The URL can be used to link to this page

07-2849 (HOSP) Geotechnical Engineering & Seismic Hazard ReportIf Earth Systems Southwest GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND SEISMIC HAZARDS REPORT PROPOSED AMBULATORY CARE CENTER EAST SIDE WASHINGTON STREET SOUTH OF MILES AVENUE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Consulting Engineers and Geologists OCT `192007 0� EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER 39-000 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND SEISMIC HAZARDS REPORT PROPOSED AMBULATORY CARE CENTER EAST SIDE WASHINGTON STREET SOUTH OF MILES AVENUE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA May 15, 2007 0 2007 Earth Systems Southwest Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Earth Systems Southwest. File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Earth Systems Southwest May 15, 2007 Eisenhower Medical Center 39-000 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, California 92270 Attention: Mr. Ali Tourkaman Project: Proposed Ambulatory Care Center East Side Washington Street, South of Miles Avenue La Quinta, California Subject: Geotechnical Engineering and Seismic Hazards Report Dear Mr. Ali Tourkaman: 79-811 B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 We take pleasure in presenting this geotechnical engineering and seismic hazards report prepared for the proposed Ambulatory Care Center to be located on the east side Washington Street south of Miles Avenue in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. This report presents our findings and recommendations for site grading and foundation design, incorporating the information provided to our office. The site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are followed in design and construction. In general, the upper soils should be compacted to improve bearing capacity and reduce the potential for differential settlement. The site is subject to strong ground motion from the San Andreas fault. 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 March 26, 2007. Other services that may be required, such as plan review and grading observation, are additional services and will be billed according to our Fee Schedule in effect at the time services are provided. Unless requested in writing, the client is responsible for distributing this report to the appropriate governing agency or other members of the design team. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact our office if there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations. Respectfully submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Clay Stevens PG 8214 SER/cs/sls/ajf Distribution: 6/Eisenhower Medical Center 1/RC File 2/BD File Shelton L. Stringer GE 2266, EG 2417 / �g'o E551C. in Nu 2`'[5"Cr 0 SHELTON L L 4: STHINGER No. 2417 -i y� ENGINEERING � GEOLOGIST 4 op CA I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................... ill Section1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING..................................................................14 1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................1 Site Development — Grading............................................................................14 1.2 Site Description..................................................................................................1 Excavations and Utility Trenches....................................................................15 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work...............................................................................2 Slope Stability of Graded Slopes.....................................................................15 Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION...............................................................4 2.1 Field Exploration...............................................................................................4 Foundations......................................................................................................15 2.2 Laboratory Testing.............................................................................................4 Slabs-on-Grade................................................................................................16 Section3 DISCUSSION...................................................................................................5 Retaining Walls................................................................................................18 3.1 Soil Conditions..................................................................................................5 Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete.....................................................18 3.2 Groundwater......................................................................................................5 Seismic Design Criteria...................................................................................19 3.3 Geologic Setting.................................................................................................6 Pavements........................................................................................................20 3.4 Geologic Hazards...............................................................................................6 3.4.1 Seismic Hazards.....................................................................................6 3.4.2 Secondary Hazards.................................................................................8 3.4.3 Site Acceleration and Seismic Coefficients...........................................9 3.4.4 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis................................................10 Section4 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................13 Section 5 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................14 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING..................................................................14 5.1 Site Development — Grading............................................................................14 5.2 Excavations and Utility Trenches....................................................................15 5.3 Slope Stability of Graded Slopes.....................................................................15 STRUCTURES............................................................................................................15 5.4 Foundations......................................................................................................15 5.5 Slabs-on-Grade................................................................................................16 5.6 Retaining Walls................................................................................................18 5.7 Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete.....................................................18 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria...................................................................................19 5.9 Pavements........................................................................................................20 Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES....................................21 6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations.......................................................21 6.2 Additional Services..........................................................................................22 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................23 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 1 �5 Table of Contents, continued ii APPENDIX A Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Boring Location Map Figure 3 — Regional Geologic Map, Coachella Valley Figure 4 — State of California Geomorphic Map Figure 5 — Earthquake Epicenter Map Figure 6 — Regional Fault Map Figure 7 — Earthquake Spectra Figure 8 — Design Response Spectra Table 1 — Fault Parameters 2006 International Building Code (IBC) & ASCE 7-05 Seismic Parameters Spectra Response Values Terms and Symbols used on Boring Logs Soil Classification System Logs of Borings and CPT Soundings APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C Seismic Settlement Calculations EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Earth Systems Southwest has prepared this executive summary solely to provide a general overview of the report. The report itself should be relied upon for information about the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and other concerns. The site is located on the east side Washington Street, south of Miles Avenue, in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The proposed development will consist of a three-story medical building. We understand that the proposed structure will be steel -frame and stucco construction supported with continuous wall and isolated pad foundations and concrete slabs -on - grade. The proposed project may be constructed as planned, provided that the recommendations in this report are incorporated in the final design and construction. Site development will include clearing and grubbing of vegetation, precise site grading, building pad preparation, underground utility installation, parking lot construction, and concrete driveway and sidewalks placement. The near surface soils appear compact and are expected to be suitable to provide support of the foundation subject to further verification testing during precise grading. We consider the most significant geologic hazard to the project to be the potential for moderate to severe seismic shaking that is likely to occur during the design life of the proposed structures. The project site is located in the highly seismic Southern California region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. The site is located in Seismic Zone 4 of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC). Structures should be designed in accordance with the values and parameters given within the CBC. The seismic design parameters are presented in the following table and within the report. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST iii SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Design Item Recommended Parameter Reference Section No. Foundations .Allowable Bearing Pressure Continuous wall footings Pad Column footings 1,500 psf -1,800 sf 5.4 Foundation Type Spread Footing Isolated Pad 5.4 Bearing Materials Engineered fill Allowable Passive Pressure 300 psf 5.4 Active Pressure 35 pcf 5.6 At -rest Pressure 55 pcf 5.6 Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.25 5.4 Soil Expansion Potential Very low (EI<20) 3.1 Geologic and Seismic Hazards Liquefaction Potential Negligible 3.4.2 Significant Fault and Magnitude San Andreas, M7.7 .3.4.3; 5.8 Fault Type A .3.4.3; 5.8 Seismic Zone 4 3.4.3; 5.8 Soil Profile Type SD 3.4.3; 5.8 Near -Source Distance 8.6 km 3.4.3; 5.8 Near Source Factor, Ne 1.06 3.4.3; 5.8 Near Source Factor, N, 1.31 3.4.3; 5.8 Pavement TI equal to 5.0 (Light Traffic) 3.0" AC / 4.0" AB 5.9 TI equal to 6.5 (Heavy Traffic) 4.0" AC / 5.0" AB 5.9 Slabs Building Floor Slabs On engineered fill 5.5 Modulus of Sub rade Reaction 300 ci 5.5 Existing Site Conditions Existing Fill Soil Corrosivity low sulfates low chlorides 5.7 Groundwater Depth Presently about 174 feet Historical High about 100 feet 3.2 Estimated Fill and Cut includes over -excavation 1 feet - fill .3 feet - cut 1.1 The recommendations contained within this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 6 of this report. We recommend that all individuals using this report read the limitations. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 GGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND SEISMIC HAZARDS REPORT PROPOSED AMBULATORY CARE CENTER EAST SIDE WASHINGTON STREET SOUTH OF MILES AVENUE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 1.1 Project Description This geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for the proposed Ambulatory Care Center to be located on the east side Washington Street, south of Miles Avenue in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The approximate coordinates of this site are 33.7190 N latitude and 116.2924 W longitude The proposed Ambulatory Care Center will be a three-story structure. We understand that the proposed structure will be of steel -frame construction and will be supported by conventional shallow continuous and pad footings. Site development will include clearing and grubbing of vegetation, site grading, building pad preparation, underground utility installation, parking lot construction, and concrete driveway and sidewalk placement. Based on existing site topography and ground conditions, site grading is expected to consist of fills not exceeding 5 feet and cuts of about 5 feet (including over - excavation). We used maximum column loads of 100 kips and a maximum wall loading of 4 kips per linear foot as a basis for the foundation recommendations. All loading is assumed to be dead plus actual live load. If actual structural loading exceeds these assumed values, we would need to reevaluate the given recommendations. 1.2 Site Description The proposed ambulatory care center consists of approximately 13.5 acres situated on the east side Washington Street south of Miles Avenue in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The site is bounded to the south by the Whitewater River channel that has been concrete lined. The latitude near the center of the site is approximately 33.7190°N and the longitude is approximately 116.2924°W. The site is described as a portion of the northwest '/4 of the southeast I/4 of Section 19, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, SBBM. Topographically, the site is relatively flat with an approximate 40 foot high 2:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) slope descending to the south into the Whitewater River channel. The building area elevation is approximately 110 feet above mean sea level. Current drainage of the site is by sheetflow to the south, although internal site drainage has been modified due to previous construction activities. The site location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The project site presently consists of a vacant lot that has been previously mass -graded. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 2 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 The history of past use and development of the property was not investigated as part of our scope of services. No evidence of past development was observed on the site during our reconnaissance. Nonetheless, some previous development of the site is possible. Buried remnants, such as old foundations, slabs, or septic systems, may exist on the site. There are no existing improvements on the site. No appreciable amount of vegetation was found at the site. Underground utilities are near and within the building areas. These utility lines include but are not limited to domestic water, electric, sewer, telephone, cable and irrigation lines. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose for our services was to evaluate the site soil conditions and to provide professional opinions and recommendations regarding the proposed development of the site. The scope of work included the following: ➢ A general reconnaissance of the site. ➢ Shallow subsurface exploration by drilling 9 exploratory borings to depths ranging from 5 to 51.5 feet below existing grade. ➢ Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings. ➢ A review of selected published technical literature pertaining to the site, and previous geotechnical reports prepared for the proposed Commercial/Residential Development to be located in the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta, California. ➢ An engineering analysis and evaluation of the acquired data from the exploration and testing programs. ➢ A summary of our findings and recommendations in this written report. This report was prepared in substantial accordance with the requirements of CCR Title 24, 2001 California Building Code Vol. 2 and Vol. 2B, CDMG Note 42, 44 and 48, CDMG Special Publication 117 and 42. The conclusions and recommendations included in this report are based upon the data collected for this commission and past professional experience with similar projects in southern California. 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 and 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. • Mitigation of the potential corrosivity of site soils to concrete and steel reinforcement. • Seismic design parameters. • Preliminary pavement structural sections. :EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 3 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Not Contained in This Report: Although available through Earth Systems Southwest, the current scope of our services does not include: ➢ A corrosive study to determine cathodic protection of concrete or buried pipes. ➢ An environmental assessment. ➢ An 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. The client did not direct ESSW to provide any service to investigate or detect the presence of moisture, mold, or other biological contaminates in or around any structure, or any service that was designed or intended to prevent or lower the risk or the occurrence of the amplification of the same. Client acknowledges that mold is ubiquitous to the environment, with mold amplification occurring when building materials are impacted by moisture. Client further acknowledges that site conditions are outside of ESSW's control and that mold amplification will likely occur or continue to occur in the presence of moisture. As such, ESSW cannot and shall not be held responsible for the occurrence or recurrence of mold amplification. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Field Exploration 4 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Nine exploratory borings were drilled to depths ranging from 5 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface to observe the soil profile and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. The borings were drilled on March 31, 2007 and April 2, 2007 using 8 -inch outside diameter hollow - stem augers, powered by a Simco 2800 truck -mounted drilling rig. 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 a 2.37 -inch inside diameter. The samples were obtained by driving the sampler with a 140 -pound automatic hammer, dropping 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. Recovered soil samples were sealed in containers and returned to the laboratory. Bulk samples were also obtained from auger cuttings, representing a mixture of soils encountered at the 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 the subsurface exploration. 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 gradational. 2.2 Laboratory Testing 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. ➢ Maximum density tests to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of typical soils encountered. ➢ Particle Size Analysis to classify and evaluate soil composition. The gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by hydrometer and sieve analysis procedures. ➢ Consolidation (Collapse Potential) to evaluate the compressibility and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential of the soil. ➢ Chemical Analyses (Soluble Sulfates and Chlorides, pH, and Electrical Resistivity) to evaluate the potential adverse effects of the soil on concrete and steel. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 5 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Section 3 DISCUSSION 3.1 Soil Conditions The field exploration indicates that site soils consist generally of silty sands to sands with silt (Unified Soils Classification System symbols of SM, SP -SM). Near surface soils have been used to provide fill material for off-site construction and improvements along Washington and Miles. These construction activities have disturbed and spread native and imported soils, creating a blanket of undocumented fill across the surface of the site. Thicknesses of the undocumented fill within the planned new building area are estimated to be approximately 1 to 5 feet. The boring logs provided in Appendix A include more detailed descriptions of the soils encountered. The soils are visually classified to be in the very low expansion (EI < 20) category in accordance with Table 18A -I -B of the California Building Code. Site soils are classified as Type C in accordance with CalOSHA. In and climatic regions, granular soils may have a potential to collapse upon wetting. Collapse (hydroconsolidation) may occur when the soluble cements (carbonates) in the soil matrix dissolve, causing the soil to densify from its loose configuration from deposition. Consolidation testing indicates 0.8% collapse upon inundation and collapse is therefore considered a low site risk. The hydroconsolidation potential is commonly mitigated by recompaction of a zone beneath building pads. The site lies within a recognized blow sand hazard area. Fine particulate matter (PMIo) can create an air quality hazard if dust is blowing. Watering the surface, planting grass or landscaping, or placing hardscape normally mitigates this hazard. 3.2 Groundwater The Banning, Mission Creek, and Garnet Hill faults, which are part of the San Andreas Fault system, divide the Coachella Valley into four distinct hydrogeologic subbasins. Each subbasin is further divided into subareas, based on either the type of water -bearing formation, water quality, areas of confined groundwater, forebay areas, groundwater divides, or surface water divides. The site is located within the Thermal subarea of the Indio subbasin. This subarea consists of the confined portion of the Indio subbasin, where water from the up -gradient Palm Springs subarea moves into the interbedded sands, silts and clays underlying the central portion of the valley. Groundwater in this subarea generally flows in a southeasterly direction toward the Salton Sea. Free groundwater was not encountered in the borings during exploration. The depth to groundwater in the area is believed to be about 187 feet based on 2003 water well data obtained from the Coachella Valley Water District for a well on the southeast boundary of the subject site. Note that the CVWD obtains well information from production wells that tend to tap deeper aquifers, and may not represent upper -most groundwater. Historic high groundwater is estimated to be about 100 feet deep (EI 10) based on 1961 groundwater levels presented in USGS Water - Resources Investigation Report 91-4142. Groundwater levels may fluctuate with precipitation, irrigation, drainage, regional pumping from wells, and site grading. The absence of groundwater EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 levels detected may not represent an accurate or permanent condition. Groundwater should not be a factor in design or construction at this site. Localized zones of temporary perched groundwater could occur, following a rainy season and stormwater flow from the nearby Whitewater River channel. 3.3 Geologic Setting Regional Geology: The site lies within the Coachella Valley, a part of the Colorado Desert geomorphic province. A significant feature within the Colorado Desert geomorphic province is the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is a large northwest -trending structural depression that extends approximately 180 miles from the San Gorgonio Pass 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 part of the Salton Trough. The Coachella Valley contains a thick sequence of Miocene to Holocene sedimentary deposits. 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 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 Geoloa: The project site is located approximately 110 feet above sea level in the south- central portion of the Coachella Valley. The upper sediments observed onsite consist of fine- grained sands and silty sands with interbedded silts, of reworked aeolian (wind deposited) and alluvial (stream deposited) origin (Qal-Qsd) (SM, SP -SM soil types per the Unified Soil Classification Systems) to the maximum depth of exploration of approximately 51 feet below existing grades. Most of the soils at the site are windblown sands and silty sands with silt interbeds deposited in standing water between dunes. The silty soils encountered in the subsurface along the Whitewater River channel at the south edge of the site are probably alluvial overbank deposits. The depth to crystalline basement rock beneath the site is estimated to be in excess of 2000 feet (Envicom, 1976). 3.4 Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards that may affect the region include seismic hazards (ground shaking, surface fault rupture, 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: Several active faults or seismic zones lie within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the project site as shown on Table 1 and Figure 6 in Appendix A. The primary seismic hazard to the site is strong ground shaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults. Other nearby regional faults include the Burnt Mountain, Pinto Mountain, and Landers faults. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 7 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 The Maximum Magnitude Earthquake (Mmax) listed is from published geologic information available for each fault (Cao et al., CGS, 2003). The Mmax corresponds to the maximum earthquake believed to be tectonically possible. In addition, there are abundant active or potentially active faults located in southern California that are capable of generating earthquakes that could affect the La Quinta area. These include the many faults within the Mojave Desert located northeast of the San Bernardino Mountains and the many faults located in the vicinity of the Los Angeles basin and coastal southern California (see Figure 3). Surface Fault Rupture: The project site does not lie within a currently delineated State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1997). Well -delineated fault lines cross through this region as shown on California Geological Survey (CGS) maps (Jennings, 1994); however, no active faults are mapped in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, active fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site. An active fault is defined by the State of California as a "sufficiently active and well defined fault" that has exhibited surface displacement within the Holocene (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined by the State as a fault with a history of movement within Pleistocene time (between 11,000 and 1.6 million years ago). The closest known active faults to the site include the San Andreas fault zone located approximately 5.3 miles (8.5 km) northeast of the site. While fault rupture would most likely occur along previously established fault traces, future fault rupture could occur at other locations. Historic Seismicity: Eight historic seismic events (5.9 M or greater) have significantly affected the Coachella Valley in the last 110 years. They are as follows: • 1899 San Jacinto Earthquake — On December 25, 1899, although not well located due to poor documentation at the turn of the century, was estimated to have had a local magnitude of approximately 6.5. Significant damage to structures in San Jacinto and Hemet occurred, especially to unreinforced brick or adobe buildings. The earthquake was felt as far away as San Diego and Needles, California. This earthquake is thought to have originated from fault rupture along the San Jacinto fault. • 1918 San Jacinto Earthquake — On April 21, 1918, again shook the towns of San Jacinto and Hemet where most of the damage occurred approximately 40 miles east of the site. This local magnitude 6.8 earthquake caused significant cracking to roadways, canals, and the ground. Landsliding was common. The San Jacinto fault was the causative fault. • Desert Hot Springs Earthquake — On December 4, 1948, a magnitude 6.5 ML (6.OMW) earthquake occurred east of Desert Hot Springs. This event was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area. • Palm Springs Earthquake — A magnitude 5.9 ML (6.2MW) earthquake occurred on July 8, 1986 in the Painted Hills, causing minor surface creep of the Banning segment 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 22, 1992, a magnitude 6.1 ML (6.1 MW) 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. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 $ File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 • Landers and 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 California 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 (6.4MW) earthquake occurred near Big Bear Lake. No significant structural damage from these earthquakes was reported in the Palm Springs area. • Hector Mine Earthquake — On October 16, 1999, a magnitude 7.1 MW earthquake occurred on the Lavic Lake and Bullion Mountain faults north of Twentynine Palms. While this event was widely felt, no significant structural damage has been reported in the Coachella Valley. Seismic Risk: We consider the most significant geologic hazard to the project that is likely to occur during the design life of the Ambulatory Care Center to be the potential for moderate to severe seismic shaking. The site is located in the highly seismic Southern California region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. These active and potentially active faults are capable of producing potentially damaging seismic shaking at the site. It is anticipated that the Ambulatory Care Center will periodically experience strong ground acceleration as the result of moderate to large magnitude earthquakes. While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, various agencies have conducted statistical risk analyses. In 2002, the California Geological Survey (CGS) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed the latest generation of probabilistic seismic hazard maps. 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 and 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 7.7 for the Southern Segment of the fault (USGS, 2002). This segment has the longest elapsed time since rupture of any part of the San Andreas fault. The last rupture occurred about 1690 AD, based on dating by the USGS near Indio (WGCEP, 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 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 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 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 g File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 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 negligible because the depth of groundwater beneath the site exceeds 100 feet. No free groundwater was encountered in our exploratory borings. The project site does lie in a moderate liquefaction zone designated by Riverside County for soils with a high susceptibility and intermediate historic high groundwater. Ground Subsidence: The potential for seismically induced ground subsidence is considered to be low at the site. Dry sands tend to settle and densify when subjected to strong earthquake shaking. The amount of subsidence is dependent on relative density of the soil, ground motion, and earthquake duration. Uncompacted fill areas may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement. Based on Tokimatsu and Seed methodology, we estimate that about 1.2 to 2.2inches of total ground subsidence may occur in the upper 50 feet of soils with an Upper Bound Earthquake (UBE) ground motion of 0.71g (see Appendix C for Seismic Settlement Analysis). Expected differential settlement for the UBE may be about 1 -inch across a 50 -foot span (1:600 post -construction angular distortion ratio). Regional Land Subsidence and Fissuring Potential: The project site is not located within an area where previous ground fissuring from areal subsidence or groundwater withdrawal has been documented. Per the 2000 Riverside County General Plan, the southern Coachella Valley area is within a designated "active" area for subsidence. In areas of fairly uniform thickness of alluvium, fissures are thought to be the result of tensional stress near the ground surface and generally occur near the margins of the areas of maximum subsidence. Surface runoff and erosion of the incipient fissures augment the appearance and size of the fissures. Changes in pumping regimes can affect localized groundwater depths, related cones of depression, and associated subsidence such that the prediction of where fissures might occur in the future is difficult. In the event of future nearby aggressive groundwater pumping, the occurrence of deep subsidence cannot be ruled out, although, subsidence would most likely occur on an areal basis with the effects to individual structures anticipated to be minimal. According to the study by Sneed and others, the ground surface of the site subsided approximately 3/4 inch for the time period of June 17, 1998 through October 4, 2000. The effects of this subsidence on structures are not known at this time. Slope Instability: The site is relatively flat. Therefore, potential hazards from slope instability, landslides, or debris flows are considered negligible. Flooding: The project site does not lie within a designated FEMA 100 -year flood plain. The Whitewater River, adjacent to the site to the south, flows after heavy rainfall events. The project site may be in an area where sheet flooding and erosion could occur. If significant 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 Seismic Coefficients Site Acceleration: The potential intensity of ground motion may be estimated by the horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA), measured in "g" forces. Included in Table 1 are deterministic estimates of site acceleration from possible earthquakes at nearby faults. Ground motions are dependent primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the seismogenic (rupture) zone. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 10 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Accelerations are also 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. For instance, mean+l6 represents a 14% risk of exceedance level of ground motion. For most attenuation relationships, this corresponds to about 1.6 times the mean ground motion. In our evaluation of peak ground acceleration (PGA), we averaged four attenuation relationships: Boore et al., 1997; Sadigh et al., 1997; Abrahamson and Silva, 1997; and Campbell, 2003. Each attenuation relationship has its strengths and limitations. For this reason, the USGS used an equally weighted average of these four in their National Strong Motion Mapping Program (Frankel et al., 2002). The PGA alone is an inconsistent scaling factor to compare to the CBC Z factor and is generally a poor indicator of potential structur4l 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, spectral accelerations (Sa) are used in structural design. Spectral ground acceleration is directly related to the dynamic forces that earthquakes induce on structures. 3.4.4 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis We conducted a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) to evaluate the likelihood of future earthquakes. Completing the PSHA required defining the location and geometry of potentially damaging earthquake sources (faults and seismic zones) and defining the geoseismic characteristics of these earthquake sources. Geoseismic characteristics required for the analysis include: • Type of deformation (strike slip, dip slip, reverse, thrust). • Fault segmentation. • Length of fault segments and depth of rupture. • Fault slip rate (average rate of deformation — estimate in mm/yr). • Maximum earthquake magnitude. • Site-specific response characteristics (soil or rock condition). We selected the faults within 100 km that are expected to be significant to the seismic hazard. Table 1 also provides a summary of the geoseismic characteristics based primarily on the fault parameters from the California Division of Mines and Geology (Cao et al., 2003). Our probabilistic site acceleration estimates were developed using the USGS Interactive Strong Motion Deaggregation website. The USGS PSHA results for soft rock (SB/C) were adjusted by a site factor varying from 1.0 for PGA to 1.3 for spectral accelerations of 1.0 second. The contributions of various seismic sources by deaggregation to the total seismic hazard at the site are also shown on Figure 12. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 11 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Horizontal Response Spectra: Horizontal response spectral curves for the project site were computed using the values from the PSHA. Horizontal response spectral curves for 5% viscous damping are presented on Figure 7 for a risk of exceedance of 10% in 50 years (DBE) and 10% in 100 years (UBE). For comparison, the 2001 CBC equivalent static response spectrum is also shown. Figure 8 shows the CBC response spectrum, DBE, and UBE spectral curves using an arithmetic scale. A table of tabulated values of spectral acceleration is also provided in Appendix A for comparison. Generally, vertical accelerations may be taken as equal to z/3 of the horizontal acceleration, but can equal or exceed the horizontal acceleration. The following table provides the probabilistic estimates of the PGA taken from the 2002 USGS interactive deaggregation website. Estimates of PGA from 2002 USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Notes: 1. Based on soft rock site, (Site Class SB/c) adjusted with soil amplification factors of 1.0 and 1.3 for Soil Profile Type SD for short and long periods, respectively. 2. Spectral acceleration (SA) at period of 0.2 seconds divided by 2.5 factor for 5% damping. 3. DBE — Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion UBE — Upper Bound Earthquake Ground Motion Site Characterization: In developing site-specific seismic design criteria, the characteristics of the earth units underlying the site are an important input to evaluate the site response at a given site. Based on the results of our field exploration at the site, the project site is underlain by medium dense to dense sandy alluvium. Based on the above information, we classify the site soil profile for site response as SD according to Table 16-J of the 2001 CBC Vol. 2. SD is defined as a soil profile consisting of stiff soil with shear wave velocities between 180 and 360 m/s or SPT N = 15 to 50 in the top 30 meters. 2001 CBC Seismic Coefficients: The California Building Code (CBC) seismic design criteria 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 estimate given above is provided for information on the seismic risk inherent in the CBC design. The seismic and site coefficients given in Chapter 16 of the 2001 California Building Code are provided in Section 5.8 of this report below. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Equivalent Spectral Spectral Risk Return PGA (g)1 AccelerationAcceleration Period (years) Sa (O.i sec.) Sa (1.0 sec.)' 10% exceedance in 475 0.57 1.28 0.74 50 Xears DBE 10% exceedance in 949 0.71 1.64 0.99 100 years (UBE) Notes: 1. Based on soft rock site, (Site Class SB/c) adjusted with soil amplification factors of 1.0 and 1.3 for Soil Profile Type SD for short and long periods, respectively. 2. Spectral acceleration (SA) at period of 0.2 seconds divided by 2.5 factor for 5% damping. 3. DBE — Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion UBE — Upper Bound Earthquake Ground Motion Site Characterization: In developing site-specific seismic design criteria, the characteristics of the earth units underlying the site are an important input to evaluate the site response at a given site. Based on the results of our field exploration at the site, the project site is underlain by medium dense to dense sandy alluvium. Based on the above information, we classify the site soil profile for site response as SD according to Table 16-J of the 2001 CBC Vol. 2. SD is defined as a soil profile consisting of stiff soil with shear wave velocities between 180 and 360 m/s or SPT N = 15 to 50 in the top 30 meters. 2001 CBC Seismic Coefficients: The California Building Code (CBC) seismic design criteria 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 estimate given above is provided for information on the seismic risk inherent in the CBC design. The seismic and site coefficients given in Chapter 16 of the 2001 California Building Code are provided in Section 5.8 of this report below. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 12 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 2001 CBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter 16 Seismic Provisions Seismic Hazard Zones: The site lies in a moderate liquefaction potential zone designated by the 2003 Riverside County Integrated Project because of historic intermediate groundwater (50 to 100 feet), and high susceptibility sediments. This portion of Riverside County has not been mapped by the California Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (Ca. PRC 2690 to 2699). ASCE 7-05 (2006 IBC) Seismic Coefficients: The ASCE 7-05 and 2006 International Building Code (IBC) seismic and site coefficients are given in Appendix A. We understand that the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) has adopted the 2006 IBC as the new model code, which adopts ASCE 7-05 by reference, for the scheduled revision to the 2007 California Building Code, effective January 1, 2008. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Reference Seismic Zone: 4 Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone Factor, Z: 0.4 Table 16-I Soil Profile Type: SD Table 16-J Seismic Source Type: A Table 16-U Distance to Known Seismic Source: 8.6km = 5.4 miles (San Andreas fault) Near Source Factor, Na: 1.06 Table 16-5 Near Source Factor, N,,: 1.31 Table 16-T Seismic Coefficient, Ca: 0.46 = 0.44Na Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, C,,: 0.84 = 0.64Nv Table 16-R PGA: 0.57 Estimated Peakz 0.71g Acceleration (UBE)* Estimated Peak 0.57g Acceleration (DBE)** Seismic Hazard Zones: The site lies in a moderate liquefaction potential zone designated by the 2003 Riverside County Integrated Project because of historic intermediate groundwater (50 to 100 feet), and high susceptibility sediments. This portion of Riverside County has not been mapped by the California Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (Ca. PRC 2690 to 2699). ASCE 7-05 (2006 IBC) Seismic Coefficients: The ASCE 7-05 and 2006 International Building Code (IBC) seismic and site coefficients are given in Appendix A. We understand that the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) has adopted the 2006 IBC as the new model code, which adopts ASCE 7-05 by reference, for the scheduled revision to the 2007 California Building Code, effective January 1, 2008. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 13 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Section 4 CONCLUSIONS The following is a summary of our conclusions and professional opinions based on the data obtained from a review of selected technical literature and the site evaluation. General: ➢ From a geotechnical perspective, the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are followed in the design and construction of this project. Geotechnical Constraints and Mitigation: ➢ The primary geologic hazard is severe ground shaking from earthquakes originating on nearby faults. A major earthquake above magnitude 7 originating on the local segment of the San Andreas fault zone would be the critical seismic event that may affect the site within the design life of the proposed development. Engineered design and earthquake - resistant construction increase safety and allow development of seismic areas. ➢ The project site is in seismic Zone 4, is of soil profile Type SD, and is about 8.6 km from a Type A seismic source as defined in the California Building Code. A qualified professional should design any permanent structure constructed on the site. The minimum seismic design should comply with the 2001 edition of the California Building Code. ➢ Ground subsidence from seismic events or hydroconsolidation is a potential hazard to this site. Adherence to the grading and structural recommendations in this report should reduce potential settlement problems from seismic forces, heavy rainfall or irrigation, flooding, and the weight of the intended structures. ➢ The soils are susceptible to wind and water erosion. Preventative measures to reduce seasonal flooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans. Dust control should also be implemented during construction. Site grading should be in strict compliance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). ➢ Other geologic hazards, including fault 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 sands and are unsuitable in their present condition to support structures, fill, and hardscape. The soils within the building and structural areas will require moisture conditioning, over - excavation, and recompaction to improve bearing capacity and reduce the potential for differential settlement from static loading. Soils can be readily cut by normal grading equipment. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 14 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Section 5 RECOMMENDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING 5.1 Site Development — Grading A representative of Earth Systems Southwest (ESSW) should observe site clearing, grading, and the bottoms of excavations before placing fill. Local variations in soil conditions may warrant increasing the depth of recompaction and over -excavation. Clearing and Grubbing: At the start of site grading, existing vegetation, non -engineered 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 clearing should be properly backfilled and compacted as described below. Dust control should also be implemented during construction. Site grading should be in strict compliance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Building Pad Preparation: The upper 5 to 10 feet of subgrade soils (reworked from past mass - grading) appear to be dense and compact and generally suitable for structural support subject to further verification testing. For precise site grading and building pad preparation, the subgrade should be remoisture conditioned to achieve a penetration of 5 feet and the area retested by potholing in several locations (but no less than six) in 1 -foot increments to a depth of 4 feet below grade or 2 feet below deepest footings to verify that 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) has been consistently achieved. If areas of the building pad are found to be non- compliant, remedial grading and recompaction may be required and retested. Auxiliary Structures Subgrade Preparation: Auxiliary structures such as garden or retaining walls should have the foundation subgrade prepared similar to the building pad recommendations given above. Subgrade Preparation: In areas to receive fill, pavements, or hardscape, the subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) for a depth of 1 foot below finished subgrades. Compaction should be verified by testing. Engineered Fill Soils: The native soil is suitable for use as engineered fill and utility trench backfill, provided it is free of significant organic or deleterious matter. The native soil should be placed in maximum 8 -inch lifts (loose) and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near its optimum moisture content. Compaction should be verified by testing. Rocks larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension should be removed from fill or backfill material. Imported fill soils (if needed) 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 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 15 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 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 be prequalified by ESSW. The imported fill should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near optimum moisture content. 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 excavations over 4 feet deep are planned, 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 and equal to the depth of the excavation. Utility Trenches: Backfill of utilities within roads 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. 5.3 Slope Stability of Graded Slopes Unprotected, permanent graded slopes should not be steeper than 3:1 (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. STRUCTURES In our professional opinion, structure foundations 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 low expansion category soils. 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. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 16 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 A minimum footing depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade should be maintained. A representative of ESSW should observe foundation excavations before placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Loose soil or construction debris should be removed from footing excavations before 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, 18 -inch minimum width and 24 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, 3 x 3 foot minimum in plan and 24 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. Minimum reinforcement for continuous wall footings (as specified in the California Building Code) should be two No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing. This reinforcing is not intended to supersede any structural requirements provided by the structural engineer. Expected Settlement: Estimated total static settlement should be less than 1 inch, based on footings founded on firm soils as recommended. Differential settlement between exterior and interior bearing members should be less than 1/2 inch, expressed in a post -construction angular distortion ratio of 1:480 or less. 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 0.25 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 by one-third. 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 backfill next to foundations is properly compacted. 5.5 Slabs -on -Grade Sub rg ade: Concrete slabs -on -grade and flatwork should be supported by compacted soil placed in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 17 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Vapor Retarder: In areas of moisture sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor retarder should be installed to reduce moisture transmission from the subgrade soil to the slab. For these areas, an impermeable membrane (10 -mil thickness) should underlie the floor slabs. The membrane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to help protect it during construction and to aid 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 membrane is dependent upon its quality, the method of overlapping, its protection during construction, and the successful sealing of the membrane around utility lines. The following minimum slab recommendations are intended to address geotechnical concerns such as potential variations of the subgrade and are not to be construed as superseding any structural design. The design engineer and/or project architect should ensure compliance with SB800 with regards to moisture and moisture vapor. Slab Thickness and Reinforcement: Slab thickness and reinforcement of slabs -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 (actual, not nominal). We suggest that the concrete slabs be reinforced with a minimum of No. 4 rebars at 18 -inch centers, both horizontal directions, placed at slab mid -height 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 continually 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 (ACI) guidelines. All joints should form approximately square patterns to reduce the potential for randomly oriented contraction cracks. Contraction joints in the slabs should be tooled at the time of the pour or saw cut (1/4 of slab depth) within 8 hours of concrete placement. Construction (cold) joints should consist of thickened butt joints with 1/2 -inch dowels at 18 -inches on center or a thickened keyed -joint to resist vertical deflection at the joint. All construction joints in exterior flatwork should be sealed to reduce the potential of moisture or foreign material intrusion. These procedures will reduce the potential for randomly oriented cracks, but may not prevent them from occurring. 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 affected by temperature, wind, and humidity. Quality control procedures as required by the governing jurisdiction may include trial batch mix designs, batch plant inspection, and on-site special inspection and testing. Typically, when using 2500 -psi concrete, many of these quality control procedures are not required. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 18 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 5.6 Retaining Walls The following table presents lateral earth pressures for use in retaining wall design. The values are given as equivalent fluid pressures without surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressure. Lateral Pressures and Sliding Resistance I Granular Backfill 'Passive Pressure 375 pcf - level ground .Active Pressure (cantilever walls) 'Use when wall is permitted to rotate 0.1 to 0.2% of wall 35 pcf - level ground height for granular backfill At -Rest Pressure (restrained walls) 55 pcf - level ground Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure z Acting at 0.611, 50 pcf Where H is height of backfill in feet Base Lateral Sliding Resistance 0.25 Dead load x Coefficient of Friction: Notes: t These values are ultimate values. A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used in stability analysis except for dynamic earth pressure where 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 and not supporting inhabitable structures need not consider this increased pressure (reference: CBC Section 1630A. 1. 1.5). 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 recommended 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 structure should be a free -draining granular material. Waterproofing should be according to the designer's specifications. 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. Backfill and Subgrade Compaction: Compaction on the retained side of the wall within a horizontal distance equal to one wall height should be performed by hand -operated or other lightweight compaction equipment. This is intended to reduce potential locked -in lateral pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading equipment. Foundation subgrade preparation should be as specified in Section 5.1. 5.7 Mitigation of Soil Corrosivity on Concrete Selected chemical analyses for corrosivity were conducted on soil samples from the project site as shown in Appendix B. The native soils were found to have a low sulfate ion concentration (50 ppm) and a low chloride ion concentration (70 ppm). Sulfate ions can attack the cementitious material in concrete, causing weakening of the cement matrix and eventual deterioration by raveling. Chloride ions can cause corrosion of reinforcing steel. The California Building Code EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 19 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 does not require any special provisions for concrete for these low concentrations as tested. Normal concrete mixes may be used. A minimum concrete cover of three (3) inches should be provided around steel reinforcing or embedded components exposed to native soil or landscape water. Additionally, the concrete should be thoroughly vibrated during placement. Electrical resistivity testing of the soil suggests that the site soils may present a 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. The information provided above should be considered preliminary. These values can potentially change based on several factors, such as importing soil from another job site and the quality of construction water used during grading and subsequent landscape irrigation. Earth Systems does not practice corrosion engineering. We recommend that a qualified corrosion engineer evaluate the corrosion potential on metal construction materials and concrete at the site to provide mitigation of corrosive effects, if further guidance is desired. 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria This site is subject 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 minimum seismic design should comply with the 2001 edition of the California Building Code using the seismic coefficients given in the table below. 2001 CBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter 16 Seismic Provisions Estimated Peak Acceleration (UBE)* 0.71g Estimated Peak Acceleration 0.57g (DBE)**: *10% probability of being exceeded in 100 years. ** 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Reference Seismic Zone: 4 Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone Factor, Z: 0.4 Table 16-I Soil Profile Type: SD Table 16-J Seismic Source Type: A Table 16-U Distance to Known Seismic Source: 8.6km = 5.4 miles (San Andreas fault) Near Source Factor, Na: 1.06 Table 16-S Near Source Factor, N,,: 1.31 Table 16-T Seismic Coefficient, Ca: 0.46 = 0.44Na Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, C,,: 0.84 = O.64N,, Table 16-R PGA: 0.57 Estimated Peak Acceleration (UBE)* 0.71g Estimated Peak Acceleration 0.57g (DBE)**: *10% probability of being exceeded in 100 years. ** 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 20 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 The CBC seismic coefficients are based on scientific knowledge, engineering judgment, and compromise. The site-specific probabilistic seismic analysis presented in Appendix A may be used as required for dynamic analyses. The intent of the CBC 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 CBC 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 should exercise special care so that all components of the design are fully met with attention to providing a continuous load path. An adequate quality assurance and control program is urged during project construction to verify that the design plans and good construction practices are followed. This is especially important for sites lying close to the major seismic sources. 5.9 Pavements Since no traffic loading was 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 advised to prolong the service life of the pavements. Water should not pond on or near paved areas. The following table provides our preliminary recommendations for pavement sections. Final pavement sections recommendations should be based on design traffic indices and R -value tests conducted during grading after actual subgrade soils are exposed. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED PAVEMENTS SECTIONS R_Val„P 411hvrarlP ,,OilC - 5n (a.c.q„merll Design Method — CALTRANS 1995 Notes: 1. Asphaltic concrete should be Caltrans, Type B, ''/z -in. or '/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 ('/4 in. maximum) and compacted to a minimum of 95% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture. 3. All pavements should be placed on 12 inches of moisture -conditioned subgrade, compacted to a minimum of 90% of ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture. 4. Portland cement concrete should have a minimum of 3250 psi compressive strength at 28 days. 5. Equivalent Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) may be used instead of Caltrans specifications for asphaltic concrete and aggregate base. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Flexible Pavements Rigid Pavements Asphaltic Aggregate Portland Aggregate Traffic Concrete Base Cement Base Index Pavement Use Thickness Thickness Concrete Thickness Assumed Inches Inches Inches Inches 5.0 Auto Parking Areas 3.0 4.0 1 4.0 4.0 6.5 Service Entrances 4.0 5.0 J 6.0 4.0 Notes: 1. Asphaltic concrete should be Caltrans, Type B, ''/z -in. or '/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 ('/4 in. maximum) and compacted to a minimum of 95% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture. 3. All pavements should be placed on 12 inches of moisture -conditioned subgrade, compacted to a minimum of 90% of ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density near its optimum moisture. 4. Portland cement concrete should have a minimum of 3250 psi compressive strength at 28 days. 5. Equivalent Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) may be used instead of Caltrans specifications for asphaltic concrete and aggregate base. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 21 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES 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 report are 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 be 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 recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the 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 verify 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 governing agencies. As the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project, Earth Systems Southwest (ESSW) 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. ESSW 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 ESSW is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 22 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Although available through ESSW, the current scope of our services does not include an environmental assessment or an 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. 6.2 Additional Services 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 ESSW as the geotechnical consultant from beginning to end of the project will provide continuity of services. The geotechnical engineering firm providing tests and observations shall assume the 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. ■ A review of the building and grading plans to observe that recommendations of our report have been properly implemented into the design. • Observation and testing during site preparation, grading, and placement of engineered fill as required by CBC Sections 1701 and 3317 or local grading ordinances. • Consultation as needed during construction. Appendices as cited are attached and complete this report. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 23 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 REFERENCES Abrahamson, N., and Shedlock, K., editors, 1997, Ground motion attenuation relationships: Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 1, January 1997 special issue, 256 p. American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2004, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Parts 1 through 5. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2006, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-05. California Department of Water Resources, 1964, Coachella Valley Investigation, Bulletin No. 108, 146 pp. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1988, Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, International Conference of Building Officials, February 1988. California Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, Epicenters of and Areas Damaged by M>_5 California Earthquakes, 1800-1999, CDMG Map Sheet 49. California Geologic Survey (CGS), 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. California Geologic Survey, 2005, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page, http://eqint.er.usgs.gov/eq-men/html/deaggint2002-06.html. Cao, T, Bryant, W.A., Rowhandel, B., Branum. D., and Wills, C., 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, California Geologic Survey (CGS), June 2003. Earth Consultants International, 2000, Seismic Hazards - County of Riverside, Natural Hazards Mapping, Analysis, and Mitigation: a Technical Background Report in Support of the Safety Element of the New Riverside County 2000 General Plan. Earth Systems Southwest, 2001, Proposed Commercial/Residential Development SEC Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California, Document No.: 01-11-760, File No.: 08382-01 Earth Systems Southwest, 2004, Report Of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update SEC Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California, Document No. 04-07-755, File No.: 08382-02 Envicom Corporation and the County of Riverside Planning Department, 1976, Seismic Safety and Safety General Plan Elements Technical Report, County of Riverside. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST May 15, 2007 24 File No.: 11037-01 07-05-700 Frankel, A.D., et al., 2002, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps, USGS Open -File Report 02-420. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., 2000, Fault Rupture Hazards Zones in California, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, updated in CDROM 2000-003. International Code Council (ICC), 2002, California Building Code, 2001 Edition. Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000. 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. Reichard E.G., Meadows, J.K., 1992, Evaluation of a Ground -water Flow and Transport Model of the Upper Coachella Valley, California, USGS Water -Resources Investigation Report 91- 4142 Riverside County Planning Department, 2002, Geotechnical Element of the Riverside County General Plan — Hearing Draft, Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California - Santa Ana Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000. Sadigh, K. et al, 1997, Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquake Based on California Strong Motion Data: Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 1, p. 180-189. Sneed, M., Stork, S.V., and Ikehara, M.E., 2002, Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Global Positioning System and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 1998-2000, United States Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 02-4239. Southern California Earthquake Center (S.C.E.C.), 2005, Web Site: http//www.scecdc.scec.org/. 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. United States Geologic Survey, 2005, National Strong Motion Interactive Deaggregation Web Page, http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/deagaint2002.html. Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p. 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. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST APPENDIX A Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Boring Location Map Figure 3 — Regional Geologic Map, Coachella Valley Figure 4 — State of California Geomorphic Map Figure 5 — Earthquake Epicenter Map Figure 6 — Regional Fault Map Figure 7 — Earthquake Spectra Figure 8 — Design Response Spectra Table 1 — Fault Parameters 2006 International Building Code (IBC) & ASCE 7-05 Seismic Parameters Spectra Response Values Terms and Symbols used on Boring Logs Soil Classification System Logs of Borings and CPT Soundings EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST VN 1 0 M Q M EP N 0 M ^'y CC 0 h ' 0 'M+1 116°18'45"W 116°18'0"W 564000 565000 116°17'15"W 566000 116'16'30"W 567000 _jai ^� •' . '' t rn ti} ," :Water18 .. f,I., 4.r ` 71. 7 ,., M y,•. S _ far. r � V�' . ROAD....•'r •w +!' . � �.�. •• � } � i 'ate i -. •ti � •� C---' �!` y: �� } til ;, . o yy Pyr, r �.., r; x Ip 7N Park' • • -2b HI Andian We __ {' —�•� ^NIS•• - ! • I��':y - II '•: •11- .. � y f• ' .' � • _��'"TT-• N1VEY.. _ ,"� `� •r�� _syr �f Y jt > '�^ 'Y W e. -' �ti. - - .- ;L -i.1- .R-�r._ _ .. C�iK I. p..,..a �.Ra r:a _.:. .. •�,� •• • `e ' r ��:f a Trnjl% R -ams ��' • Il=-. .:: ••G�, .•rN^.• f' i„ � r.r r � I� lj .. i.�F� ..sem 0'`i•=,`�;°' yt� a tin._f'' =.� � y •� •.r:Y�:J�l�r { I i+s �`� � >tii ��, f'"t rti i • •i . ;•,�•• '.Yr. i r � - • �l + - - •^�i ., 1-30 � ,..,. filar L'r • !'. yy' "`firry' 2y� ';fiy �r•�'i .- .' i 5 f � -1 a�rK •as•-,- � �I �1.�1 i�-.�- '-��'I r.� �:�;.r: S:ti +:t 3''r1 r J I a 0 0 Mo M M o M 7 7 a n 7 a 13 0 N �o 7 M1 P M V CI) 564000 565000 566000 567000 116°18'45"W 116°18'0"W 116°17'15"W 116°1630"W 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet N Figure 1 Site Location Map LEGEND Proposed Ambulatory Care Center East Side Washington St. South of Miles Ave. Project Area La Quinta, Riverside County, California Earth Systems Southwest 05/15/07 1 File No.: 11037-01 116°17'42"W SM50 � =r LO 0 0 N N T I- r Legend o o ® Approximate Boring Location M N M y O Approximate CPT Location r w a o g 2 M a 565350 Figure 2 Boring and CPT Location Map Proposed Ambulatory Care Facility 0 30 East Side Washington St. & South of Miles Ave. La Quints Riverside County,California Earth Systems Southwest 05/15/07 File No,: 11037-01 t� . �: .,rib ' _ li. ,I L• •, t�:1�''�'V _ i r-. `l. ^.� • I � � , � � O '�-- �x` � C7 Via.' .. '�?°_ '¢ ',;� ,r -:-. •r -- - � — f' o y .. O ca Z OK co 41 } y CL o ° r r E E 1 3 a itflt'Ti;� f' { f 1 O w `w w ca c°cL LO n ti' O C O cu `Iti CO cn 4.7I Uo a II .�� - , F � �`k.. j •- :i�il ;•/ , rr115`�.•� ._.... _ t _ r a:co ii. 1 N C r �. E co __....er,:`I O N o a m c CO j O N N - mNoa)c`c5 i y IL Uma a 47 E CL a c �U U N c i N :3 (CD E ro >rE coo >Maa)U) 9 .•171 - `� � � r A ` III ��'tt1 7 } Yy o � C 'ro U C V � J ° � O > V O 'J`j�•. ,1 /,/ '.�_ -.r I i+ � c '~.}i "'-•1 .j •FAl // Me C C C N C 61 N c ti .'• / I /`' CO 4, � oo ooao .2 a��. ,v'Ir, .'�� { �:..' C3 d CJ a a a ro b d E • ' x WaCJCiC3OadCL En 0t 050 100 Miles � � \ M 0 J A V E D E S E R T R Es Q., •,y ra SITE � 9w0 �` ��,41 �Ra f i sen --�- - - -- - -- -- Figure 4 State of California - Geomorphic Map Proposed Ambulatory Care Facility Map showing geomorphic provinces of California East Side Washington St. & South of Miles Ave and major active and potentially active faults. La Quinta, Riverside County, California Fault locations are based on Jennings (1994) Earth Systems and Blake (2000). southwest 05/15/07 File No.: 11037-01 0 C110V 10 y 9r C y 9r� qy o ' P � For[ k3rar�n P ,¢ Sarrair,en[a . San FranGsca r 6 t Mnnlgr�j[` 111 y IN Y San Andreas Fault 050 100 Miles � � \ M 0 J A V E D E S E R T R Es Q., •,y ra SITE � 9w0 �` ��,41 �Ra f i sen --�- - - -- - -- -- Figure 4 State of California - Geomorphic Map Proposed Ambulatory Care Facility Map showing geomorphic provinces of California East Side Washington St. & South of Miles Ave and major active and potentially active faults. La Quinta, Riverside County, California Fault locations are based on Jennings (1994) Earth Systems and Blake (2000). southwest 05/15/07 File No.: 11037-01 MAP SHOWING LOCATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FROM 1812 TO 2000 SOURCE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CENTER, WEB PAGE, 2000 HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES AND EPICENTERS 1. 1812, WRIGHTWOOD 19. 1946, WALKER PASS 37. 38. 1986, OCEANSIDE 1987, ELMORE RANCH & SUPERSTITION HILLS 2. 3. 1852, VOLCANO LAKE 1857, FORT TEJON 20. 21. 1947, MANLY 1948, DESERT HOT SPRINGS 39. 1987, WHITTIER NARROWS 4.1892, LAGUNA SALADA 22. 1952, KERN COUNTY 40. 1988, PASADENA 5. 1899, SAN JACINTO 23. 24. 1954, SAN JACINTO 1966, PARKFIELD 41. 42. 1988, UPLAND 1988, TEJON RANCH 6. 7. 1899, CAJON PASS 1910, ELSINORE 25. 1968, BORREGO MOUNTAINS 43, 1989, NEWPORT BEACH 8. 1915, IMPERIAL VALLEY 26. 1970, LYTLE CREEK 44. 1989, MONTEBELLO 9. 1918, SAN JACINTO 27. 1971, SAN FERNANDO 45. 1991, SIERRA MADRE 10. 1923, NORTH SAN JACINTO 28. 1973, POINT MAGU 46. 1992, LANDERS 11. 1925, SANTA BARBARA 29. 1975, GALWAY LAKE 47. 1992, MOJAVE 12. 1927, LOMPOC 30. 1978, SANTA BARBARA 48. 1992, BIG BEAR 13. 1933, LONG BEACH 31. 1979, IMPERIAL VALLEY 49. 1992, JOSHUA TREE 14. 1937, SAN JACINTO 32, 1979, MALIBU 50, 51. 1993, WHEELER RIDGE 1994, NORTHRIDGE 15. 1940, IMPERIAL VALLEY 33. 34. 1980, WHITE WASH 1982, ANZA GAP 52. 1995, RIDGECREST 16. 17, 1941, TORRANCE-GARDENA 1941, SANTA BARBARA 35. 1983, DURRWOOD MEADOWS SWARM 53. 1997, CALICO 18. 1942, FISH CREEK MOUNTAINS 36. 1986, NORTH PALM SPRINGS 54. 1999, HECTOR MINE MAP SHOWING LOCATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FROM 1812 TO 2000 SOURCE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CENTER, WEB PAGE, 2000 -118.0 -117.5 -117.0 -116.5 -116.0 -115.5 -115.0 County Boundaries Major Active Faults - Other Faults EQ M 5.5-5.9 ® EQ M 6.5-6.9 ■ Site Active Faults Dip Slip Fault Planes EQ M 6-6.4 EQM7+ Magnitude 5.5'or greater since Figure 6 - Regional Fault Map 1800 are plotted based on CGS database Project: Ambulatory Care Center File No.: 11037-01 Earth Systems_ Southwest UNIFORM PROBABILITY EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA 10 I m O m > V d a O 7 a 0.1 0.01 2001 CSC Spectra475-yr Return (DBE) 949 -yr Return (UBE) fes; 0.01 0. 1 10 Natural Period (seconds) r Based on USGS National Strong Ground Motion Interactive Deaggregation Website using 2002 Parameters Attenuation relationship from: Average of Boore et al (1997), Sadigh (1997), Campbell & Borzognia (2003), Figure 7 - Earthquake Spectra and Abrahamson & Silva (1997) Soil Profile Type, S p Ambulatory Care Center Latitude: 33.719 File No.: 11037-01 Longitude: -116.2924 Earth Systems Date: 5/17/07 1 o—ut West fes' 4 iti,f � � r /f �. .;', F � - - - �Q •. • USGS PSHA 475 -yr ■ USGS PSHA 949 -yr Z 1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA 3.0 i " 2.8 2.6 I 1 I k 2.4 i I 2.2 I I 2.0 1.8 " p f { 1.6 m I i V V 4 Q 1.4 L v � � CL 1.2 U 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 — 2001 CBC Figure 16-3 from Equations 304 & 30-5 for Soil Type SD) 0.2 DBE 10% Risk in 50 years —CUBE 10% Risk in 100 years 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1-5 2.0 Period (sec) Attenuation relationship from: Average of Boore et al (1997), Sadigh (1997), Campbell & Borzognia (2003), and Abrahamson & Silva (1997) Ambulato Care Center 11037-01 Table 1 Fault Parameters Rc Deterministic Estimates of Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) Fault Name or Seismic Zone Distance from Site (mi) (km) Fault Type Maximum Magnitude Mmax (Mw) Avg Slip Rate (mm/ r) Avg i Return Period (yrs) Fault Length (km) Mean Site PGA _(g) Reference Notes: 1 2 3 4 2 2 2) 5 San Andreas - Mission Crk. Branch 5.3 8.5 SS A 7.2 25 220 95 0.39 San Andreas - Southern 5.3 8.6 SS A 7.7 24 220 199 0.45 San Andreas - Banning Branch 5.4 8.6 SS A 7.2 10 220 98 0.38 Blue Cut 13.3 21.4 SS C 6.8 1 760 30 0.18 Burnt Mtn. 16.3 26.3 SS B 6.5 0.6 5000 21 0.13 Eureka Peak 17.3 27.9 SS B 6.4 0.6 5000 19 0.11 San Jacinto (Hot Spgs - Buck Ridge) 17.5 28.2 SS C 6.5 2 354 70 0.12 San Jacinto-Anza 21.8 35.1 SS A 7.2 12 250 91 0.14 San Jacinto -Coyote Creek 21.9 35.3 SS B 6.8 4 175 41 0.11 Morongo 27.7 44.5 SS C 6.5 0.6 1170 23 0.08 Pinto Mountain 29.2 46.9 SS B 7.2 2.5 499 74 0.11 Emerson So. - Copper Mtn. 30.9 49.8 SS B 7.0 0.6 5000 54 0.09 Landers 31.5 50.7 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 83 0.11 Pisgah -Bullion Mtn. -Mesquite Lk 33.3 53.5 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 89 0.10 San Jacinto -San Jacinto Valley 35.9 57.8 SS B 6.9 12 83 43 0.08 San Jacinto - Borrego 36.3 58.4 SS B 6.6 4 175 29 0.06 North Frontal Fault Zone (East) 37.5 60.4 RV B 6.7 0.5 1727 27 0.08 Earthquake Valley 40.7 65.4 SS B 6.5 2 351 20 0.05 Johnson Valley (Northern) 42.3 68.0 SS B 6.7 0.6 5000 35 0.06 Brawley Seismic Zone 42.4 68.2 SS B 6.4 25 24 42 0.05 Calico - Hidalgo 44.1 71.0 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 95 0.08 Elsinore -Julian 44.5 71.6 SS A 7.1 5 340 76 0.07 Elsinore -Temecula 47.7 76.8 SS B 6.8 5 240 43 0.05 Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman Sprgs 48.0 77.3 SS B 7.5 0.6 5000 145 0.08 North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 48.6 78.3 RV B 7.2 1 1314 50 0.09 Elmore Ranch 50.6 81.4 SS B 6.6 1 225 29 0.04 Elsinore -Coyote Mountain 52.2 84.0 SS B 6.8 4 625 39 0.05 Superstition Mtn. (San Jacinto) 54.5 87.7 SS B 6.6 5 500 24 0.04 Superstition Hills (San Jacinto) 55.3 89.1 SS B 6.6 4 250 23 0.04 Helendale - S. Lockhardt 55.8 89.8 SS B 7.3 0.6 5000 97 0.06 San Jacinto -San Bernardino 57.9 93.2 SS B 6.7 12 100 36 0.04 Elsinore -Glen Ivy 60.9 98.0 SS B 6.8 5 340 36 0.04 Notes: 1. Jennings (1994) and California Geologic Survey (CGS) (2003) 2. CGS (2003), SS = Strike -Slip, RV = Reverse, DS = Dip Slip (normal), BT = Blind Thrust 3. 2001 CBC, where Type A faults: Mmax > 7 & slip rate >5 mm/yr & Type C faults: Mmax <6.5 & slip rate < 2 mm/yr 4. CGS (2003) 5. 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, (4) 1997 Abrahamson & Silva (mean plus sigma values are about 1.5 to 1.6 times higher) Based on Site Coordinates: 33.719 N Latitude, 116.292 W Longtude and Site Soil Type D EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Ambulatory Care Center 11037-01 2006 International Building Code (IBC) & ASCE 7-05 Seismic Parameters* Design Earthquake Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Reponse 1 second Spectral Response Seismic Importance Factor SDs 1.00 g = 2/3*SMs SDI IBC Reference Seismic Category: To D = 0.2*SDI/SDs Table 1613.3(1) Site Class: = SDI/SDs D 1.00 Table 1615.1.1 Latitude: 1.2 33.719 N 0.05 Longitude: -116.292 W Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Response Ss 1.50 g Figure1615(3) 1 second Spectral Response S1 0.60 g Figure1615(4) Site Coefficient Fa 1.00 Table 1615.1.2(1) Site Coefficient FV 1.50 U) Table 1615.1.2(2) SMs 1.50 g = Fa*Ss SMI 0.90 g = Fv*SI Design Earthquake Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Reponse 1 second Spectral Response Seismic Importance Factor SDs 1.00 g = 2/3*SMs SDI 0.60 g = 2/3*SMI To 0.12 sec = 0.2*SDI/SDs Ts 0.60 sec = SDI/SDs I 1.00 Table 1604.5 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Period Sa 2006 IBC (ASCE 7-05) Equivalent Static Response Spectrum T (see) 0.00 0.40 1.2 0.05 0.65 -- 0.12 1.00 0.20 1.00 o, 1.0 _- -. _ _ .-_ _ 0.30 1.00 m --- --- 0.60 1.00 U) 0.70 0.80 0.86 0.75 0 0.8 0.90 0.67 ami 0.6 1.00 0.60 L) 1.10 1.20 0.55 0.50 < 1.30 1.40 1.50 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.4 n _ U) 0.2 1.60 0.38 1.70 0.35 1.80 0.33 0.0 1.90 0.32 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.00 0.30 Period (sec) 2.20 0.27 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Ambulatory Care Center 11037-01 Spectral Response Values For 5% Viscous Damping Ratio * From USGS Strong Motion Mapping Program for soft rock B/C and adjusted for site conditions using the following NEHRP amplification factors: Period sec Spectral Acceleration (Sa) in 's Natural 1.00 California Period 2002 USGS PSHA* Building Code Equations 30-4 T DBE UBE & 30-5 seconds 475- 949 -yr (PGA) 0.57 0.71 0.46 0.10 1.05 1.32 0.95 0.20 1.28 1.64 1.16 0.30 1.29 1.67 1.16 0.50 1.10 1.45 1.16 1.00 0.74 0.99 0.84 2.00 0.41 0.55 0.42 * From USGS Strong Motion Mapping Program for soft rock B/C and adjusted for site conditions using the following NEHRP amplification factors: Period sec F PGA 1.00 0.2 1.00 1.0 1.30 Spectral Amplification Factor for different viscous damping, D (%): 1.517-0.321 *Ln(D) for 0.1 < T < 0.4 seconds 1.400-0.248*Ln(D) for 0.3 < T < 2.0 seconds After Idriss (1993) 1 g = 980.6 cm/sec =32.2 ft/sect PSV (ft/sec) = 32.2(Sa)T/(2p) DBE = Design Basis Earthquake, UBE = Upper Bound Earthquake Attenuation relationship from: Average of Boore et al (1997), Sadigh (1997), Campbell & Borzognia (2003), and Abrahamson & Silva (1997) EARTH SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil classification is based on ASTM Designations D 2487 and D 2488 (Unified Soil Classification System). Information on each boring log is a compilation of subsurface conditions obtained from the field as well as from laboratory testing of selected samples. The indicated boundaries between strata on the boring logs are approximate only and may be transitional. SOIL GRAIN SIZE U.S. STANDARD SIEVE 12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200 GRAVEL_ SAND BOULDERS COBBLES COARSE FINE COARSE MED#UM FINE SILT CLAY 305 76.2 19.1 4.[b Z.UQ u.4L u.ut4 SOIL GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS LRAIPLWI_4 RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS (GRAVELS, SANDS, AND NON -PLASTIC SILTS) Very Loose ''N=04 RD=0-30 Easily push a 1/2 -inch reinforcing rod by hand Loose N=5-10 RD=30-50 Push a 1/2 -inch reinforcing rod by hand Medium Dense N=11-30 RD=50-70 Easily drive a 1/2 -inch reinforcing rod with hammer Dense N=31-50 RD=70-90 Drive a 1/2 -inch reinforcing rod 1 foot with difficulty by a hammer Very Dense N>50 RD=90-100 Drive a 1/2 -inch reinforcing rod a few inches with hammer 'N=Blows per foot in the Standard Penetration Test at 60% theoretical energy. For the 3 -inch diameter Modified California sampler, 140 -pound weight, multiply the blow count by 0.63 (about 2/3) to estimate N. If automatic hammer is used, multiply a factor of 1.3 to 1.5 to estimate N. RD=Relative Density (%). C=Undrained shear strength (cohesion). CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS (CLAY OR CLAYEY SOILS) Very Soft *N=0-1 *C=0-250 psf Squeezes between fingers Soft N=2-4 C=250-500 psf Easily molded by finger pressure Medium Stiff N=5-8 C=500-1000 psf Molded by strong finger pressure Stiff N=9-15 C=1000-2000 psf Dented by strong finger pressure Very Stiff N=16-30 C=2000-4000 psf Dented slightly by finger pressure Hard N>30 C>4000 Dented slightly by a pencil point or thumbnail MOISTURE DENSITY Moisture Condition: An observational term; dry, damp, moist, wet, saturated. Moisture Content: The weight of water in a sample divided by the weight of dry soil in the soil sample expressed as a percentage. Dry Density: The pounds of dry soil in a cubic foot. MOISTURE CONDITION RELATIVE PROPORTIONS Dry .....................Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Trace ............. minor amount (<5%) Damp................Slight indication of moisture with/some...... significant amount Moist.................Color change with short period of air exposure (granular soil) modifier/and... sufficient amount to Below optimum moisture content (cohesive soil) influence material behavior Wet....................High degree of saturation by visual and touch (granular soil) (Typically >30%) Above optimum moisture content (cohesive soil) Saturated .......... Free surface water LOG KEY SYMBOLS PLASTICITY ' Bulk, Bag or Grab Sample DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST Nonplastic A 1/8 in. (3 -mm) thread cannot be rolled Standard Penetration Split Spoon Sampler at any moisture content. (2' outside diameter) Low The thread can barely be rolled. Medium The thread is easy to roll and not much Modified California Sampler time is required to reach the plastic limit. ' (3" outside diameter) High The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. No Recovery GROUNDWATER LEVEL Water Level (measured or after drilling) = Terms and Symbols used on Boring L Water Level (during drilling) AM;1 1=Mrfti C�ct¢rre� GRAPHIC LETTER MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS ' .� Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand CLEAN GW mixtures, little or no fines GRAVELS +•.+•.+• +• +• +h,+• + . < 5% FINES GRAVEL AND �'�+��%"r+"�+�r+�+ GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand GRAVELLY mixtures. Little or no fines SOILS GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt More than 50% of GRAVELS ;:: ` ;� mixtures COARSE coarse fraction WITH FINES GRAINED SOILS retained on No. 4 > 12% FINES Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay sieve GC ------------ mixtures SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SAND AND CLEAN SAND € SANDY SOILS (Little or no fines) 5/0 <5% ::t:� SP gravelly Poorly-graded sands, ravel) More than 50% of - - : i::: sands, little or no fines material is larder than No. 200 sieve size SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures 'SAND WITH FINE More than 50% of (appreciable coarse fraction amount of fines) passing No. 4 sieve >12% SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sands, ML rock flour, silty low clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity LIQUID LIMIT Inorganic clays of low to medium FINE-GRAINED L ESS THAN 50 L CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy SOILS clays, silty clays, lean clays lilllllllllll I• . �. i- i I I I I IIIIIIIIIII '- I- I ' OL Organic silts and organic silty g g ty IIIIIIIIIIIII clays of low plasticity SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic silty, micaceous, or MH diatomaceous fine sand or silty soils j' ; CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, 50% or more of material is smaller LIQUID LIMIT GREATER than No. 200 fat clays THAN 50 sieve size Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts Peat, humus, swamp soils with HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT rynnr�:r> high organic contents 9 9 VARIOUS SOILS AND MAN MADE MATERIALS Fill Materials MAN MADE MATERIALS Asphalt and concrete Soil Classification System Earth Systems -:- Southwest Earth Systems Southwest E 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone (76Q) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315 Boring No: B-1 SM 111 107 Drilling Date: March 31, 2007 Project Name: E. Side of Washington St., S. of Miles Ave., La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 11037-01 Total Depth 6.5 feet Drill Type: Simco 2800 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins w Sample Type Penetration °: �� Description of Units Page 1 of 1 Resistance A a o Y Note: The stratification lines shown represent the a U T � o approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend q � 9 (Blows/6") q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density E 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 7,13,20 8,14,30 SM 111 107 6 4 SILTY SAND: moderate yellowish brown, medium dense, damp, fine grained dense very dense 1 1 1 1 Total Depth 6.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered Earth Systems 0 Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315 BorinNO' B-2 Drilling Date: April 2, 2007 Projec&ame: E. Side of Washington St., S. of Miles Ave., La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 11037-01 Drill Type: Simco 2800 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins Samp pe Penetration Description of Units Pae 1 ❑f 1 O . , y = v Resistance o Cn U ami q ° " 2 Note: The stratification lines shown represent the Trend Y A T .. approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic q m (Blows/6) p U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density SM SILTY SAND: pale to moderate yellowish brown, loose, damp, fine grained 6,12,12 dense 5 7,11,11 10 7,8,17 dry - 15 moderate to dark yellowish brown, medium dense, dry to 4,5,6 damp, some very fine grained --20 Total Depth 16.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered - 25 - 30 35 40 45 50 55 Earth systems a tk 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 `� ---- ------ enone(iou)143-i:sa,rax lu Boring No: B-3 SILTY SAND: moderate yellowish brown, medium Drilling Date: April 2, 2007 Project Name: E. Side of Washington St., S. of Miles Ave., La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 11037-01 Drill Type: Simco 2800 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 dense, damp, fine to medium grained Logged By: Dirk Wiggins w Sample J, 110 4 .. Description of Units Pa 1 of 1 Type Penetration 10,21,26 110 4 S Resistance U q a c Note: The stratification lines shown represent the approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend q aF" o (Blows/6")� q j and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density dense to medium dense, damp, fine grained IR 10 15 - 20 - 25 30 - 35 -40 • 45 - 50 - 55 - 60 SM SILTY SAND: moderate yellowish brown, medium ' dense, damp, fine to medium grained 12,21,26 J, 110 4 dense 10,21,26 110 4 14,3016" 102 10 Sp -SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, very dense to medium dense, damp, fine grained 3,3,3 2,5,4 4,6,6 slit SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, very fine to fine grained LM 6.8.1fl SP -SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, fine grained 6,8,10 6,7,9 ' SM SILTY SAND: moderate brown, medium dense, dry, fine to very fine grained Total Depth 41.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered jo—% Earth Systems 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 li� --`-- ----- Phone (76U)34o-lo:58, Pax (/OU)34o-/J 13 BorinNo' B-4 Drilling Date: March 31, 2007 Stem Auger Projec&ame: E. Side of Washington St., S. of Miles Ave., La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow File Number: 11037-01 6,13,26 Drill Type: Simco 2800 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 dense Logged By: Dirk Wiggins Typele Penetration 106 °: Description of Units Page I of 1 Resistance q a c Note: The stratification lines shown represent the Graphic Trend aA�. some fine grained approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types q En0 (Blows/6) GO 108 q t j and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 SM SILTY SAND: dark yellowish brown, medium dense, damp, fine to medium grained 6,13,26 106 6 dense 8,19,30/5' 106 5 moderate yellowish brown, very dense, very fine grained, some fine grained 10,21,30 108 5 dark yellowish brown, dense to very dense, fine grained very dense 12,24,30/4" . ' 109 5 4,7,10 t SP -SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, fine grained 4,4,6 5,4,5 damp, fine to medium grained 7,8,14 dense I 10,12,10 dry, fine grained 6,9,12 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium dense to dense, dry, very fine to fine grained 8,10,16 dense, very fine grained Total Depth 51.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered Earth Systems Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone (760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315 Boring No: B-5 Drilling Date: April 2, 2007 Project -Name: E. Side of Washington St., S. of Miles Ave., La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 11037-01 Drill Type: Simco 2800 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins Sample Typew Penetration °:`� Pae 1 of 1 Description of Units g v Resistance � U q 2 Note: The stratification lines shown represent the N -W 0 T �,— c approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend Q (Blows/6") Ca U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density SM SILTY SAND: pale to moderate yellowish brown, T. medium dense, damp, fine grained 4,5,7 pale yellowish brown — 5 9,16,28 111 7 dense — 10 8,16,24 103 4 moderate yellowish brown — 15 6,8,13 —20 4,6,10 medium dense, dry .-25 Total Depth 21.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered — 30 — 35 — 40 —45 — 50 — 55 — cn - Earth Systems 0. 0M#l�wsct 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone (iou) rax tiou) i Boring No: B-6 Drilling Date: April 2, 2007 Project Name: E. Side of Washington St., S. of Miles Ave., La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 11037-01 Drill Type: Simco 2800 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins Sample I Type Penetration Description of Units44 On Pa l of t Resistance Q Note: The stratification lines shown represent the a ° ~ approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend q a o (Blows/6") Cn p t j and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 7,12,14 7,12,11 7,9,11 SM SILTY SAND: moderate yellowish brown, dense, damp, fine to medium grained pale yellowish brown, dry, fine grained medium dense, no recovery Total Depth 14 feet No Groundwater Encountered (#% Earth Systems \—�11MV Cru+Mvuect 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 I' 7,12,20 BoringNo: B-7 Drilling Date: March 31, 2007 8" Hollow Stem Auger Projectame: E. Side of Washington St., S. of Miles Ave., La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: File Number: 11037-01 11,18,28 Drill Type: Simco 2800 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 107 6 dense Logged By: Dirk Wiggins Sample 10,23,30/4" . ' o 2 Description of Units Page 1 of 1 7 Type Penetration .. 9,18,30 c v Resistance O U q ° a°i Note: The stratification lines shown represent the approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend q � 0 (Blows/6") Enp � j and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density damp, fine grained 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 I' 7,12,20 SM 110 7 SILTY SAND: moderate yellowish brown, medium dense to dense, damp, fine to medium grained 11,18,28 107 6 dense 10,23,30/4" . ' 104 7 moderate to pale yellowish brown, fine grained 9,18,30 109 6 SP -SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, dense, damp, fine grained moist 10,10,10 102 10 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, moist, fine grained 5,8,10 95 6 damp, black to white micas present 11,13,18 105 3 SP -SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, dense, moist, fine grained 10,11,13 102 2 trace medium grained ll 10,16,21 96 1 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, dense, damp to moist, very fine to fine grained 11,16,28 83 2 damp 12,22,30/5" . ' 96 1 dry 11,13,25 SP -SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, dense to very dense, dry, fine grained Total Depth 51.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered (0'1 Earth Systems 1'�l 121-61...,... a 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 l� ��-"'" Phone(76U)-4.N-086, Vaxt/OU)593-7]1] Boring No: B-8 SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, dense, damp, Drilling Date: March 31, 2007 Project Name: E. Side of Washington St., S. of Miles Ave., La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 11037-01 109 Drill Type: Simco 2800 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins 9,19,30 Sample 106 7 Page 1 of 1 Description of Units w Type Penetration q a 5 Note: The stratification lines shown represent the y a Resistance E 5,6,8 c y approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend p m 4, 02 (Blows/6") q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density with silt -5 10 15 • 20 - 25 30 35 40 45 50 • 55 • 60 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, dense, damp, 7,15,22 109 6 fine grained 9,19,30 106 7 11,19,30 107 5 5,6,8 103 4 medium dense, micas present, fine grained, lenses of sand with silt 3,5,7 SP -SM SAND WITH SILT: pale yellowish brown, dense, damp, fine to medium grained 4,4,6 5,5,8 black with micas present, fine grained 4,5,7 6,7,11 SM SILTY SAND: pale yellowish brown, medium dense, dry, fine grained 6,7,10 V. some very fine grained ■ 8,9,7 vey fine to fine grained 9,11,14 Total Depth 51.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered Earth Systems ��... Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Phone ('760) 345-1588, Fax (760) 345-7315 Boring No: B-9 Drilling Date: April 2, 2007 Project Name: E. Side of Washington St., S. of Miles Ave., La Quinta, CA Drilling Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger File Number: 11037-01 Drill Type: Simco 2800 w/Auto Hammer Boring Location: See Figure 2 Logged By: Dirk Wiggins w SamPe pe Penetration Description of Units Page I of I C� aResistance E U q U o a��i Note: The stratification lines shown represent the Y Q c approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend q (Blows/6) q U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density SM SILTY SAND: moderate to pale yellowish brown, loose, damp, fine grained, few medium grained 6,9,12 107 4T. 1 5 4,5,6 109 5 moist, black micas present 11 1 1 10 Total Depth 6.5 feet No Groundwater Encountered 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 cn — !' Earth Systems �!) out west CPT No: CPT -1 CPT Vendor: Holguin Fahan & Associates w Project Name: Ambulatory Care Center Truck Mounted Electric LU Project No.: 11037-01 Cone with 23 -ton reaction x Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 4/4/2007 H IL o Graphic Log (SBT) Friction Ratio (/o) Tip Resistance, Qc (tsfl W Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy 8 6 4 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 12 Robertson & Campanella ('89) Density/Consistency Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense 1 t 1 1 1 k 1 } Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 1 i I I Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense - 5 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I t I ° I ! I ! , 10 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense 15 Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense I I 20 Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense ! 1 I I 1 I ! 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 , 1 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 25 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium denseI 1 1 I 1 1 1 ! 1 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 medium dense I I I I I I I 1 It I , s ' 30 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt hard Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard 1 1 1 1 1 I l i l l l l Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I I ' 1 1 1 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense III1 ! 35 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense I I I I I 1 Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 1 I I 1 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense <I I 1 1 , 40 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense I I I I I I I I I Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense 1 1 1 1 1 V I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 45 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense ' 1 l l l i Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense Overconsolidated Soil medium dense 50 } I I f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1! I I 1 1 End of Sounding @ 50.7 feet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Earth Systems ;: Southwest CPT No: CPT -2 CPT Vendor: Holguin Fahan & Associates W Project Name: Ambulatory Care Center Truck Mounted Electric LL Project No.: 11037-01 Cone with 23 -ton reaction = Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 4/4/2007 I. - Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tst) Graphic Log (SBT) W Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy 8 6 4 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 12 Robertson & Campanella ('89) Density/Consistency Sand to 911ty Sand medium dense I t . Sand to Silty Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand verydense - 5 - Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense i 1 I S Y ! Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense I I 10I Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense iiril! 15 Sand to Silty Sand dense I 1 , Sand to Silty Sand dense I I , Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Ilt I ! ! I 1 f Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 20 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 1 1 1 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sand to Silty Sand dense 1 i I t I Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense I I i 1 Ili 25 Sand to Silty Sand dense Clayey Silt to Silty Clay medium dense I 1 1 I f l i l Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 1 1 f 1 30 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense i l Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Clayey Silt to Silty Clay medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense 35 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense Sand to Clayey Sand dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense 40 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Overcon solid ated Soil hard Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense 45 Overconsolidated Soil medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand dense Sand to Clayey Sand dense ! I 1 1 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense oil 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1! 1 1 1 1 1 End of Sounding @ 50.5 feet I! I! I I I I! 1 Earth 3 out MS W LL CPT No: CPT -3 Cone Penetrometer: Holguin Fahan & Associates Project Name: Ambulatory Care Center Truck Mounted Electric Cone Project No.: 11037-01 with 23 -ton reaction weight = Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 4/4/2007 GInterpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tstf) Graphic Log (SBT) Robertson & Campanella Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 12 V la 8n v me ll dense Sillv Send to Sandy Sill dense Silly Sand to Sandy Sill very dense Silly Sand to Sandy Sill very dense 1 .5- Silty Send to Sandy Sill very dense Silly Send to Sandy Sill very dense Silly Sand to Sandv Si it very dense r r I r Silty Sand to Sandy Sift very dense Siltv Sand to Sandy Sit very dense 1 10 Sand to Clavev Sand very dense Sand to Clavev Sand very dense Sand to0avevSand very dense Silty Sand to Sandv Silt very dense Sand to Silly Sand very dense 1 x1 15 Sand w Slily Sand dense Sand to Silly Sand dense Sand to Silly Sand dense , . 1 Sand to Silly Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense 20 Sand to Silly Sand medium dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense Sand to Silly Sand dense Sand to SillvSand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand medium dense SNIv Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense -. " r + ' Z rJ Slily Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy SiIS medium dense Silly Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense SIN Sand to Sandv $ilt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Sllty Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Silly Sand to Sandv Sill medium dense 30 35 Silly Sand to Sandy Sill medium dense Silly Sand to Sandy Sill medium dense Silly Sand to Sandv Sill medium dense Silly Sand to Sandy Sl ll medium dense ' ' Sand to Silly Sand medium dense Silty Send to Sandy $llt medium dense Sandv Sill to Clavev Sill medium dense i ' ' 40 Silty Send to Sandv Sill medium dense Silty Sand to Sandv $NI medium dense ' ' Silty Send to Sandv Sill medium dense ' + ' 45 Silty Sand to Sandy 5111 medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv sill medium dense Send to Clayey Sand medium dense ' ` I ' Sandy Sltto Clavev Silt medium dense I l l l l Sandv Sil} }o Clavev Silt medium dense Sandv Silt to Clavev Silt medium dense Sandv Silt to Clavav Silt medium dense , , ' 'I 50 Sand to Davey Sand medium dense Sandv Silt to Clavev Silt medium dense Sandv Silt to Clavev Silt medium dense 55 Sandv Silt to Clavev Silt medium dense Overconsolideled Sols medium dense Overconsoildated Sall hard Ovarconsolidaled So ll hard Oyeroonsolidaled Soil hard Sand to Clavev Send medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense SIIIv Sand to Sandv Silt dense 60 Silly Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silly Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense Silly Sand to Sandy Sit medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense 65 Sand to Clayey Send medium dense Silly Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense 70 Sand to Clayev Sand medium dense Sand to Clavey Sand medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense CKsmonsolidated Soil medium dense 75 Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense Sand to Clavey Sand medium dense Ovarconsolidated Soil hard Overconsalidated Soil hard Overcansolidstad Sol l hard Clay hard 804 Clav hard Overconsolidated Soil hard Ovarconsaiidated Sol l hard Overoidated Soil hard onsol ❑verconsolidated Soil hard Clay hard Silty clay to Ctev very stiff Clav very stiff ' ' " ' 165 Clay hard Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard 90 Overoomolldated Soil hard Qverconsolldaled Sait hard Sand to Ciavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense ..... . l 1 r 1 , I l,!il l 1 1 1 ll, I l i l l l l l l l t 95 11 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 100 I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 i l f I l t l l l l l 1 1 1 I r l l l l l l i l l 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l, 11111111111 105 End of Sounding @ 94.2 feet Earth Systems Southwest CPT No: CPT -4 Cone Penetrometer: Holguin Fahan & Associates W Project Name: Ambulatory Care Center Truck Mounted Electric Cone LL Project No.: 11037-01 with 23 -ton reaction weight = Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 4/4/2007 0. G Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tsf) Graphic Log (SBT) Robertson & Campanella Density/Consistency 8 6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 12 tvan to an v Sill mediumdense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Siltv Sand very dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandv Silt very dense Sand to Clavev Sand very dense Sand to Clavev Sand very dense 5 Sand to Clavev Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandv Silt very dense 10. Silty Sand to Sandv Sill very dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Sill very dense Sand to Clavev Sand very dense Sand to Clavev Sand very dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Silty sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Sandv Silt to Clavev Silt medium dense I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 15 Silty Sand to Sandv Silt dense 1 I I I Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 20 Silty Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense I I I I I 25 Silty Send to Sandv Silt medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense 1 30 Sand to Siltv Sand medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense 1 ' 1 Sandv Silt to Clavev Silt medium dense Sandv Silt to Clavev Silt medium dense Sandv Silt to Clavev Silt medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandv Silt dense 35 P Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense ' 40 Sandv Silt to Clavev Silt medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Siltv Sand to Sandv Sill medium dense ' ' ' Siltv Sand to Sandv Sill medium dense Silty Sand to Sandv Silt dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense 45 Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense — Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense 50 =j 55 Sand to Clavev Send dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense 60 Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense 5 65. Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense mop 70 Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand to Clavev Sand dense Sand toClavev Sand dense Sand to Clevev Sand medium dense %5 Siltv Sand to Sandv Silt medium dense Overconsolidated Soil medium dense Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense - -- III Overconsolidated Soil hard Sandv Silt to Clavev Sill hard $0 Siltv Clav to Clav hard Overconsolidated Soil hard Clay hard Overconsolidated Soil hard Overconsolidated Soil hard Clav hard Clav hard Overconsolidated Soil hard _ 85 Overconsolidated Soil hard Overconsolidated Soil hard Age .90.Clav hard Clav hard Clav hard Clav hard Clav hard I ' ' ' " " ' " ' IL 95 Overconsolidated Soil hard Clay hard Sand to Clavev Sand medium dense Sand to Siltv Sand dense 11 ` 1 l l l l l l l l i 1 1 100 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1! I I I I l l l i l l l i l l 105 End of Sounding @ 98.8 feet Earth Systems Southwest CPT No: CPT -5 CPT Vendor: Holguin Fahan & Associates I -- LU Project Name: Ambulatory Care Center Truck Mounted Electric LU Project No.: 11037-01 Cone with 23 -ton reaction x Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 4/4/2007 CL o Friction Ratio (/o) Tip Resistance, Qc (tsf) Graphic Log (SBT) LU Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy g 6 4 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 12 Robertson & Campanella ('89) Density/Consistency Sand to Silty Sand dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense 5 . Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense ; 10 Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense , 15 Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand dense 20 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 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense ' ; ; ; 25 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense 30 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense , ; ; Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense 35 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Ilk 40 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay 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 45 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 medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense 50 End of Sounding @ 50.7 feet ,g% Earth Systems .� Southwest CPT No: CPT -6 CPT Vendor: Holguin Fahan & Associates W Project Name: Ambulatory Care Center Truck Mounted Electric LU Project No.: 11037-01 Cone with 23 -ton reaction x Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 4/4/2007 a Friction Ratio (°) Tip Resistance, Qc (tst) Graphic Log (SBT) /° WW Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy g 6 4 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 12 Robertson & Campanella ('89) Density/Consistency Sand to Silty Sand dense Sand to Silty Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense 5 _ Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Sand to Clayey Sand very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense ; 10 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense 0-100 l ; l Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense ; 15 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 medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense < 20 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 25 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 Coo— I ; P k ; ; 30 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense f Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense k 35 Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense + ` Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand dense Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense r r r P r 1 40 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense r Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense Overconsolidated Soil medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense Overconsolidated Soil medium dense < bo� 45 Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand medium dense Sand to Clayey Sand dense Sand to Clayey Sand dense + 50 rr rrrr rri End of Sounding @ 50.7 feet rrrirrrirri ,rrr,rirrr [ 1 r I r i r l 1 1 1 rrrlrrrirri rrrrrrirri ' ` ` ` I ' ' ' rr,rrrr�rrI APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results 4 � .yam.-. 4[`i �:�.} X; ��6• �� `�r ` `� '''f, . � �-y r. � � ,,`. �� .. �' � 4 a ISS. `*�- � 4 �} � EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 11037-01 May 15, 2007 Lab No.: 07-0245 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: Ambulatory Care Center, La Quinta B1 3 Unit Moisture USCS Sample Depth Dry Content Group Location (feet} Densi C % S mbol B1 3 111 6 SM B1 5 107 4 SM B3 3 110 4 SM B3 5 110 4 SM B3 10 102 10 SP -SM B4 3 106 6 SM B4 5 106 5 SM B4 10 108 5 SM B4 15 109 5 SM B5 5 111 7 SM B5 10 103 4 SM B7 1 110 7 SM B7 3 107 6 SM B7 5 104 7 SM B7 10 109 6 SP -SM B7 15 102 10 SM B7 20 95 6 SM B7 25 105 3 SP -SM B7 30 102 2 SP -SM B7 35 96 1 SM B7 40 83 2 SM B7 45 96 1 SM .EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 11037-01 May 15, 2007 Lab No.: 07-0245 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: Ambulatory Care Center, La Quinta B8 1 Unit Moisture USCS Sample Depth Dry Content Group Location feet Density c (%o) S bol B8 1 109 6 SM B8 3 106 7 SM B8 5 107 5 SM B8 10 103 4 SM B9 3 107 4 SM B9 5 109 5 SM EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 11037-01 May 15, 2007 Job Name: Ambulatory Care Center, La Quinta Lab Number: 07-0245 AMOUNT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE ASTM D 1140 B3 10 Fines USCS Sample Depth Content Group Location (feet) (%) Svmbol B3 10 11 SP -SM B4 3 19 SM B5 1 41 SM B7 5 13 SM EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 11037-01 May 15, 2007 Lab No.: 07-0245 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422 Job Name: Ambulatory Care Center, La Quinta Sample ID: B7 @ 1-4 Feet Description: Brown Silty Fine Sand (SM) Sieve Percent Size Passing I-112" 100 1" 100 3/4" 100 1/2" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 #8 100 #16 100 #30 100 #50 87 #100 49 #200 17 % Gravel: 0 % Sand: 83 % Silt: 12 % Clay (3 micron): 5 (Clay content by short hydrometer method) NEIi 11111111lij 11111111111111illillimilillilimilliilinilli NINE I-ININ EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 11037-01 Lab No.: 07-0245 May 15, 2007 CONSOLIDATION IES -T--- ASTM D 2435 & D 5333 Ambulatory Care Center, La Quinta Initial Dry Density: 104.2 pcf B-8 @ 10 feet Initial Moisture, %: 4.0% Silty Fine to Medium Sand (SM) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 0.600 Ring Sample Hydrocollapse: 0.5% @ 2.0 ksf 2 1 0 -1 -2 .en -3 Q x c -4 c� -5 U c -6 Q v a -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram 8 Before Saturation ■ After Saturation " Hydrocollapse —*—Rebound 0.1 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 11037-01 Lab No.: 07-0245 May 15, 2007 CONSOLIPAICION TE ST ASTM D 2435 & D 5333 Ambulatory Care Center, La Quinta Initial Dry Density: 101.1 pcf B-9 @ 5 feet Initial Moisture, %: 5.3% Silty Fine to Medium Sand (SM) Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 0.648 Ring Sample Hydrocollapse: 0.8% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram Before Saturation ®Hydrocollapse ■ After Saturation Rebound 2 1 0 -1 -2 mon -3 x -4 a -5 - - ea U -6 as v o� -7 -8 -9- -10 -11 -12 0.1 1.0 10.0 'Vertical Effective Stress, ksf 'EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 11037-01 May 15, 2007 Lab No.: 07-0245 MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified) Job Name: Ambulatory Care Center, La Quinta Procedure Used: A Sample ID: 1 Preparation Method: Moist Location: B7 @ 1-4 Feet Rammer Type: Mechanical Description: Brown Silty Fine Sand (SM) Lab Numbe 07-0245 Sieve Size % Retained Maximum Density: 112.5 pcf 3/4" 0.0 Optimum Moisture: 9% 3/8" 0.0 #4 0.0 140 135 130 125 110 11+R 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Moisture Content, percent EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 11037-01 May 15, 2007 Lab No.: 07-0245 SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES Job Name: Ambulatory Care Center, La Quinta Job No.: 11037-01 Sample ID: B7 Chemical Agent Sample Depth, feet: 1-4' DF RL Sulfate, mg/Kg (ppm): 50 1 0.50 Chloride, mg/Kg (ppm): 70 1 0.20 pH, (pH Units): 7.90 1 0.41 Resistivity, (ohm -cm): 1,625 N/A N/A Conductivity, (µmhos -cm): Very Severe 1 2.00 Note: Tests performed by Subcontract Laboratory: Surabian AG Laboratory DF: Dilution Factor 105 Tesori Drive RL: Reporting Limit Palm Desert, California 92211 Tel: (760) 200-4498 General Guidelines for Soil Corrosivity Chemical Agent Amount in Soil Degree of Corrosivity Soluble 0 -1000 mg/Kg (ppm) [ 0-.1%] Low Sulfates 1000 - 2000 mg/Kg (ppm) [0.1-0.2%] Moderate :2000 - 20,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [0.2-2.0%] Severe > 20,000 mg/Kg m >2.0%] Very Severe Resistivity 1-1000 ohm -cm Very Severe 1000-2000 ohm -cm Severe 2000-10,000 ohm -cm Moderate 10.000+ ohm -cm Low EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST APPENDIX C Seismic Settlement Calculations t EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST dd r r.� 0 O (0 0 LO Z H CL N M O N N 2 W CO U) 2 W 010101111011 v cio 0 0 0 0 0 Y N (;aa;) yldad u' v ca a r C9 w O p Ix Ix M o U N N *-fo Lo Cl)0 U M V N [3� T U � o 'L O m c w (laal) y;das' v a v 0 t (D CC W W U Z 00 rn rn CD 0) W U) W o m O LO Z o a co O O N O � o a+ N M (;aa;) y;daa 0 LO as a o Q C9 CL 0 M U) o O O L � i d 0 V = m vs LL � o 2 o N O O Y m Cr m o (1991) yjdaiff O O O N (�aab) 4�da4 v ■ as a o Q C9 CL 0 M U) o O O L � i d 0 V = m vs LL � o 2 o N O O Y m Cr m o (1991) yjdaiff O O O N (�aab) 4�da4 v 1 . a 0 a� LU LU U Z 00 0) (DD ommmmmmmmmo mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmms wommmmmmm ummmmmomoms MMW"WFAIPA,p mmmmmmmmmmo ammm 0 L N W W U Z OD rn rn m r 0 r C co 0 Lo Z v F- a N M O O N r O w o cu O O v H (' o IT isV Lq U o ri 0 v O C CO m U? L N r in p 0 N M � r 7 0 0 LO O or70 � Y o � tst o W O O o � o H N r o N 00 0 •C� CN m o A U co •r- o O a o m N M � N (�aab) y�daa v 0 LO cn U 0 ua 0 0 0 0 cv (laa;) y;dad' v `n N m r V C N r V c d V N V C ,0 V r 0 m r ev E N W m w O N L 4) m J O 20 4- 4) 0 U O H N d C Y U t H �a r 0 U y Q V $ o z n w 0 6 p NZ N j 9 In eE o U Z 1 > y Q 0 Y o ao w a N 0 C9 O d Z Wm O M L) E0r C O W > W N w Z - O J (o cc m W Q m w O m Z li W W & .- u Z Ow D < at z C C O O W N Z Q c> m r LL a cm s o S O J Oct wm E w o 00- U) 0_ N & Q m o 8 < a a U) z i `O m y � a z A I] n yII c p at in w LL O c LU ui U in W C m C N U) a S m E d E 01. o m m .3 3 C a Q y } 9 a' q 9 M Q❑ a 0 y W oO H 7P u M o a S A m y LL E Um a E n o E E w h J I N IL .m. J a y Q_ m E d E 01. o m m .3 O � Q y } t a' q 9 M Q❑ a 0 y W oO H 7P u M o a S A m y LL J � Um a E n o E E w h J I N IL .m. F W o fLLA II (meq N y LU _ d V O c o `p Z U U F m n y j I 1 W to cr K A m K W K n U U � S [C v w J � b Viu > a o fg`u 7 o Oc O aLi U Q E G Y J U 5 `O 0 m j C o y I W � Z o Iasol olCea ssagg olp6] o XZ `m J j DO a m C C e ¢ - Z l y E U o 0 u Z Z O 0 U m E E m r U O U 0 Lj J a y Q_ m E d E 01. o m m .3 O � v y } t a' q J n Q❑ a V _ " y W oO M o O m K 0LL L Um a E n o E E w h n I Z U U U a m IL .m. F W o n n n O y LK N y LU _ d V O c o `p Z U U F m n y j I 1 W to cr K O F � W � m O [C m❑ ii N [C v w J a U) d Viu > a o fg`u 7 o Oc O aLi U Q t F- a C 6 J U 5 `O 0 m o w O "' y I c > oTi o Iasol olCea ssagg olp6] o XZ `m J j DO a m C C e N > l y E U In W U) « Z o F- J 0 O U 0 f A o O o j o0 A N LL ? F E o r M a In m W A A m r v o o w [L Z y • 6= c 'IXai m ii r $ a m O Z U i d z Ia O •o a p C O Q� S (7 C7 C7 IL`' m K a mw a m m a U w m m ❑ 10 N O O O O O 0000000000 110,m V O V V O V 0 0 0 0 4 99999 LW Lb V V aw'1 O V N N r 9999999999 v v v wwwwwwwwww V V N V A O O M o N tV - m V m c7 V If) M M m M M M M V M M 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 W w w w W W w w w w M V Mm m �- N V O N N r r -- m- r N, C OA m W m (NO m u N M V m m A m W m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 LLA'1 I` co .'- lh tr0 r O O OOi m ,n A m N C tN0 W 00000 •- - r r IOf N r 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 W Lq O N� O O O o o o o o o o o o o vomom 111v -v N N N N M Q V 10 V M V r N V) tL) m m u7 J J J J J J J J J J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z z z z z z z z z z W m A I� O V 10 m N m V V V V 0 10 10 N 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 N m O O O O O O M NN N N N N" N N O o 0 0 .-- - - - - - o o 0 0 M V m II'1 N O O O O m m I r n A o 0 0 0 0 0 V O w O O! V r V r V N N N N M V o 10 0 M m n m m O M o n m N m m N N O O M N min vlmm�rmrm 10 M N 7 m .- I, A O m 0 0 0 M m 0 0 0 0 m O O O N N M M M M N N o m M m 0 0 0 0 0 I r m m m o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 ONI O m o V m N N Irv. - o m IR IR00 .00000 m m m V N m O N m m m m m m m m m m m A 6660660660 M10 m N 10 m O 10 0. m N I� m m V N m r V N N I� O M m m V A 66 o .- � r _: N N tV M o m. to 10 O N O N m N, m m V N m, V N N I O M m m VA 00 O '-- r- N N N o o 0 0 0 0 o o o o o V m M o mm Om M m M N N M M V V N 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o o 0 L'i �! u N N tN�l V C m;: ;: m m m m m O m 0'N 0 0 0 0 0 ;Er r V G2 N V M m 10 N m � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ;z �2 N N M M V V m rn C 7 O E O � A L y � � N 4 0 V _ � Z L v Z ti u E M Ii � U 0 O c Y Um a E n o E E o u I ti o E E o u n 11 a ❑ u u U % n n n Z Z� ----- II F- a o---. l I 0 �y j I 1 O F � j � m J` u d I a i I I I` f I 0 o Iasol olCea ssagg olp6] o 0 Y Z� Is't = wl aso ----- o---. l Is't = wl aso ° G rn i e oe oo�uO1+m��o w Z a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 17 N y 0 .5 D 000099994400 } zwwwwwwwwwww Ix Ev w ov, u�mm mmC N O C 7 0 V V O M M C 7 M 7 W.2 9999999999, O v w wwwwwwwwww Z In mM Mrol�vev�m III r IV N 0 to_i`m 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 4 4 c WWWWWWWWwWW D in r ov lD mm In Iq 9N N vi ui r� ao � of a H {p Zr y III N r O N m N m r O O N M U m n Im m m 0 W C5660000000- W ImD r r Omi N m N O r0 M V m m r m m a N •--m mmmmmC m m M m m - m 000000 -- m Y "! j P C O O O O N W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W. 0 0 0 C A C N d \ O O O O N NN N E co 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 !n V m N m M M6N M QLU 0 Z U b ¢ = m m N N O m IU O O O! O WZ N N N (V (V N N N o Z LL e (A N r C mC w DP C S SCC C Q Q Q Q O u I[IC d .°„ JJ.AJ J J J�IJJ J W ,• o w m c c e c e c e c e e c 0 9> U) F j D f J cr y O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL 2 2 Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O Q N Y! Ij V V R V V IOU u N N 9 V LIZ mg cp 00000000000 W U S U a W E m X 00 O O O O u'1 O O c O U E p 0 m L 00 O o o�� O o 0 0 7 O. ^ O '� - N N N N N N N M N p > > 0 0 O Z Lww a' 0 N' w b o 0 0 o m N m m a Z �°.�� E Y 000 00000000 Lo ;m L N � m ? U O m V m N N V m 7 r M 2 N U C U IL (7 Z V m N u"� M M M N m h i Z UD 0 ww 0 Q Q rn¢ �_ ID W oD ocol ccmrn Z 0 C C # •� () Z NCV N (V N N N N h e O w as E m Z = U ° o p` mmmmmvvt��tOo� ILL (D awl E D $ O O m 7 MID C? m W M W a ca o> I�oi of of oia�ocovo 7 W •y C h Z V m V V N M N N M ON O O w 9 0 0 0 0 N IU � N N N N IL w •N U O U - - O IL _>+ L - rn `m c�r- = v E rn rnmmM W 00000 n lam mm O0000 N c L o `� E L U 000000 J.. oc�Q >. = h - - - - L (n O O� N m m m N r V O Z Cf O n U U M m m r r fD m m m 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 E -• J 7 O w m m m l m a N m m O' �Li d C' j N '2 m m m m m m m m m m� r g J m Q ❑ } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL a m~ N N m m't m m m m m m V LLU 07 IOU .- O O "' .�- N N M V r O N m OmD N L M G w W a 00 00 - - - N N N N Oa Z U U U a tV m a N •O r W Imo mm M M M m m _ f%1, " N W V f0 W N O 0 t D t g p, .O 0 '0 0 0 OO O ( r O M m V N N N N W Z U U `p ~ QoQ 0 o o c h ..00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wat o O w N❑ U K J w m W W N N N N V V OC U U m p m t iil� IL W t ❑ C N L U V d CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q J U S `o N O m` M N r N N M N O V (n i s c m J p X Z w J d m C 0i NI wd C I O E o N y w E p co >>. W !n O? U V N O O N N N N O� O O : Q O U o n w r ro t ep 0 o 0 4?J h o 7 f N w ? A D Y^ 0 0 IrNO iii m Z N e•')M MIr � mNNNN m$ 5 v C) g Z M M u� uai C7 OOOOOOooO E r n o O � U n m N C 0 E 3 O � h A d � x w N O 00 E N �o W M V O Ci .0 Z r U n E q a U 0 O �' c Y 0 'E g o ci `o E E U � £ U o E E o II II II II II II ❑ II II Z cl e I 5 0 o n n n n u u a f i I� I l T T�• U1 v c o C! 0 o n o 0 0 0 N 2. a= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z p Z � N U) Z c c 00099999,999 0 o rnW WwLhwwwwwwww 1� c7 r N O Iq N W m 10 O LL SW C O(D O i r wQN MM O wM O 0 0 0 0 w WwWwWWWWWW Q LO r N m N t0 99 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 99 9 C m W W W W W W W W W W W W o O W t0 r m W O m M1� r � N W " oo�Ncmio�qmn��m W ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0' 0 FJ to U �- N10 m� W mrrrr.-N a N o � M W I- m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r c v e -� v ee w�me��mmFe _ F 9 C_ O O O O M mO O O O 000000000000 F E c �20 o o IR (Q o m � � � o E O O 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 w > U Q Q r M n o m ON Q r M U g U of of odood co ui lri 6 oi�W ^� Q Z N W W W •-- N N M M M Q W y o a t, Z N M Q n O O..� N 7 0 p z LL d N C r C m H V P S S Q P C S P P P S m v G u h Q w G J J J J J J J J J? J J yW m O N= 7 A A C C C C C C C C C C C C p v �U) S J F.. rft J N LL zz ZZ zzzzzzzz Z_ 'Q v 0 W LL LL W W Q m Q m r Q m M 1� Q K vN d Nfp u 1 1 voov vv�v Ll nvoi uMi (7 o�z y g v U 000000000000 L W d O M 7 W E p w U r P �. L M O O D N M r m 0 0 0 o V r y m m o 0 0 0 m m o 0 0 0 G O N N N N N N N N N = y 0 W> VR a U O r r r 0000 r r r r d www p 3 ' w O O O O O O m N N Q m 0 Z« � i W U U 4 U $ o Z w d o p yZ Vf ea o U D v > U m Q 0 O W a 9 N O Z O W m 0 o m E U o D p W > Z m a W w Z5�(� O Q o 3 m J U w c ro E w r w Z d LU I-, i z y Un O n wa M Mz it a O w F- ; ° N Q E rn � c W E o W a c � o > O (w7 m E w Lu w o 0 a T C w y A U N Ol U1 m Q o m m J o (7 2 a Q U n ZQ J V O E V J g = E 0 v ° z KU J - (n M. IL m n 9 UJ 10 O L O N m W O LU x C C � 9 fn O Z r N N c K Z ` W O U LL O w w U W 0 c m t � M M N z ZLu > w s W C7 N a W O O z K o v o U c U a 0 W 0 O R N U O ice' c w n U o> n°o H IL U)o 0 O m p m U U r, Q a Q U w o Un E u � C E 5 J � � U z f w a C C e Z y y w ELL f0 a LL a L U) U) cj q m O N 2 . [J Q O a 0O (A IL J NN H u) O _ P o ULL R Qm U 7 w Qo r in m y o 0 0 o a z U) Y t5°2� c U ° z o a D m r ... m j � o t LZZ Q m m u1 U2 m m a0i m a za � o v Q � z` U m C F- U U E -5 E m H y I= r M o � o W V U a p �' U m o c o o a N U` s m °c O O z K o v o U c U a 0 W 0 O R N U O ice' c w � U o> n°o H IL U)o 0 O m p m U U .-. N Q a Q U w o Un E u m m e > m J 5 J V z f w a C C e �i y w ELL f0 U `.. > W U) U) _ o 3 Ul m c 8 O a 0O J J U H o ULL a°D Z (' n rn o w Qo r in m y o 0 0 o a z U) t5°2� _� m U o Cl U ° z o a D m r ... m Cal 2 (7 b a t a Q m m u1 U2 m m a0i m O O O M O :! V � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o O O O g O O O q q 0 0 W W W W W W W w w W W w rN(7r mm� '(40 Mm V m m I� N 9999999999 o wWwwwU W CW Rw m LY M W r o O V O m O V 4 o g o q o 0 o q o 0 0 w w w W w w (1 J W W w W w r Moo m o n o— m o O V N N N m nmo mroMv(n <° N r� In r o M V M O N W O O N M N m r m m m m 0 0 0000006000 mvrv�001mv'm� O r M O C'J V r m m m ;z° M m r° rn m n rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0----- N m m T 00 (L W O O O O M O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 O O O N ;! cN•J W0 � V V O o 0 o 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r m V N Op N S M m m V m m 6 M N M N M M M V m. 7 N . r mr mmvmm (7 V N 0 0 0 O O O M 0 J J J J J J J J J J J J OO O O O O O O O O O O z z z z Z z z z z z z z R V 7 V a lfl N ur m N N o O O o O o o o o O o o o o o � o r o 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 o m o 0 o o o o N N N N N N N M N N N N 00000001.1r o o o o o m rn m r r r m ----- 6060000 Cl m VMO m� m N M N N M V In��•n r(ormm�mm vivvN000Oov(•i0 O N N m m m r O M m a m mmmo(°u�mconmmr m O O ?um'1N� MN M NMMN� O O o o O V m. O O r 0 o O O O ci O. O m s M m o o o O o r r r r m m o 0 0 0 0 0000000.----- 0 0 0 0 r N o� m o N O rrr r(°7N OOmm 00 O m m m r m V N m W O N o m m m m m m m m m m r N 10O � aN WM NO { m{pp N Nm O -0 ON r O (° m � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , — m N V Y'I m m m m m M m M O N O M V r 0 N m O o 0 0 0— -, _ N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v(oai�corimriainioM N N M M Q V C 0 o o o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 N M (V x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � �2 �!.Nl �! 7 7 �-- N M M- �!! �? �2 ',� �2 �: �2 N 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o o o o o E 3 a N N w O O Ef V _ r $ 0 O Z r v r Z m — c E U � � n a ° o 'E R o V o E E E u U 5 r C m u u 11 a II u N 0 u u U U U w m Z � i e e m 0 0 0 it it u li n F a w'w>w>w>w>w>s;i }illi f�- O to N p p G o 0 (2!80) o!lea sswis 3!10AO Q_ o Y n o a e o ri (s,[ = w) as0 EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER 39-000 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED DURING GRADING OF THE EMC AMBULATORY CENTER 45-280 SEELY DRIVE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA July 11, 2008 0 2008 Earth Systems Southwest Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Earth Systems Southwest. File No.: 1103 7-02 Doc. No.: 08-07-749 Earth Systems r,m*Zft W77 Southwest July 11, 2008 Eisenhower Medical Center 39-000 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, California 92270 Attention: Mr. Charlie Morris 79-81 1B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (760) 345-1588 (800) 924-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 File No.: 1103 7-02 Doc. No.: 08-07-749 Subject: Report of Testing and Observations Performed during Grading Project: EMC Ambulatory Care Center 45-280 Seely Drive La Quinta, California References: Earth Systems Southwest, Geotechnical Engineering and Seismic Hazards Report, Proposed Ambulatory Care Facility, 45-280 Seely Drive, La Quinta, California, File No.: 11037-01, Doc. No.: 07-05-700, dated May 15, 2007. Submitted herewith is a report of testing and intermittent observations performed during the grading on the above referenced project. Grading operations were performed by Jacobsson Engineering Company, using conventional heavy equipment. Testing was performed as per authorization of Mr. Ali Tourkaman. Test results are presented on the attached test report sheet with their estimated locations plotted on the accompanying drawing. Compaction tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 2922-05, Method A or B; and ASTM D 3017-05 Nuclear Density Test Procedures. The maximum density -optimum moisture were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM D 1557-07, Method A or C. Test results are as follows: Soil Descripkon Brown silty Sand, fine grained Moderate brown sandy Silt USCS Maximum Densit Optimum Moisture SM 112.5 pcf 9.0% ML 111.5 pcf 14.5% Yellowish brown Silty Sand, SM 105.0 pcf 15.5% fine grained DISCUSSION: I The project is located at 45-208 Seely Drive in the City of La Quinta, California. July 11, 2008 -2- File No.: 1103 7-02 Doc. No.: 08-07-749 2. The proposed development will consist of a three-story structure of steel frame construction. 3. The scope of our work was based on the referenced geotechnical engineering report and on plans and staking by others. 4. The site was cleared of any pre-existing vegetation and pre -watered prior to grading operations. 5. The building pads were over -excavated to a depth of 2 feet below bottom of footings, and to a distance of 10 feet beyond the perimeter footings. The exposed surface was processed by scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction. 6. Fill materials consisting of previously removed soils as well as import soils were placed in relatively thin lifts and compacted into place. 7. The contractor's work as described below was completed prior to our arrival on-site on the specified dates. June 11, 2008: The southernmost 1/4of the building pad had been over -excavated to a depth of 10 feet below pad grade. Three tests were performed to verify compaction. June 12, 2008: The southernmost 1/4of the building pad fill had began as the next 1/4of the pad was over -excavated to a depth of 10 feet below pad grade. Ten tests were performed to verify compaction. June 13, 2008: The 2 d quarter of the building pad was being filled as the 3 rd quarter was being over -excavated to a depth of 10 feet below pad grade as well as the easterly building pad. Seven tests were performed to verify compaction. June 16, 17 and 18, 2008: The first 1/4of the building pad were being filled as the last '/4 of the pad was over -excavated. Twenty-seven tests were performed to verify compaction. June 19 and 20, 2008: The shade structure pads were over -excavated to a depth of 10 feet below pad grade after compaction of the bottoms. Fill materials were placed in thin lifts and compacted into place. Twenty-four tests were performed to verify compaction. June 26 through July 2, 2008: The placement of the fill was continued using import soils from the College of the Desert driving range. The materials were placed in thin lifts and compacted into place. Thirty-seven tests were performed to verify compaction. 8. A total of 108 compaction tests were performed. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 11, 2008 t 9 -3- File No.: 11037-02 Doe. No.: 08-07-749 After reworking and retesting the areas of low density, test results indicate that a minimum of 90% relative compaction has been obtained within the areas tested. 10. The test locations are approximate and were determined by pacing and sighting from prominent field features. In our work, we have relied on topographic and survey information provided by others. 11. Bearing values given in the referenced report remain applicable. 12. The foundation design criteria as outlined in the referenced report still apply. 13. Please refer to the referenced geotechnical engineering report for further information. 14. Based upon intermittent observations and testing during the grading operations, from June I I through July 2, 2008 on this project, it is our opinion that the grading has met the intent of the recommendations of the referenced geotechnical engineering report, as well as the grading ordinances of the City of La Quinta. 15. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of work with which we agreed to be involved, and performed tests on which together we based our opinion as to whether the work essentially complies with job requirements. 16. With any manufactured product, there are statistical variations in its uniformity and in the accuracy of tests used to measure its quality. As compared with other manufactured products, field construction usually presents large statistical variations in its uniformity and in the accuracy of test results used to measure its quality. Thus, even with very careful observation and testing, it cannot be said that all parts of the product comply with the job requirements, and the degree of certainty is greater with full-time observation than it is with intermittent observations and testing. Therefore, our opinion based on observing and testing the work means that there is only a statistically -based, reasonable certainty that the work essentially complies with the job requirements. 17. We make no warranty, express or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. 18. It is recommended that Earth Systems Southwest [ESSW] be provided the opportunity for a general review of any changes to the final design and/or location of the proposed structures in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted. If ESSW is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. 19. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure 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 responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. It is I EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST July 11, 2008 -4- File No.: 11037-02 Doc. No.: 08-07-749 further understood that the owner or his representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. If there are any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST eviewed bv FPC-, Phi Ilip D. Clanton Supervisory Technician Grading/pdc/csh/dac Distribution: 4/Eisenhower Medical Center I/RC File 2/131) File G S. < CE 38234 M LU EXP. 03/31/09 Craig S. Hill CE 38234 d' crvi%� P C Aoo EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST REPORT OF RELATIVE COMPACTIONS JOB NAME: EMC Ambulatory Care Center LOCATION: La Quinta California FILE NO.: 11037-02 DOC. NO.: 08-07-749 Pa2e I of 4 Test No Date Tested Description Elevation %Moisture Dry Density Relative Maximum In Place In Place Compaction Density Gradin 1 06/11/08 Per Plan 10.0 BSG 15.1 109.8 94 112.5 2 06/11/08 Per Plan 10.0 BSG 8.8 108.7 97 112.5 3 06/11/08 Per Plan 10.0 BSG 12.0 106.9 95 112.5 4 06/12/08 Per Plan 8.5 BSG 12.3 111.3 99 112.5 5 06/12/08 Per Plan 7.0 BSG 10.6 108.2 96 112.5 6 06/12/08 Per Plan 8.5 BSG 11.1 111.2 99 112.5 7 06/12/08 Per Plan 7.0 BSG 10.1 110.5 98 112.5 8 06/12/08 Per Plan 10.0 BSG 10.2 107.1 95 112.5 9 06/12/08 Per Plan 10.0 BSG 9.5 107.9 96 112.5 10 06/12/08 Per Plan 5.5 BSG 11.9 107.6 96 112.5 11 06/12/08 Per Plan 4.0 BSG 11.1 108.8 97 112.5 12 06/12/08 Per Plan 5.5 BSG 8.9 110.5 98 112.5 13 06/12/08 Per Plan 4.0 BSG 10.5 111.1 99 112.5 14 06/13/08 Per Plan 110BSG 5.7 105.9 94 112.5 15 06/13/08 Per Plan 8.0 BSG 11.7 102.8 91 112.5 16 06/13/08 Per Plan 8.5 BSG 11.1 104.8 93 112.5 17 06/13/08 Per Plan 7.0 BSG 10.7 110.5 98 112.5 18 06/13/08 Per Plan 7.0 BSG 9.4 106.1 94 112.5 19 06/13/08 Per Plan 6.0 BSG 11.4 110.8 98 112.5 20 06/13/08 Per Plan 10.0 BSG 10.1 109.1 97 112.5 21 06/16/08 Per Plan 7.5 BSG 11.7 110.6 98 112.5 22 06/16/08 Per Plan 6.5 BSG 8.2 106.6 95 112.5 23 06/16/08 Per Plan 7.5 BSG 10.2 110.9 99 112.5 24 06/16/08 Per Plan 6.5 BSG 9.7 110.1 98 112.5 25 06/16/08 Per Plan 7.5 BSG 10.1 111.2 99 112.5 26 06/16/08 Per Plan 6.5 BSG 9.4 109.0 97 112.5 27 06/16/08 Per Plan 4.0 BSG 7.7 107.5 96 112.5 28 06/16/08 Per Plan 3.0 BSG 14.3 104.8 93 112.5 29 06/16/08 Per Plan 4.0 BSG 7.8 103.7 92 112.5 30 06/16/08 Per Plan 3.0 BSG 12.3 103.3 92 112.5 31 06/16/08 Per Plan 10.0 BSG 10.8 109.6 97 112.5 32 06/17/08 Per Plan 98.0 7.5 108.6 97 112.5 33 06/17/08 Per Plan 98.5 8.0 107.5 96 112.5 July 11, 2008 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST REPORT OF RELATIVE COMPACTIONS JOB NAME: EMC Ambulatory Care Center LOCATION: La Quinta California FILE NO.: 11037-02 DOC. NO.: 08-07-749 V-1 -T A Test No Date Tested Description Elevation %Moisture Dry Density Relative Maximum In Place In Place Compaction Density 34 06/17/08 Per Plan 93.0 10.6 109.3 97 112.5 35 06/17/08 Per Plan 93.0 10.3 108.7 97 112.5 36 06/17/08 Per Plan 91.0 16.9 101.2 90 112.5 37 06/17/08 Per Plan 91.0 18.0 102.4 91 112.5 38 06/17/08 Per Plan 91.0 17.4 103.7 92 112.5 39 06/17/08 Per Plan 95.0 7.3 106.2 94 112.5 40 06/17/08 Per Plan 95.0 8.9 107.0 95 112.5 41 06/17/08 Per Plan 101.0 9.0 108.4 96 112.5 42 06/17/08 Per Plan 101.0 8.6 108.1 96 112.5 43 06/18/08 Per Plan 91.0 16.5 101.6 90 112.5 44 06/18/08 Per Plan 91.0 17.1 102.4 91 112.5 45 06/18/08 Per Plan 91.0 17.3 102.1 91 112.5 46 06/18/08 Per Plan 93.0 10.4 107.5 96 112.5 47 06/18/08 Per Plan 93.0 9.7 107.9 96 112.5 48 06/19/08 Per Plan 96.0 10.9 105.6 94 112.5 49 06/19/08 Per Plan 96.0 12.3 106.2 94 112.5 50 06/19/08 Per Plan 96.0 9.6 111.0 99 112.5 51 06/19/08 Per Plan 96.0 9.1 109.3 97 112.5 52 06/20/08 Per Plan 95.5 10.3 104.0 92 112.5 53 06/20/08 Per Plan 96.0 11.7 107.2 95 112.5 54 06/20/08 Per Plan 95.0 9.4 106.9 95 112.5 55 06/20/08 Per Plan 95.0 9.1 103.1 92 112.5 56 06/20/08 Per Plan 97.5 8.7 105.6 94 112.5 57 06/20/08 Per Plan 98.0 9.0 106.4 95 112.5 58 06/20/08 Per Plan 100.0 7.7 108.1 96 112.5 59 06/20/08 Per Plan 100.0 9.3 102.9 91 112.5 60 06/20/08 Per Plan 97.0 8.8 107.5 96 112.5 61 06/20/08 Per Plan 97.0 9.7 106.6 95 112.5 62 06/20/08 Per Plan 99.0 9.3 108.3 96 112.5 63 06/20/08 Per Plan 99.0 8.8 105.9 94 112.5 64 06/20/08 Per Plan 97.0 8.4 103.4 92 112.5 65 06/20/08 Per Plan 97.0 8.7 104.5 93 112.5 66 06/20/08 Per Plan 99.0 9.0 104.1 93 112.5 67 06/20/08 Per Plan 99.0 7.3 103.9 92 112.5 68 06/20/08 Per Plan 96.0 7.1 107.5 96 112.5 July 11, 2008 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST REPORT OF RELATIVE COMPACTIONS JOB NAME: EMC Ambulatory Care Center LOCATION: La Quinta California FILE NO.: 11037-02 DOC. NO.: 08-07-749 Pa2e 3 of 4 Test No Date Tested Description Elevation %Moisture Dry Density Relative Maximum In Place In Place Compaction Density 69 06/20/08 Per Plan 95.0 6.8 106.9 95 112.5 70 06/20/08 Per Plan 94.0 6.3 108.2 96 112.5 71 06/20/08 Per Plan 94.0 6.0 106.8 95 112.5 72 06/26/08 Per Plan 94.0 6.3 106.2 94 112.5 73 06/26/08 Per Plan 94.0 5.9 107.1 95 112.5 74 06/26/08 Per Plan 94.0 6.1 106.6 95 112.5 75 06/26/08 Per Plan 96.0 14.4 103.4 93 111.5 76 06/26/08 Per Plan 96.0 15.8 104.1 93 111.5 77 06/26/08 Per Plan 96.0 13.2 101.3 96 105.0 78 06/26/08 Per Plan 97.0 14.3 99.6 95 105.0 79 06/26/08 Per Plan 97.0 15.1 102.1 97 105.0 80 06/26/08 Per Plan 98.0 14.6 100.8 96 105.0 81 06/26/08 Per Plan 98.0 15.8 101.9 97 105.0 82 06/27/08 Per Plan 99.0 14.7 100.8 96 105.0 83 06/27/08 Per Plan 99.0 15.3 102.9 98 105.0 84 06/27/08 Per Plan 99.0 14.2 99.8 95 105.0 85 06/27/08 Per Plan 99.0 13.6 101.3 96 105.0 86 06/27/08 Per Plan 99.0 17.1 102.4 98 105.0 87 06/27/08 Per Plan 100.0 , 15.5 101.6 97 111.5 87 06/27/08 Per Plan 100.0 13.6 104.7 94 111.5 87 06/27/08 Per Plan 100.0 12.9 103.9 93 111.5 87 06/27/08 Per Plan 100.0 15.1 103.7 93 111.5 87 06/27/08 Per Plan 100.0 14.6 104.9 94 111.5 92 06/30/08 Per Plan 101.0 12.3 98.2 94 105.0 93 06/30/08 Per Plan 101.0 14.6 100.4 96 105.0 94 06/30/08 Per Plan 101.0 15.1 99.1 94 105.0 95 06/30/08 Per Plan 101.0 15.9 100.6 96 105.0 96 06/30/08 Per Plan 101.0 14.7 97.9 93 105.0 97 06/30/08 Per Plan 101.0 16.8 100.8 96 105.0 98 06/30/08 Per Plan 102.0 13.5 104.7 94 111.5 99 06/30/08 Per Plan 102.0 13.1 106.3 95 111.5 100 06/30/08 Per Plan 102.5 14.4 103.7 93 111.5 101 07/02/08 Per Plan 101.5 7.5 105.1 94 111.5 102 07/02/08 Per Plan 101.5 8.9 106.2 95 111.5 July 11, 2008 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST n)" REPORT OF RELATIVE COMPACTIONS JOB NAME: EMC Ambulatory Care Center LOCATION: La Quinta California FILE NO.: 11037-02 DOC. NO.: 08-07-749 Pnot"I nf d Test No Date Tested Description Elevation %Moisture Dry Density Relative Maximum In Place In Place Compaction Density 103 07/02/08 Per Plan 101.5 8.3 104.8 94 111.5 104 07/02/08 Per Plan 101.5 9.6 107.3 96 111.5 105 07/02/08 Per Plan 101.5 10.1 105.9 95 111.5 106 07/02/08 Per Plan 101.5 8.5 106.4 95 111.5 107 07/02/08 Per Plan 99.0 9.6 103.7 93 111.5 108 07/02/08 Per Plan 98.0 9.3 104.8 94 111.5 BSG Below Subgrade July 11, 2008 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST ck- 40, -:_ 0�6 501 70 0 oo 0�. 681% 49 G 40 .0, 'G 0. -Slh-�de Struc tures ;4 71".,* b Approximate. Limits - Q67 36 -87 of Over-txcaVation' ' G64 3' 44 5 84 7 82 40 n63 .0 2 46 95 2 88 81 4 Q39 94 89 D 2 52 40 8 Q G) 90 Q G) n83 31 25 9 A T 0 Y C AQ 7 507 CENTER G 4 0 "RZ.-102.08G)(D APPYoximale Limits... 3 10 2 G n23 tn 5 G 4 G G 4 %(D 42 Compaction Map EMC Ambulatory Care Center La Quinta, California Earth Systems Southwest 07/11/08 1 File No.: 11037-02