )
DIRECT SHEAR DATA
Soil type: Al
Boring and depth: 1 @ 0 - 5'
Angle of internal friction: 30°
Cohesion: 110 psf
Samples remolded to 90 % of maximum density
❑ Samples relatively undisturbed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SS -6032-.P 1
4.0
3.5
N~
F -
p 3.0
CL
Y 2.5
cn
in
w
cc
2.0
in
0
z
a 1.5
w
Cn
1.0
0.5
0.5. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT )
DIRECT SHEAR DATA
Soil type: A3
Boring and depth: 4 ® 5 - 10'
Angle of internal friction: 26'
Cohesion: 215 psf
Samples remolded to 90 % of maximum density
Samples relatively undisturbed
I.
Pressure is KIPS per Square Foot
0.6
1.0 2.0
4.0 8.0
F.02
.03
�ff�ct�d�tin�
.01
0.0
.0
.01
w
d
.c
_c
.02
c
j.
c
0
.03
'O
o
H
c
O
.04
U
.05
.06
.07
.08
.09
.10
Consolidation
nine
sed Fueling Site
EEARTH
oring 3 @ 5'
TEMS CONSULTA, iTS
96 Job No.: SS -6032-P1
�ff�ct�d�tin�
Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot
1.0
I
2.0
4.0
8.0
G'
.03
.04
Eli
-
-
.05
z
z
.06
.03
.04
Eli
-
-
.05
.06
.07
.08
Rind_=
�
09
_ _
.10
1
1
1
1
1
1.0
Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot
05
20
40 80
.03
.02
.01
0.0
S
V
.�
.0.1.
1r
d
a
a
.02
c
O
.03
—o
.04
W
c
0
U
.05
06
.07
.08
.09
.10
rnnsnlidation
Dincram
Proposed Fueling Site
Boring 5 0 2'
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
Date:
5/21/96' Job No.: SS -6032-P 1
1.0
.03
.02
.01
0.0
.05
.06
.07
.08
.09
.10
Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot
0.5
1..0
2.0
4'.0 8.0
c
'Efia=f Adding_
- - - - _ -
- thr =
741 - — - —
- — - - — -
x
— - - -
- — _ - — - —
I Proposed Fueling Site 1
Boring 5 @ 5'
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANT!
Date: 5/21/96 1 Job No.: SS -6032-P1
Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot
0.5
1..0
2.0
4.0 8.0
.03
.02
.01
G — — —
0.0
.01
ii�
=�Effec-EEEAcldSEi
_
e SE
___
- — _
.03
If
04
—
.05 -
.06
.07 -
— - - —
- _
—_ - - — -
- — _ - — -
.08
.09
.10
TABLE NO. 2
MINIMUM. FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS*
(1) (to)
Footings for slab 8 Raised Floor Systems (2) (6) (10)
Concrete Slabs
3 1/2" Minimum. Thickness
H
All Perimeter Interior
footings
WeightedN
y
t
m
Footings
for slab and
Premoistening control
Expansion
o
c
(6)
raised floors (6)
for soils under footings,
Piers under
Index
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
Total
piers and'slabs
raised floors
cm
for
(4)
thickness
(5) (6)
6E.
U2
.o
Depth below natural
continuous
of sand
in
ti
surface of ground
lootings
(3) (8)
Inches
and finish grade
INCHES
O-20Moistening
1
6
12
6
12
12
1-p4 top
6X6
of ground
Piers allowed
Very.low
(Non-
2
8
15
7
18
18
and
10/10
2
prior to
placing concrete
for single
expansive)
3
10
18
8
24
24
bottom
WWF
recommended
floor loads only
21-50
1
6
12
6
15
12
144 top
6
°_X6- 120 of optimum moisture
Piers allowed
Low
2
8
15
7
18
18
and
10/10
content to a depth of 21'
for single
3
10
18
8
24
24
bottom
WWF
4
below lowest adjacent grade.
floor bads only
Testing Required
6X6-
1
6
12
6
21
12
1.84 top
6/6 WWF
130% of optimum moisture
51-90
2
8
12
8
21
18
and bottom
or p3 bars
4
content to a depth of 27'
Piers not
Medium
3
10
15
8
24
24
@ 24' •.w.
below lowest adjacent grade.
allowed
03 bars @24' in exterior footing
Testing Required
and bent 3' into slab 9
6X6-
_
1
6
12
6
27
12
145 top
6/6 WWF
140% of optimum moisture
91.130
2
8
12
8
27
18
bottom
and b
or 03 bars
4
content to a depth of 33•
Piers not
High
3
10
15
8
27
24
24' e.w.
below lowest adjacent grade.
allowed
#3 bars @ 24' in exterior,fooling
Tasting Required
and bent Tinto slab 9
Above 130
Ver High
SPECIAL DESIGN BY LICENSED ENGINEER/ARCHITECT 07-11-9541W
'Rolur to noxt paga for loolnolus. (1) throur�h (10)
ir3
14
• I *9, ,
FOOTNOTES TO TABLE 22
1.
Premoistening is required where specified in Table 2 in order to achieve maximum
—
and uniform expansion of soils prior to construction and thus limit structural distress
caused by uneven expansion and shrinkage. Other systems which do not include
premoistening may be approved by the Building Oficial when such alternatives are
shown to provide equivalent safeguards against adverse effects of expansive soils.
2.
Underfloor access crawl holes shall ' provided with curbs extendingnot less than
six (6) inches above adjacent grade tprevent surface water froentering the
foundation area.
3.
Reinforcement for continuous foundations shall be placed not less than three (3)
inches above the bottom of the footings and not less than three (3) inches below the
I
top of the stem.
4.
Reinforcement shall be placed at mid -depth of slab.
S.
After premoistening, the specified moisture content of soils shall be maintained until
concrete is placed. Required moisture content shall be verified by an approved testing
laboratory not more than twenty-four (24) hours prior to placement of concrete.
6..
Crawl spaces under raised floors need not be premoistened except under interior
footings. Interior footings which are not enclosed by a continuous perimeter
foundation system or equivalent concrete or masonry moisture barrier complying with
UBC Section 2907 (b) shall be designed and constructed as specified for perimeter
footings in Table 2.
7.
A grade beam not less than twelve (12) inches by twelve (12) inches in cross section,
reinforced as specified for continuous foundations in Table 2 shall be provided at
garage door openings.
8.
Foundation stem walls which exceed a height of three (3) times the stem thickness
above lowest adjacent grade shall_ be reinforced in accordance with Sections 2418 and
_
2614 in the UBC or as required by engineering design, whichever is more restrictive.
9.
Bent reinforcing bars between exterior footing and slab shall be omitted when floor is
designed as an independent, "floating" slab.
10.
Fireplace footings shall be reinforced with a horizontal grid located three (3) inches
above the bottom of the footing and consisting of not less than number four (#4) bars
at twelve (12) inches on center each way. Vertical chimney reinforcing bars shall be
hooked under the grid.
7
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
mm
1
l
l
l
APPENDIX C
Infiltration Testing
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSPLTANTS
Earth Systems Consultants Buena Engineers Division
Southern California 79-8118 Country Club Drive
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
(619)345-1588
(619) 328-9131
FAX (619) 345-7315
June 7, 1996 SS -6032 -PI
96-06-706
Lapis Energy Corporation
4401 Manchester Avenue, Suite 207
Encinitas, California 92024
Attention: Mr. John Gabbard, Vice President
Project: Proposed Fueling Site, Commercial Development and Mini -Storage Facility
La Quinta, California
a
As requested, we have performed infiltration testing for storm water retention on
the above referenced project. A single test was performed in the southeast portion of
the site in the area of the proposed retention basin. The site soils in this area consist
primarily of silty fine grained sands. The test was performed on May 22, 1996, in
general accordance with ASTM D 2285 utilizing a double -ring infiltrometer. The test
result is as follows:
J
!J
J
J
1 J
J
J
J
IJ
i J
Tt Inches Per Hour
1 18.0
The infiltration rate provided is an ultimate valuc and has not had safety factor
applied. Because the water to be introduced into the systems will be storm water
runoff, the potential silting of the percolating soils should be addressed. The
percolation test was performed at a depth of approximately one foot below the
existing ground surface. The approximate test location is indicated on the plan in
Appendix A.
If there are any questions concerning this letter, plcase contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
��,,., .P fie%
Hogan R. Wright,
Staff Engineer
HRW/BLA
HD/Letters
Copies: 6 - Lapis Energy Corporation
1 - VTA File
Brett L:
M
I I
I N
J
I %
. a . .0 Stofrnwater Percolation Test
Proposed. Fueling Site
Performed: 5-22-96 Tna+ a sc_an,4g_1D,
Inner Ring
Outer Ring
Infiltration Rate
Elapsed
Time
Time
Reading
Change
Reading Change Convers.
Inner Outer
(in.)
(in.)
(in.) (in.) Factor
Ring Ring
(in.)
(inJhr.) (inJhr.)
10:30
34.40
27.50
15
4.80
5.20
5.98
19.2
23.9
10:45
29.60
22.30
10:45
29.60
22.30
30
4.60
4:70
5.41
18.4
21.6
11:00
25.00
17.60
11:00
25.00
17,60
45
4.30
4.60
5.29
17.2
21.2
11:15
20.70
13.00
11:15
20.70
13.00
60
4.80
5.00
5.75
19.2
23.0
11:30
15.90
8.00
11:30
15.90
8.00
75
4:70
5.10
5.87
18.8
23.5
11:45
11.20
2.90
11:45
11.20
28.30
90
4.50
4.70
5.41
18.0
21.6
12.00
6.70
23.60
12:00
6.70
23.60
105
4.30
4.50
5.18
17.2
20.7
12:15
2.40
19.10
12:15
35-9019.10
120
4'.20
4.50
5.18
16.8
20.7
12:30
31.70
14.60
12:30
31.70
14.60
135
4.10
4.50
5.18
16.4
20.7
12:45
27.60
10:10
12:45
27.60
10.10
150
4.30
4.40
5.06
17.2
20.2
1:00
23.30
5:70
1:00
23.3027.60
165
4.00
4.30
4.95
16.0
19.8
1:15
19.30
23.30
1:,15
19.30
23.30
180
3.80
4.00
4.60
15.2
18.4
1:30
15.50
19.30
1:30
15.50
19.30
19 5
3.90
4.20
4.83
15.6
19.3
1:45
11.60
15,10
1:45
34.90
15.10
210
3.90
3.90
4.49
15.6
17.9
2:00
31.00
11.20
2:00
31.00
11.20
225
3.90
3.70
4.26
15.6
17.0
2:15
1
27.10
7.50
2:15
27.10
7.50
240
3.70
4.00
4.60
14.8
18.4
2:30
23.40
3.50