The URL can be used to link to this page

0305-051 (CONR) Geological InvestivationSladden Engineering 6782 Stanton Ave., Suite E, Buena Park, CA 90621 (562) 864-4121 (71.4) 523-0952 Fax (714,) 523-1369 39-725 Garan0aLn., Suite G, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772-3893 Fax, (760) :7,72-3895 October 13, 1999 Troll Woodpark ,Development 2323 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite F Santa Ana, California 92705 Attention: Mr. Scott Gayner Project: La Quinta Corporate Center La Quinta, California Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 544-9170 99-10-167 Presented herewith is the report of our Geotechnical Investigation conducted at the site of the proposed La Quinta Corporate Center project to be located in the City of La Quinta, California. The investigation was performed in order to provide recommendations for site preparation and to assist in foundation design for the proposed mixed-use commercial project that includes two sites located along the north side of- Highway fHighway 11 I. The two properties include an approximately 30 acre parcel located along the east side of Adams Street and an approximately 12 acre site along the west,side of Dune Palms Road. Both properties are located along the south edge of the Whitewater River channel. This report presents. the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing along with conclusions and recommendations for foundation design and site preparation. This report completes our original scope of services as described in our proposal dated September 22, 1999. We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the undersigned Respectfully submitted, SLADDEN ENGINEERING Brett L. Anderson Principal Engineer SER/pc Copies: 6/Troll Woodpark Development ~ GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION LA. OU[NTACORPORATE CENTER � L&8U[NTA,CALIFORNIA -°w October 13, |VV@ TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION —..—__........................................................................................................ | 'SCOPE OPWORK ..................................................................................................................... 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................... ...... ...... ...... ^~.................................................... ...... | SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........... ....................................................................................... 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ ........... I Foundation Design ........ ............... ................ .............. .._^—,_=,,...................... ........... ] Settlements............................................................................................................................ 3 LateralDesign ........................................................................................................ `....... ........ '3) 0etain' ' Walls ............ .............. ....................... .............................. ,^....... ...... ........... 4 Expansive Soils —.—'--'_—'_°.--_---_------_'—'_---.4 Concrete Slubo+on-Grude....................................................................................................... 4 SolubleSulfates ................................................ .......... .'.°....................... ........... ........ ............ 4 Tentative Pavement Design ' —_,,,.._—,.'_---'_--------.-------.4 Shrinkage and Subsidence —__-----_----_---........................................... 5 General Site Grading ----'_`'_--___`—_,._—_^—__,...—^'.--_._5 1. Clearing _................................................................................... 2' Preparation o[Building, Areas .................................................................................... 5 3. Preparation of Surfaces to Receive Compacted Fill _—__.................. ,............... 5 4 - Placement of Compacted Fill ..................... _`......... ................................................... 5 5. Preparation ofSlab and Pavement Areas .................................... ............................... 6 M. Testing and Inspection ........................... ................ ............... ............. `....... ........ ......... 6 APPENDIX A- Site PlamandBoriogLogs Field: Exploration APPENDIX 0- Laboratory Teoio� Laboratory Test RcAlks /\PPENQlXC- |997UBC Seismic Dcs�rnCriteria October 13, 1999 =1= Project No. 544-9170 99-10-167 WTRODUCTION a This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation performed in order to provide recommendations for the design and construction Of the foundations for the buildings within the proposed mixed use commercial development. The two properties are located along the north side of Highway I 1 I just east of Adams Street and along just west of Dune Palms Road in the City of La Quinta, California. Both properties are located along the south edge of the Whitewater .River channel. The associated site improvements will include paved roadways and parking lots, underground utilities, and landscape areas. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our investigation was to determine certain engineering characteristics of the near surface soils on the site in order to develop recommendations for foundation design and site preparation. Our investigation included field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and the preparation of this report. Evaluation of environmental :issues or hazardous materials was not within the scope of services ,proVided. Our investigation was performed in accordance with contemporary geotechnical engineering principles and practice. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes two properties located on the north side of Highway 1 I I just east of Adams Street and just west of Dune Palms Road in the City of La Quinta, California. The site located along Dune Palms occupies approximately 12 acres and the site that borders Adams Street occupies approximately 30 acres. The preliminary site plan indicates that the project will include numerous parcels for mixed use commercial development. It is our assumption that the proposed commercial buildings will be of relatively Lightweight wood -frame, steel -frame, reinforced masonry, or concrete tilt -up construction. The associated site .improvements will include paved roadways and parking areas,, landscape areas and various Iunderground utilities. The majority of the project sites are presently vacant and the ground surface is covered with scattered desert brush, weeds, and minor debris:. The Whitewater Channel alignment forms the north edge of the sites and Highway 1.11 forms the south edge of the sites. There is an approximately 14 acre site separating the two parcels that is not presently a part of the proposed development. There is a small commercial building near the southeast corner of the site. The majority of the project sites remain in a basically native desert condition. The sites are relatively level except for the sand dunes that occupy the southern portions of the sites. Some grading related to the construction of the Whitewater River Channel is evident within the northern portions of the sites. The grading appears to be limited to the construction of the channel embankment and leveling of the adjacent portions of the properties. There are existing overhead power lines and underground utilities. Based upon our previous experience with similar Lightweight commercial structures, we expect that isolated column 'loads will be less than 100 kips and wall loading will be less, than 6.0 kips per linear foot. Grading is expected to include cuts and fills to construct level building pads and to accommodate site drainage. This does not include removal and recompaction of the foundation bearing soils within the building areas. if the anticipated foundation loading or site grading varies substantially from that assumed, the recommendations included in this report should be reevaluated. Sladden. Engineering October 13, 1999 -2- Project No. 544-9170 99-10-167 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is underlain primarily by fine-grained windblown sands, silty sands and sandy silts. Artificial fill soils comprised of a mixture of the native sands and silts were encountered throughout the northern portion of the parcels along the Whitewater River channel. Artificial fills were generally limited to the northern portions of the sites but fill depths in excess of 10 feet were encountered within our borings along the Whitewater River channel. I'll general, the site soils appeared somewhat loose throughout the upper 3 to 4 feet but sampler penetration resistance (as indicted by blowcounts) indicates that the native site soils are generally firmer with depth. The artificial fills appeared very loose in the area of our borings. The site soils were found to be very inconsistent in density with undisturbed samples indicating dry density varying from 79 to 1 13 pef. The site soils were found to be generally dry throughout the depth of our borings. Moisture contents varying from 0.5 to 15.0 percent were determined for the samples obtained within our borings. Laboratory classification testing indicates that the near surface soils consist primari9y of fine grained windblown sands, silty sands and sandy silts. Expansion testing indicates that the surface soils are non - expansive and fall within the "very low" expansion category in accordance with the Uniform Building Code classification system. Consolidation testing indicates that the artificial fills and native soils underlying the sites may be susceptible to potentially damaging settlements due to hydroconsolidation and compression. The artificial fills appear to be very loose and susceptible to large hydroconsolidation settlements. Groundwater was not encountered in our borings .and groundwater is expected to be in excess of 80 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater should not be a factor in foundation design or construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our field and laboratory investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed commercial development is feasible from a soil mechanic's standpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are considered in building foundation design and site preparation. Due to the presence of uncertified artificial fill soils and the generally loose condition of the near surface native soils, remedial grading including over -excavation and recompaction is recommended for the. proposed building areas. We recommend that remedial grading within the proposed building areas include overexcavation and recompaction of artificia'I fill soils and the foundation bearing soils. Specific recommendations for site preparation are presented in the site grading section of this report. The extent of artificial fill removal and overexcavation should be considered in building location determination. Groundwater was not encountered within our borings and groundwater is expected to be in excess oil' 200 feet below the existing ground surface. Due to the depth to groundwater, specific liquefaction analyses were not performed. Based upon the depth to groundwater, the potential for liquefaction and the related. surficial affects of liquefaction impacting the site:are considered negligible. The site .is located within an active seismic area of Southern California within approximately 8.5 kilometers of the San Andreas fau'l,t. Strong ground motion resulting from earthquake activity along the nearby San Andreas or San Jacinto fault systems is likely to impact the site during the anticipated lifetime of the structures. Structures should be designed by professionals familiar with the geologic and seismic setting of the site. As a ialifintum, structure design should conform to Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4. Pertinent seismic desmon criteria as outlined in the 1997 UBC, is summarized in AppendIX C. Sladden Engineering October 13: 1999 -3- Project No. 544-9170 99-10-167 Cd'bing did occur within each of our exploratory borings ane the surface soils will be susceptible to caving within deeper excavations. All excavations should be constructed in accordance with the normal CalOSHA excavation criteria. On the basis of our observations of the materials encountered, we anticipate that the subsoils will conform to those described by CAOSHA as Type C. Soil conditions should be verified in the field by a "Competent person" employed by the Contractor. The surface .soils encountered during our investigation were found to be non -expansive. Laboratory testing indicated an Expansion Index of 0, which corresponds with the "very low" category in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2. If imported soils are to be used during grading, they should have an Expansion Index of less than. 20. The following recommendations present more detailed design criteria, which have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory investigation. Foundation Design: The results of our investigation indicate that either conventional shallow continuous footings or isolated pad footings, which are supported upon properly recompacted soils, may be expected to provide satisfactory support for the proposed structures.-Recompaction should be performed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. Footings should extend at least 12 inches beneath lo%vest adjacent grade for single story :structures. Isolated square or rectangular footings at least 2 -feet square may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot. Continuous footings at least 12. inches wide. may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 1800 pounds per square foot. Allowable increases of 200 psf for each additional I -foot of width and 200 psf for each additional 6 -inches of depth may be utilized for larger footings. The anaximum allowable bearing pressure should be 3000 psf. The allowable bearing pressures are for dead and fi-equently applied Five loads and may be increased by 1/3 to resist wind, seismic or other transient loading. Because of the hydroconsolidation potential of the soils underlying the site, care should be taken to see that bearing soils are not allowed to become saturated from the ponding of rainwater or irrigation. Drainage from the building areas should be rapid and complete. The recommendations made in the preceding paragraphs are based on- the assumption that all footings will be supported upon properly compacted engineered fill soils. All grading :shall be performed under the testing and inspection of the Soils Engineer or his representative. Prior to the placement of concrete, we recommend that the footing excavations be inspected in order to verify that they extend into compacted soil and are free of loose and disturbed materials. Settlements: Settlements may result from the anticipated foundation loads. These estimated ultimate settlements are calculated to be a maximum of 1 -inch when using the recommended bearing values. As a practical matter, differential settlements between footings can be assumed as one-half of the total settlement. Lateral Design: Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by a combination of friction acting at the base of the slabs or foundations and passive earth pressure along the sides of the foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.45 between soil and concrete may be used with dead load forces only. A passive earth pressure of 275 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, may be used for the sides of footings, which are poured against properly compacted native soils. Slodden Engineering October 13, 1999 4- Project No. 544-9.170 99-10-167 Passive earth pressure should be ignored,&vithin the upper I - foot except where confined (such as o beneath a floor slab). When used in combination, either the passive resistance or the coefficient of friction should be reduced by one-third. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls may be required to accomplish the proposed construction. Cantilever retaining walls may be designed using "active" pressures. Active pressures may be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 35 pcf for native backfill soils with level free - draining backfill conditions. For walls that are restrained, "at rest" pressures should be utilized in design. At rest pressures .may be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 55 pcf for native backfill soils with level .free -draining backfill conditions. Expansive Soils: Due to the prominence of non -expansive soils on the site, special expansive soil design criteria should not be necessary for the design of foundations and concrete slabs -on - grade. Final design criteria should be established by the Structural Engineer. Concrete Slabs -on -Grade: All surfaces to receive concrete slabs -on -rade should be underlain .by recompacted soils as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. Where slabs are to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or where .dampness of the floor slab is not desired, we recommend the use of an appropriate vapor barrier. Vapor barriers should be protected by at least two inches of sand in order to reduce the possibility of damage and to aid in obtaining uniform concrete curing. Reinforcement of slabs -on -grade in order to resist expansive soil pressures may not be required however, reinforcement will have a beneficial effect in containing cracking due to concrete shrinkage. Temperature and shrinkage related cracking should be anticipated in all concrete slabs -on -grade. Slab reinforcement and the spacing of control joints should be determined by the Structural Engineer. Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate concentrations of the surface soils were determined to be approximately 555 parts per million (ppm). Soluble sulfate concentration will likely change as a result of the recommended site grading. Soluble sulfate content should be determined after grading and appropriate concrete mix designs should be selected in accordance with UBC Table 19-A-3. Tentative :Pavement Design: All paving should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of. 12 inches (excluding, aggregate base). This may be performed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. Although R -Value testing was not conducted during our investigation, based upon the surface soil conditions encountered an R -Value in excess of 50 .is expected. On this basis, a minimum pavement section of 3.0 inches of asphalt on 4.0 inches of base material should be applicable for the design of the majority of the onsite pavement but the design of primary drive lanes and roadways should be established based upon anticipated traffic conditions. The appropriate pavement sections for off site improvements will be dependent upon traffic indices determined by the Cityof La Quinta, California. Aggregate base should conform to the requirements for Class 2 Aggregate base in Section 26 of CalTrans Standard Specifications; January 1992. Asphaltic concrete should conform to Section 39 of the CalTrans. Standard Specifications. The recommended sections should be provided with a uniformly compacted subgrade and precise control of thickness and elevations during. placement. October 13, 1999 -5- Project No. 544-9170 99-10-167 Pavement and slab designs are tentative and should be confirmed at the completion of' site grading when the subgrade soils are in-place. This will include samplingand testing of the actual subgrade soils and an analysis based upon the specific traffic information Shrinkabe and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinka�,,e of the material, which is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill should be anticipated. We estimate that this shrinkage could vary from 15 to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces which are scarified and compacted should be between 0.1 and 0.3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content ofthe soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained. These values for shrinkage and subsidence are exclusive of losses, which will occur due to the stripping of the organic material from the site, the removal of deleterious materials and the removal of debris, and other subsurface obstructions. General Site Grading: All grading should be performed in accordance with the grading ordinance of the City of La Quinta, California. The following recommendations have been developed on the basis of our field and laborator} testing: 1. Clearing and Grubbing: Proper clearing of any existing vegetation and debris will be very important. All surfaces to receive compacted fill should be cleared of roots, vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable materials which should be removed from the site. Soils that are disturbed due to the removal of the surface vegetation, previous improvements or artificial fill material should be replaced as controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soils Engineer. 2. Preparation of Building Areas: Within the building areas, removal and. recompaction of all artificial fill soils and the primary foundation bearing soils is .recommended. As a minimum, removals within the building areas should extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Additional removals in excess of 10 feet in depth. may be required to accomplish .adequate artificial fill .removal within the buildings adjacent to the Whitewater River channel. The exposed surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted so that a minimum of 90% relative. compaction is attained. Once deleterious materials are removed, the native soils and artificial fill materials may be placed as controlled compacted fill. Overexcavation should be observed by a representative of Sladden Engineering and compaction should be verified by testing. Overexcavation should extend at least 5 feet laterallybeyond the footings. 3. Preparation of Surfaces to Receive CompactedFill: Other areas to receive compacted fill should be brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. 4. Placement of Compacted Fiil: Fill materials consisting of on-site soils or approved imported .granular soils, should be spread in thin lifts, and compacted at near optimum moisture content to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Imported material shall have an Expansion. Index not exceeding 20. The contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 48 hours in advance of importing soils in order to provide sufficient time for the evaluation of"proposed import materials. Sladden Engineering October 13,-1999 -6- Project No. 544-9170 99-10-167 o The contractor shall be responsible for deliverittg material to the site, which complies with the project specifications. Approval by the Soils Engineer will be based upon material delivered to the site and not the preliminary evaluation of import sources. Our observations 'of the material encountered during our investigation indicate that compaction will be most readily obtained by means of heavy rubber -wheeled equipment and/or vibratory compactors. At the time of our investigation, the subsoils were found to be quite dry. A more unifonn moisture content should be attained during recompaction and fill placement. 5. Preparation of Slab and Pavement Areas: All surfaces to receive asphalt concrete pavement or concrete slabs -on -grade, should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of 1,2 inches. This may be accomplished by a combination of scarification and recompaction of the surface soils and placement of the fill material as controlled compacted fill. Compaction of the slab and pavement areas should be to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. 6. Testing and Inspection: During grading tests and observations should be performed. by the Soils Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the grading is being performed in accordance with the project specifications. Field density testing shall be performed in accordance with acceptable ASTM test methods. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction should be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D155.7-91 test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied until retesting indicates satisfactory compaction. GENERAL The .findings and recommendations presented in this report are based upon an interpolation of the soil conditions between, the exploratory boring locations and .extrapolation of these conditions throughout the proposed building area. Should conditions encountered during, grading appear different than those indicated in this report, this office should be notified. This report is considered to be applicable for use by Troll Woodpark Development. and its consultants for the specific site and project described herein. The use of this report by other parties or for other projects is not authorized. The recommendations of this report are contingent upon monitoring of the ,grading operations by a representative of Sladden Engineering. All recommendations are considered to be tentative pending our review of the grading operations and additional testing, if indicated. If others are employed to perform any soil testing, this office should be notified prior to such testing in order to coordinate any ,required site visits by our representative and to assure indemnification of Sladden Engineering. Our investigation was conducted prior to the completion of plans for the project. We recommend that a. pre job conference be held on the site prior to the initiation of site grading. The purpose ofthis meeting will be to assure a complete understanding of the recommendations presented in this report as they apply - to the actual grading; performed. Sladden Engineering APPENDIX A Site Plan Borings Logs e Slodden, Engineering APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION m For our field investigation, 15 exploratory borings were excavated on September 28, 19.99, using a truck mounted hollow stem auger rig (Mobile B53) in the approximate locations indicated on the site plan included in this appendix. Continuous logs of the materials encountered were made on the site by a representative of Sladden Engineering. Boring. logs are included in this appendix. Representative undisturbed samples were obtained within. our borings by driving a thin-walled steel penetration sampler (California split spoon sampler) or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler with a 140 pound hammer dropping approximately 3.0 inches (ASTM D1586): The number of blows required to drive the samplers 18 'inches was recorded (generally in 6 inch increments) Blowcounts are indicated on the boring logs. The California samplers are 3.0 inches in diameter; carrying brass sample rings having inner diameters of 2.5 inches. The standard penetration samplers are 2.0 inches in diameter with an inner diameter of 1.5 inches. Undisturbed samples were removed from the sampler and placed in moisture sealed containers in order to preserve the natural soil moisture content. Bulk samples were obtained from the excavation spoils and samples were then transported to our laboratory for further observations and testing. Samples were then transported to our laboratory for further observations and testing. Slodden Engineering Approximate Boring Locations = LA Quinta Corporate Center --La,_Qu nta, California Date: 9-28-99 Boring.No. 1 Job No.: 54.479170 m DESCRIPTION d. F q 4 -D >,J a REMARKS k o " 0 CD`�' iy O' .-. U 0 - 'Sandy Silt: Light.brown ML 23/32/50 89 2.2 74 5 - � 13/15120 � Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM --- --= --- Sample fell out fine grained 10 13/26%37 Clayey Silt: Brown ML 84 3.6 --- 15 12/14/22 Silry Sand: Grey brown, SM 1.0 --- - fine grained l _ 2U - 15/20/24 La Quints Corporate Center ! La Quinta, California Date: 9-.28-99 Boring'No. 2 Job No.? 544-9170 �. o DESCRIPTION q 41 a CO REMARKS f+ 0 _ A v rn U _O f1i 0 _ Sandy Silt: Light brown ML 5/5/5 91 1.0 76 5 4/4/7 Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM --_ 2.0 __- Sample disturbed fine grained _ l0 I . Sample fell out _ 10/10/17 �� 1 " I � � i^ I 15 - 18/18/30 Sandy Silt: Light. brown 1 ML 92 I 1.0 77 1 20 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 12/18/27 fine to medium grained 113 0.5 ? Total Depth = 26.5' ® Recovered Sample No Bedrock 25 Standard Penetration No Groundwater - Sample 30 35 i _ 40 _ _ � I I 1 j I 45 - 1 1 50 - i Note: The stratification. lines represent the approximate 55 boundaries between the soil types; I the transitions maybe gradual. La-Quinta Corporate Center/ La Quinta, California Date: 9-28-99 Boring No. 3 .Job No.: 544-.9170 ,s 3 (D � o o � DESCRIPTION REMARKS o cn �� o o U 11 a. I� Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM' 101 1.5 95 _ .12/12/12 fine grained 5 :3/4/4 3/2/3 " 88 1.5 83 I 10 Sandy Silt; Light brown !V[L 86 1.5 72 15 10/10/16 --- 1.5 � 20 14%19/19 Clayey Silt: Brown ML ___ 3.6 � �I I 25 13/13!19 " --- 3.1 --- � i 30 _ - 10/16/25 Silty Sand:. Grey brown, fine grained SM 0:5 � - � Total Depth = 31.5' " ®Recovered Sample � ! No Bedrock 35 ® Standard Penetration { � No Groundwater - Sample 40 _ 45 f l 50 � I l Note: The stratification lines I represent the approxi -mate 55 boundaries between the soil types; � the transitions maybe gradual. nta, California .. La Quints Corporate Center_/ La Qui0.0 Date: 9-28-99 Boring No. 4 Job No.; 544-9170 :DESCRIPTION 0 4a 4-1� I REMARKS a' p '� A ra 0 - ;Sandy Silt:. Light brown ML _ Fill upper 5' 6 41418 87 1.5 73 � 10 Silty Sands Grey brown, SM 97 3.6 92 _ '12/20/27 fine grained i'S 9/11/13 Sandy Silt Light brown ML --- 6.4 I 20 - 15/15119 Clayey Silt: Brown ML _._ 7,5 i - 26 .12/1.7/26 ,„ _.. I 15:0 I I --- - 30 Silty Sande Grey brown, SM r I _ 10/10/22 Erne grained --- 2.5 i --- Total Depth = 31.5' _ ®Recovered Sample � No Bedrock 35 Standard' Penetration ®Sample j I ' No Groundwater - i I 40 � II 48 60 i Note: The. stratification lines 55 represent the approximate I boundaries :between the -soil types; the transitions may be gradual.. i La. Quinta Corporate Center 1 La Quinta, California Date: 9-28-99 Boring No. 5 Job No.: 544-9170 DESCRIPTIQI4 A V o REMARKS �. o a 0 O0 0%+ CQ �D 15 o 0 o U 0 - Sandy Silt: Light:brown ML I — 5 8/9/13 " " " 76 2.0 63 10 _ 121.16/26 Silty Sand: Grey brown, fine grained SM 99 I 1.0 I 93 I 15 20/36/36 Silty Sand: Brown, I SM 79 1 7.0 fine to medium grained I 20 27/34142 " " 82 l 9.3 1.0 ' 25 23/27/34. Sandy Silt: Light brown ML I 96 i 1.0 80 30 _ 28/50 Sand: Brown, fine grained Sp 97 I 0.5 --- 35. 15/18/23 Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM 98 I 1.0 92 ` - fine grained � 1 40 I 15/28/42 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 109 _ 1.0 --- - I fine to medium grained 45 38/42/50 110 I 1.0 --- '50 :14/28/50 " 107 12.4 Total Depth = 51.5' Recovered Sample Note: The stratification lines No Bedrock 55 ® Standard Penetration represent the approximate No Groundwater boundaries between the soil types; Sample the transitions may be gradual. Ia::Quinta. Corporate Center. / La Qu;inta, Cahlforn><a Date: 9-28-99 Boring No. 6 Job No.: 544-9170 e, c' o DESCRIPTION q a d REMARKS > o A W U Cq o'o CO "a 0 o U O Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM - fine grained 5 15%32/50 92 0.5 87 10 14/22/25 95 1.0 90 15 20/35/40 87 0.5 82 20 _ 15/23/26 $andySilt: Light brown ML i i --- 4.7 --- 25 12/17/2b Clayey Silt: Brown ML - 5.8 so Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM 30/35/40 fine grained --- 0.5 --- - Total Depth = 31.5' - Recovered,Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater ss Standard Penetration ® - Sample 40 45 50 Note: 'The stratification lines_ represent the approximate tis boundaries between the soil,types; the transitions may be gradual. La Quinta Corporate -Center / La Quinta, California Dater 9-29-99 Boring: No. 8 Job No.: 544-9170 o — DESCRIPTION d REMARtS c q o a A� rn U pA rn o _ Sandy Silt: Light brown ML 5 11/12/12 87 9.9 73 10 13/17/22 Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM 89 1.0 84 _ _ I- I fine grained 15 � 14/17/20 86 i 1.0 81 Total Depth =21.5' Recovered Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater 20 25 I 30 35 40 i d 45 I 50 Note:. The stratification fines 55 represent the approximate boundaries between the soil types; the. transitions may be gradual. La Quints Corporate Center/ La Quinta, California Date; 9-29-99 Boring No. 9 Job No.: 544-9170 o $4 o W DESCRIPTION A o a REMARKS -4 OZZ A ar U GQ rn: �D a !Zo U Silty Sand: Grey brown; SM - fine grained Interbedded silt layers upper 7' 5- 8/1W14 " " 92 5.8 87 10 19737/43 Silty Sand: Brown, i h' I SM 104 0.5 _ fine to medium grained 15 I 20/30/44 Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM 102 0.5 I ___ Trace coarse rained sand g _ fine grained I 20 17/28/34 " j 94 I 0.5 1 89 .- i ------ -- --- I Total Depth = 26.5' - i ® Recovered Sample i No Bedrock No Groundwater 25 30 3.5 40 45 , 50 ; Note: The,atratification lines represent the approximate 55 boundaries between the soil types; the transitions may be gradual.. La Quinta Corporate Center/ La Quinta, California Date: 9-29-99 Boring No. 10 Job No.: 544-9170 o DESCRIPTION qCd �4J a REMARKS o 0 �o A Cir? U PQ 0 r/i .° o o U 0 - Sandy.Silt: Light brown ML 5 8/12/26 94 1.5 78 10 _ 12/15/19 Sand: Brown, fine grained SP 97 0.7 --- - Silty Sand: Brown, SM 15 15/26/42 fine to medium grained ___ 0.5 --- I Sample disturbed Total Depth = 21.5' Recovered Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater 20 I - _ 25 � I I 30 35 I i 40 I i 45 50 Note: The stratification lines 55 represent the approximate boundaries bet%veen the soil types; the transitions may be. gradual. La �Quinta Corporate Center % La Quinta, California Date: 9-29-99 Boring No. 11 Job No. 544-9170 a4 �, o 0 m, I DESCRIPTIONF A 1-4 o c a REMARKS ° A U W v1 00 1.e o - -- Sand: Brown; fine grained SP 6 - 8/12/15 " " 99 1.0 --- 10 9/16/21 Silty Sand:- Grey brown; SM 93 7.0' 88 - fine grained 15 13/24/421 " ; I 99 1.0 93 20 :18/31/50 " " " 100 2.0 I 94 Total Depth = 26.5` ®Recovered Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater 25 _ I j 30 35 _ - i I I 40 45 50 - I Notes The stratification lines ( represent the approximate 88 boundaries betweewthe soil types; the transitions may be igraduaL La Quinta Corporate Center / La Quinta, California_ Date: 9-291-99 Boring No. 12 Job No.: 544-9.170 I N' 0 DESCRIPTION A o C a s REMARKS 8 A r U M v°s a U o Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM " tine grained 5 9/10/13 " " 89 0:5 84 10 1,1/14/23 n 97 0.5 92 15 - - .I 21/25/30 " " 96 0.5 91 it " i Sandy Silt: Light brown ML 20 12/16/32 89 1.0 74 Total Depth =X26.5' Recovered Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater 25 30 35 - i I 40 46, 50 Note: The stratification lines 55 represent the approximate boundaries between the soil types; the transitions,maybe gradual. La Quinta Corporate Center / La 'Quints, California Date: 9-29-.99 Boring No. 13 Job No.: 544-9170 d. o DESCRIPTION g 0 o a Cd REMARKS ,a W41 E- 4,, o v01 U 0 Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM - fine grained 5 10 15 7/9/12 " " 92 1.0 87 20 8/9/12 " " 97 1.0 I 92 25 7/17/20 Sandy Silt: Light brown ML 88 0.5 73 Total Depth = 26.5' ® Recovered Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater 30 35 40 ` i I 45 50 Note: 'The stratification lines represent the approximate 55 boundaries between the soil types; the transitionsmay be gradual. La Quinta Corporate Center/ La Quinta, California Date: 9-29-99 Boring No. 14 Job No.: 544-9170 431 DESCRIPTION ® q oCd c ;11 4a aU Cd REMARKS p 0 Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM - fine grained 5 10 15 I Ir 5%7/9 I I --- � 1.0 --- 20 4/5/9 �� - i 1.5 25 - _ 6/7/10 I i 1.0 i Standard Penetration ® = Total Depth 26.5' No Bedrock Sample No Groundwater 30 � I 35 I 40 _ I I 45 " I I 50 I Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate 55 I ( boundaries between the soil types; the transitions may be gradual., la Quinta Corporate. Center / La Q.uinta, California Date: 9-29-99, Boring No. 15 Job No.: 544-9170 o DESCkfTION (D a REMARKS �. SM4 �. o E-„ - Z 4 o Cd a) a A U Pa rn° 14Z oU 0Silty Sand: Grey brown, SM. fine grained 5 10 - 5(8(10 --- 0.5 i --- is 41119 1.0 Total Depth = 21.5' Standard. Penetration IL� j No Bedrock - Sample No Groundwater 20 25 30 j 35 _ � I 40 45 I 50 Note: The stratification lines, represent the approximate 65 ' boundaries between thesoil types; j the transitions may be gradual. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed Wil samples were obtained in the field and returned to our laboratory for additionalobservations and testing. Laboratory testing was generally performed in two phases. The first phase consisted of testing in order to determine the compaction of the existing natural, soil and the general engineering classifications of the soils underlying the site. This testing was performed in order to. estimate the engineering characteristics of the soil and to serve as a basis for selecting, samples for the second phase of testing: The second phase consisted of soil mechanics testing. This testing including consolidation, shear strength and expansion testing was performed in order to provide -a means of developing specific design recommendations 'based on the mechanical properties of the soil. CLASSIFICATION AND COMPACTION TESTING Unit Weight. and Moisture Content Determinations: Each, undisturbed sample was weighed and measured in order to determine its unit weight. A small portion of each sample was then subjected to testing in order to determine its moisture. content. This was used in order to determine the dry density of the soil in its natural condition. The results of this testing are shown on the Boring Logs. Maximum Density -Optimum Moisture Determinations: Representative soil types were selected for maximum density determinations. This testing was performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557-91, Test Method A. The results of this testing are presented graphically in this appendix. The maximum densities are compared to the field densities: of the soil in order to determine the existing relative compaction to the soil. This is shown on the Boring.Logs, and is useful in estimating the,strength and compressibility of the soil.. Classification Testing: Soil samples were selected for classification testing. This testing consists of mechanical grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits determinations. These provide information for developing classifications for the soil in accordancewith the Unified Classification System. This classification system, categorizes the soil into groups having similar engineering characteristics. The results of this testing are very useful in detecting variations in the soils and in selecting, samples for further testing. SOIL MECHANIC'S TESTING Direct Shear Testing: Two bulk samples were selected for Direct Shear Testing. This testing measures the shear strength of the soil under various normal pressures and is used in developing parameters .for foundation design and lateral design. Testing was performed using recompacted test specimens, which were saturated prior to testing. Testing was performed using a strain controlled test apparatus with normal pressures ranging from 800 to 2300 pounds per square foot. Expansion Testing: These bulk samples were selected for Expansion testing. Expansion testing was performed in accordance with the UBC Standard 18-2. This testing consists of remolding 4 -inch diameter by 1 -inch thick test specimens to a moisture content and dry density corresponding to approximately .50 percent saturation. The samples are subjected to a surcharge of 144 pounds per square, foot and allowed to reach equilibrium.. At that point the specimens are inundated with distilled water. The linear expansion its then measured until complete Consolidation Testing: Eight relatively, undisturbed samples were selected for .consolidation testing. For this testing one -inch thick test specimens, are subjected to vertical. loads varying from 575 psf to 11,520 psf applied progressively. The consolidation at each load increment was recorded prior to placement of each subsequent load. The. specimens were, saturated at the 575 psf or 720 psf load increment.. SW.den Engineering 121 120 119 117 116 115 Job No.: 544-9170 -® 9 9.5 10 10:5 11 11.5 12. 12.5 13 Moisture Content ("/o) METHOD OF COMPACTION ASTM D-1557-91, METHOD A OR C BORING MAXIMUM UNIT WEIGHT 1®0-5' 120 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT 11.1 MAXIMUM DENSITY -OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVE e Job No.: 544-9170 107 106 c p, 105 104 A 103 102 1 i i J --T 10 10:5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 Moisture Content (%) METHOD OF COMPACTION ASTM D-1557-91, METHOD A OR C. BORING MAXIMUM UNIT WEIGHT 13@0-5' 106 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT 11.7 MAXIMUM DENSITY -OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVE Consolidation Diagram Pressure in HIPS per Square Foot 0.000 0.720 2.880 1 L520 0.0 .01 f-ectff- _ .02 - - - - .03 IN_ _ v 05 - - - - - - - - - .0641 4 - o .07 .08' .09 - - — _ - _ _z Z_ 0.1 F: ouid— 12 - — -'Reb .13 Consolidation Diagram A Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot. Consolidation Diagram 0.000 0.720 2.880 11.520 i 0.0 ffeGr:gAddl*l .02— .06 _ _ .08 = .10 2 .12 - - — - _ebau — - — _ _ _ — _ — - —_ - .16 - - -+- — - - 18 .20 - .22 _ .24 .26' Consolidation Diagram Consolidation Diagram Pressure in HIPS per Squaie. Foot 0.000 .575 2300 9:200 01EeEER&Add mer — .02 .03 04 .04-- .05 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 0.1 _ - — - .12 13 _ Consolidation Diagram Consolidation -.Diagram Pressure in KIPS per Square ,Foot 0.000 .575 2.300 9.200 =EI#ec_EaAdd!�g _01 .02 .03- x .04 .05 .06 c .07 - - _ = _ _ .08 _ a - _ k .09 0.1 .12 - - - - — - .13 Consolidation -.Diagram 0.0 .02 .04 .06 x .08 ti a� a .10 U C. it .12 0 b 0 .14 o� 0 U 16 .18 .20 .22 .24 .26 Consolidation Diagram Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.000 0.575 2.300 9.200 ffecEdAcddi t - _ = = Consolidation Diagram Consolidation Diagram Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.000 0.7$20 2.880 11.520 0.10 .01- _ jieq 1d_dir .02 03 .05 .06 c .07 OD .08 .09 0.1 — - z = - ____ __ T .12 — - — - .13 Consolidation Diagram A Consolidation Diaeram Presaure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.000 0.720 2.880 11.520 0.0 .01 ffecedAc dia4 Warmer= .02 - — - — - - - - - - — .03 .04 AE .05 .06 Og .09 0.1 .12 13 A'[- a _ =Rebound�:i .14 .15 Consolidation Diaeram 0.0 .01 .02 .03 x .04 a� cc a .05 .06 0 c� o .07 m a U .08 .09 0.1 Consolidation -Diagram Pressure in HIPS per Square Foot 0.000 .575 2.300 9.200 Elfee -Add - — - - — - _ Amer _ — Consolidation -Diagram ANAHEIM TEST LABORATORY 3008 S. ORANGE AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707 PHONE (714) 549-7267 • o TO: SLADDEN ENGINEERING: 6782 STANTON AVE. SUITE E DATE: 10-1-99 BUENA PARK, CA. 90621 P.O. No. VERBAL Shipper No. ATTN : BRETT ANDERSON Lab. No. B 5 3 4 6 Specification: Material: SOIL PROJECT: # 544-9170 H-1 @ 0-5' FORM #2 ANALYTICAL REPORT SOLUBLE SULFATES per CA. 417 173 ppm A .e ANAHEIM TEST LABORATORY 3008 S. ORANGE AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA. 92707 PHONE (714) 549-7267 :e TO: SLADDEN ENGINEERING: FORM #2 6782 STANTON AVE. SUITE E BUENA PARK, CA. 90621 DATE: 10-5-99 P.O. No. VERBAL ATTN: BRETT ANDERSON Shipper No. Lab. No. B 5360 Specification: Material: SOIL PROJECT:# 5.22-9170 LA QUINTA CORP. CENTER H-13 @ 0-5' ANALYTICAL REPORT SOLUBLE SULFATES per CA. 417 555 ppm _.m APPENDIX C 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria .4 Slcdden Engineering Recently -the International Conference of Building Officials issued the .1997 Uniform Building Code containing substantial revisions and additions to the earthquake engineering section in Chapter 1°6. New concepts contained in the updated code that will likely be, relevant to construction of the proposed structures are summarized below. Ground shaking is expected to be the primary hazard most likely to affect the site, based upon proximity to significant faults capable of generating large. earthquakes. Major fault zones considered to be, most likely to create strong ground shaking at thesite are listed below. Fault.Zone Approximate Distance From Site Fault Type 1997 UBC. San Andreas 8.5 km A San Jacinto 3.2 kin A Based on our field observations and understanding of local geologic conditions, the soil profile type judged applicable to this site is So; generally described as stiff or dense soil. The site is located within. UBC Seismic Zone 4. The following table presents additional coefficients, and factors relevant to seismic mitigation for new construction upon adoption of the 1997 code. Sicdden Engineering Near -Source Near -Source Seismic Seismic Seismic Acceleration Velocity Coefficient Coefficient: Source Factor N'a Factor Nv Ca Cv San Andreas '1.,1 1.3 0.44 Na 0.64 Nv San Jacinto L 1.0 1.0 0.44 Na 0.64 Nv Sicdden Engineering t :t e ,0 Plan check ogkw l Tu-qdiY, June 14 2M Radioactive Project ModUlcoctions as follows DOWNSTAIRS 1. Showroom Kitchen: addedftirri �g at,angied wall to straighten out. See: sheet A2.2. 2. Showroom Kitchen:: deleted one wing wall next to the refterator.See sheet A2.2. 3. Showroom Bedroom. added one w� ing wall at entrance to bedroom Som kitchen. See sheet A2.2. 4. Showroom Bedroom: added a "simulated" fireplace (millwork item) no gas, no fire box. See sheet A2.2. 5. Showroom Theatre:. relocated the door #8 from the west wall to the north wall. See sheet A2.2. 6. Storage room next to Theatre: relocate the door #5 from the west wall to the north wall. See sheet A2.2. 7. Stairwell #2 (south); Install door to underside and drywall the interior- as well as adding a }1 hour construction requirement in storage area.underneath the stairs.. See sheet A2.2. 8. Stairwell #1(north): install door leading to underside of stairwell for use as *storage area. Also revise the up and down;direction which places the storage area door to the outside wall. See sheet A2.2, 9. Inventory.room: add door at north wall. See sheet. A= 10. *Hard lid Samft and drywall in,the Fire sprinkler riser room at the north end of the bulling and also in the signal system.room at the south end.of the building. See sheet A3. * Plan corrections noted UPSTAIRS 1. *Void area or dead space @ hallway adjacent to stair well #2: Add sub floor naming 2x8 joist @ 16" O.C. With 1 1/8" T&G floor sheething as well as 2 sets of doors, drywall interior to utilize area-as a "Light Storage" closet. Please see Job engineers 8"x11" include herein. 2. Alcove at center walkway. revise floor plan to commensurate with the structural plan regarding the rail placement at the. structural shear wall element. See sheet A2SL 3. Large office at north side: added one window. Se sheet A22. Tbank you very much. * Plan corrections noted T4hf 44" Building & Safety Department 78-495 Calle Tampico PO Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 777-7012 voice — (760) 777-7011 fax City of La Quinta Plan Check Correction List Date: 5/10/04 Plan Check #: TBD Project.Address: 46-805 Dune Palms Drive Project Description: Radio Active, Delta 6 Owner Changes Applicant: Dan Odle 568-9880 Status: First Plan Review Plan Checked by: Daniel P. Crawford Jr. (760) 777-7027 Returned' for correction: ■ 2 sets — Plans (with red -lined notes) ■ Plan Review Correction list COPY Required for resubmittal: - ■. 2 sets — Plans (from 1st submittal) ■ 2 sets — Corrected Plans ■ 2 sets — Structural Calculations ■ Plan Review Correction List (w/ written responses) Instructions: Provide a narrative response to each correction below, noting where on Plans correction can be found. Return this list and all items listed above with next submittal. Revise original plans as necessary, reprint and resubmit two complete sets of plans and/or calculations, wet -signed by the person who prepared them. Corrections: 1. Provide one (1) hour construction notes and/or details for storage underneath stair #1 & #2 storage as proposed. 2. Provide an engineered design analysis for uniform and concentrated storage loads in accordance with California Building Code Table 16-A for proposed storage at interior dead space. Specify light or heavy storage design. As further information is provided and reviewed, additional corrections may be required END of CORRECTION LIST Page 1 of 1